 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / October 2005What does the Fossil record says; from the writings of scientists
Fossils say creation. Simpson writes in The Meaning of Evolution: “Early Cambrian rocks, laid down about 500,000,000 years ago, are crowded with fossils. One place or another on earth there are also rich fossil deposits of almost all ages since the early Cambrian. But in rocks earlier than the Cambrian, representing the great span of 1,500,000,000 years, fossils are generally rare and usually dubious and disputed.” This abrupt bursting into the fossil record of fossils of all the major groups or phyla, except vertebrates, Simpson called “this major mystery of the history of life.”—Pages 16-19. Harvard’s professor Romer quoted Darwin’s comment on this mystery, “I can give no satisfactory answer”—and Romer added, “Nor can we today.” Significantly, he then observed: “The general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.” However, now that the fossil record is superabundant since Cambrian times, does it show the beginnings of vertebrate or backboned life? No. Zoology professor Goldschmidt said, in The Material Basis of Evolution: “The facts fail to give any information regarding the origin of actual species, not to mention the higher categories.” (Page 165) Among fossil experts today this is a generally accepted fact. Interestingly, evolutionists are aware that the fossil record is more compatible with creation than with evolution, even as they vehemently reject creation. Years ago several acknowledged this: “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion. . . . The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.” (L. T. More) “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it . . . can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D. Watson) “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”—Sir Arthur Keith. Today some still see creation as fitting the facts. J. H. Corner, Cambridge University botanist and evolutionist, stated: “I still think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” (Contemporary Botanical Thought, 1961, p. 97) In the Physics Bulletin, May 1980, Professor Lipson reluctantly said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.” The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Creation fits its facts. Even mutations fail evolution. Mutations are changes in the genetic material and produce new inheritable characteristics in the organism. The vast majority of the small ones are harmful; the big ones are crippling or lethal. They are believed to contribute to the degeneration of organisms and are responsible for many diseases and malformations. Nevertheless, evolutionists place hope in them as mechanisms of evolution. But they are found to be inadequate to produce new family kinds. Evolutionist Bengelsdorf said: “Mutations, involving base changes in genes, can account for differences between two men . . . But, for various reasons, they cannot account for overall evolution—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.” the magazine Science for November 21, 1980: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean.” Verifying this experimentally, geneticists have induced floods of mutations in rapidly reproducing creatures, yet, “after 40 years of manipulating the evolution of fruit flies, which spawn generations in days, many bizarre changes have been seen, but fruit flies always remain fruit flies.” The fossil record shows species breeding true for millions of years, according to evolutionists. Mutations, through both observation and experimentation, show constancy of species. When Genesis 1:12, 21, 24 says life would bring forth “according to its kind,” it fits the scientific facts. Award <subway@downtown.us> wrote in news:ekS1f.100$lD.584854 @news.sisna.com: > Even mutations fail evolution. Mutations are changes in the genetic > material and produce new inheritable characteristics in the organism. > The vast majority of the small ones are harmful; the big ones are > crippling or lethal. They are believed to contribute to the > degeneration Interesting that you would cite stuff (are you misquoting it, perhaps?) that runs contrary to the measured rates of mutations in viable (reproducing) living organisms that have been made repeatedly and confirmed since the seminal work of Alan Robertson in the mid 50's. If you're going to attack science, then at least KNOW SOME. Or is it just your intention to type lie after lie after lie on the premise that (as Goebbels opined) a lie told often enough is believed by many? is > reflected in an oscillation about a mean.” Verifying this > experimentally, geneticists have induced floods of mutations in rapidly > reproducing creatures, yet, “after 40 years of manipulating the > evolution of fruit flies, which spawn generations in days, many bizarre > changes have been seen, but fruit flies always remain fruit flies.” And your descendants (assuming you have any) will always remain apes. > The fossil record shows species breeding true for millions of years, > according to evolutionists. Mutations, through both observation and > experimentation, show constancy of species. When Genesis 1:12, 21, 24 > says life would bring forth “according to its kind,” it fits the > scientific facts. Genesis 1 is not a literal history. It is the writing of a priest trying to put in writing the claim of his people to a piece of real estate. The phrase 'miyn bara' translated "created kind" in some English renditions most likely meant what WE mean by "species." Why do I say this? Because even the most non-technical peoples seem to be able to recognize that organisms, especially diploid animals, come in species. To treat this polemic poem as a literal history is to do damage to the spiritual teachings of the work and to the ACTUAL history which it represents. But then that's what happens when you make a god out of a THING. You end up desecrating it.  SignatureDave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 > Award aka **JABRIOL** a CREATIONIST subway@downtown.us> wrote in > news:ekS1f.100$lD.584854 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> crippling or lethal. They are believed to contribute to the >> degeneration ====================== Please remember Jabriol (and all his sock-puppets) get his information from the Watchtower Society's unscientific magazines and books. As a JW he's a devout CREATIONIST. That's why his posts regarding creation-evolution make no sense. He's been arguing the same Watchtower Society anti-evolution points here for 10 years now. SignatureDeeDee...... "Where two or three are gathered together in MY name, I am in their midst:" [Matt 18:20] No Watchtower Society needed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<~~<{@ ======================================== >>reflected in an oscillation about a mean.” Verifying this >>experimentally, geneticists have induced floods of mutations in rapidly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And your descendants (assuming you have any) will always remain apes. Be it known, you shot evolution in between the eyes. >>The fossil record shows species breeding true for millions of years, >>according to evolutionists. Mutations, through both observation and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Genesis 1 is not a literal history. Definition of what is literal is about as defined as the term species. When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a ‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that dominates the night.’—Genesis 1:14-18. >>>reflected in an oscillation about a mean.” Verifying this =============== Please remove rec.ponds in your replies to these cross-posted JABRIOL (and his sock-puppet) threads. Rec.ponds is not about creation/evolution. Thanks SignatureCracklin' McKoi.... frugal ponding since 1995... My Pond Page http://tinyurl.com/cuq5b ~~~ }<((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((o> http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm AND WHAT THE GOD DAMNED f.ck DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH FREE NEWS SERVERS, BITCH? > Even mutations fail evolution. Mutations are changes in the genetic > material and produce new inheritable characteristics in the organism. The [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > life would bring forth “according to its kind,” it fits the scientific > facts. Free newsservers enable spam, enjoy it and live with it. If NSP's can't control their spammers like Carol aka Cracklin, then they are going to have to swim in the latrine they have created. > AND WHAT THE GOD DAMNED f.ck DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH FREE NEWS SERVERS, > BITCH? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>life would bring forth “according to its kind,” it fits the scientific >>facts. > Interestingly, evolutionists are aware that the fossil record is more > compatible with creation than with evolution, even as they vehemently > reject creation. No, not really, But thanks for playing. > The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Creation fits > its facts. Your post supports the notion that you've been inhaling household chemicals. =============== You're replying to JABRIOL. Please remove rec.ponds as we're totally unrelated to Jabber's endless evolution/creation rants. Thanks...... Why don't creationists make anything out of the pattern of loss of skeletal parts in evolution? The observed pattern of loss needs to be reconciled with the general idea of evolution creating greater complexity, but biology hasn't done this. Gould referred to this pattern of loss as 'Williston's Law' (Paleobiology 6:1,p.100,1980) but dismissed it as "merely descriptive"! I have an explanation, as do others, I'm sure, but I'd expect creationists to be all over this. Cliff > Why don't creationists make anything out of the pattern of loss of > skeletal parts in evolution? The observed pattern of loss needs to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dismissed it as "merely descriptive"! I have an explanation, as do > others, I'm sure, but I'd expect creationists to be all over this. Because their understanding of the subject is not that sophisticated. Award <subway@downtown.us> wrote in news:gfS1f.99$YS.590904 @news.sisna.com: > Fossils say creation. Simpson writes in The Meaning of Evolution: Well, you're obviously a "good little creationist" since you started with a lie. “Early > Cambrian rocks, laid down about 500,000,000 years ago, are crowded with > fossils. One place or another on earth there are also rich fossil > deposits of almost all ages since the early Cambrian. But in rocks This is a half-truth. The amount of fossils in any given layer corresponds with the amount of living organisms on the planet at that time. Right after the Permian extinction (which is well above the Cambrian), for example, there are few fossils, though there is also seen there another "explosion." > earlier than the Cambrian, representing the great span of 1,500,000,000 > years, fossils are generally rare and usually dubious and disputed.” This is slowly changing as fossils from the Vendian and other preCambrian periods keep turning up. > This abrupt bursting into the fossil record of fossils of all the major > groups or phyla, except vertebrates, Simpson called “this major mystery > of the history of life.”—Pages 16-19. It's less and less of a major mystery, coming as it does on the heels of major climate and atmospheric changes. Moreover, the "explosion" took several tens of millions of years, a period roughly the same in which all known mammal species have arisen! Please do try to keep up with the times. But then you're not interested in the science, only in imposing your heretical religion on the rest of us by forcing it on a captive audience in state-run schools. [remaining old quotes and interspersed lies deleted for brevity]. SignatureDave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 > Fossils say creation. Simpson writes in The Meaning of Evolution: “Early > Cambrian rocks, laid down about 500,000,000 years ago, are crowded with > fossils. One place or another on earth there are also rich fossil =========== Please remove rec.ponds from this JABRIOL thread as it's totally unrelated to any Jabber thread - as usual. Thanks CR......... > Fossils say creation. Simpson writes in The Meaning of Evolution: “Early > Cambrian rocks, laid down about 500,000,000 years ago, are crowded with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > groups or phyla, except vertebrates, Simpson called “this major mystery > of the history of life.”—Pages 16-19. Since you have the book (I'm sure you wouldn't quote from it if you didn't have it), can you tell us the publication date? I get 1967, and that may be a later edition than you quote from here. Do you think we may have discovered anything since that book was written? Hint: search on Ediacara and Doushantuo. I believe most of your questions are answered nicely here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Let me know if there are any you don't find. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.