Posts Tagged ‘evolution creation’

The Evolving, Non-Evolving, Evolution Problem

Church of Darwin,, Science, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Aug 22 2009

Photo:Fossil squid and living squid. Which is which? Does it really matter?

Did you follow that title?

Item; there’s an interesting thing about ants, bees, spiders and other insects caught in amber supposedly millions of years ago, discovered, collected and studied today.

The problem is; they are ants, bees, spiders and other insects! No matter how old the amber in which they’ve been trapped supposedly is; 50 million, 75 million, 150 million, they are obviously what they are and recognizably so. So; where’s the evolution?

Item; not too long ago, which we’ve mentioned here a few times, scientists marveled at how similar a fossil octopus was to current octopi, even though the fossil was allegedly 95 million years old. Where’s the evolution?

Item: a fossil lamprey, allegedly 360 million years old was so identical in every respect to “modern” lampreys that the scientists studying them could only claim that “perhaps they had gotten a little longer”, a very unscientific claim to make on the basis of one specimen. One has to ask; where is the evolution?

No evolution in 95 million years? No evolution in 360 million years? Of course, we’re just looking at the tip of the iceberg here; there are probaly a thousand other examples if not more. Recently, scientists came across a group of fossil squids which they claim are 150 million years old. These squid were so “fresh” that the scientists were able to extract ink and use it to draw a picture of the specimen. What caused this group of creatures to become fossilized, rather than to rot or be eaten?

How is something like “ink” preserved for 150 million years? Where is the evolution?

The answer is; no evolution and a young earth!

Ink found in Jurassic-era squid …BBC News
Palaeontologists have drawn with ink extracted from a preserved fossilised squid uncovered during a dig in Trowbridge, Wiltshire.

The fossil, thought to be 150 million years old, was found when a rock was cracked open, revealing the one-inch-long black ink sac.

A picture of the creature and its Latin name was drawn using its ink.

Dr Phil Wilby of the British Geological Survey said it was an ancient creature similar to the modern-day squid.

“The structure is similar to ink from a modern squid so we can write with it,” he said.

‘Medusa effect’

The find was made at a site which was first excavated in Victorian times where thousands of Jurassic fossils with preserved soft tissues were found.

Dr Wilby, who led the excavation, said: “We think that these creatures were swimming around during the Jurassic period and were turned to stone soon after death. It’s called the Medusa effect.”

Experts believe one possibility is that thousands of the creatures congregated in the area to mate before being poisoned by algae in the water.

Remains of a different species of squid have also been found, suggesting the carcasses attracted predators to feed on them and they in turn also died.

Dr Wilby said: “They can be dissected as if they are living animals, you can see the muscle fibres and cells.

“It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac fossilised in three dimension, still black, and inside a rock that is 150 million years old.”

The specimen is now in the British Geological Survey collection in Nottingham.

Part of the ink sac has been sent to Yale University in America for more in-depth chemical analysis.

Thanks to; Geoff. G.

Oldest Animal Fossils Found in Lakes, Not Oceans

Science, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jul 28 2009

What if; there were only lakes and seas before the flood? What if there were no “salt water” creatures prior to the flood? What if the oceans are the result of residual waters left over from the ‘fountains of the deep” bursting open and thus, are actually younger than some lakes?

In any case, it is not a problem for creationism–it is a problem for evolution theory……

Oldest Animal Fossils Found in Lakes, Not Oceans
By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience

Conventional wisdom has it that the first animals evolved in the ocean.

Now researchers studying ancient rock samples in South China have found that the first animal fossils are preserved in ancient lake deposits, not in marine sediments as commonly assumed.

These new findings not only raise questions as to where the earliest animals were living, but what factors drove animals to evolve in the first place.

For some 3 billion years, single-celled life forms such as bacteria dominated the planet. Then, roughly 600 million years ago, the first multi-cellular animals appeared on the scene, diversifying rapidly.

The oldest known animal fossils in the world are preserved in South China’s Doushantuo Formation. These fossil beds have no adult specimens — instead, many of the fossils appear to be microscopic embryos.

“Our first unusual finding in this region was the abundance of a clay mineral called smectite,” said researcher Tom Bristow, now at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. “In rocks of this age, smectite is normally transformed into other types of clay. The smectite in these South China rocks, however, underwent no such transformation and have a special chemistry that, for the smectite to form, requires specific conditions in the water — conditions commonly found in salty, alkaline lakes.”

The researchers collected hundreds of rock samples from several locations in South China. All their analyses suggest these rocks were not marine sediments.

“Moreover, we found smectite in only some locations in South China, and not uniformly as one would expect for marine deposits,” Bristow said. “Taken together, several lines of evidence indicated to us that these early animals lived in a lake environment.”

This discovery raises questions as to how and why animals appeared when they did.

“It is most unexpected that these first fossils do not come from marine sediments,” said researcher Martin Kennedy, a geologist at the University of California at Riverside.

“Lakes are typically short-lived features on the Earth’s surface, and they are not nearly as consistent environments as oceans are,” he explained. “So it’s surprising that the first evidence of animals we find is associated with lakes, which are far more variable environments than the ocean. You’d expect the first appearance of animals to be in the most conservative, stable environments we could imagine.”

It remains possible, Kennedy noted, that animal fossils of similar or older age exist that remain to be found that are marine in origin. However, at the very least, this work suggests “that animals had already taken on the ability to deal with the environmental fluctuations one sees in lake environments,” he said. “That suggests that their evolutionary response is much more rapid that I would have supposed, and that the earliest animals were far more diverse than imagined.”

If animals did first develop in lakes, one aspect of lake environments that could have spurred on their evolution is how much easier it is for air to percolate through them, given how much shallower they typically are than the ocean.

“The most popular explanation for the evolution of animals has to do with the increase in oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere at that time,” Kennedy told LiveScience. “It’s possible that lakes were the first to benefit from that increase in oxygen.”

The scientists detailed their findings online July 27 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Its A Good Thing That Sea Urchins Didn’t Really Have to Wait Millions of Years For Their Self Sharpening Teeth

Church of Darwin, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
May 09 2009

Photo: The Department Heads Were Unamused

Sea urchin stories; we’ve got a million of them, but who doesn’t? According to “science” sea urchins developed their amazing self sharpening and ever sharp teeth over millions and millions of years. But why? Millions of years means millions of generations, so all those prior generations seemed to have done just fine. What was the impetus for sea urchins to devolope these self sharpening teeth and how did they give the improved sea urchins an advantage when millions of generations which had presumably gone before had done just fine without them?

The answer is, that they didn’t evolve over millions of years, because as it happens, the sea urchins need the self sharpening teeth to survive and they didn’t have time to “sit” around while they “evolved”. We would have had only about one generation of sea urchin in that case. The authors who studied these sea urchins can’t keep themsleves from using the word “designed” when describing this self sharpening system. Where there is design, there is a designer, my friends…

Forwarded by Arum (Thanks!)
Israeli Scientists: Sea Urchin Teeth Stay Sharp
by IsraelNN Staff, May 9, 2009

( Sea urchins dig themselves hiding holes in the limestone of the ocean floor using teeth that don’t go blunt. Weizmann Institute scientists have now revealed their secrets, which might give engineers insights into creating ever-sharp tools or mechanical parts.

The urchins dig holes to fit their globular bodies using their five teeth, which, like those of rodents, are ground down at the tip but continue to grow on the other end throughout the animals’ lives.

The amazing part, however, is that the teeth, which need to be harder and stronger than the rocky limestone being dug out, are themselves made almost entirely of calcite – the same calcite that makes up much of the limestone. How is this possible?

In a series of studies spanning more than a decade, Professors Steve Weiner and Lia Addadi of Weizmann’s Structural Biology Department have discovered that the urchins’ secret lies in a combination of ingenious design strategies.

The latest of these studies was reported recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), USA.

The scientists found that the sea urchins’ teeth contain crystals of magnesium calcite, which are smaller, harder and denser than those of pure calcite; they are concentrated at the grinding tip of the tooth, particularly in the tip’s center, where the most force is being exerted in the course of grinding. The presence of magnesium calcite crystals acts like sand paper that helps to grind the rock down.

In the latest study, the researchers used X-ray photoelectron emission spectromicroscopy and other high-resolution imaging methods to uncover yet another amazing structural feature of sea urchin tooth design.

They found that all the crystalline elements that make up the tooth are aligned in two different arrays that are interlocked like the fingers of folded hands, just at the tip of the tooth where most of the wear occurs.

The scientists believe that interlocking produces a notched, serrated ridge resembling that of a carpenter’s file. This ridge is self-sharpening: as the tooth is being ground down, the crystalline layers break in such a way that the ridge always stays corrugated.

Darwinism: This Weak in Fossils

Church of Darwin,, Science, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Apr 01 2009

It’s no longer a “trade secret” that the lack of “transitional” fossils is a weakness of Darwinism, but many fossils also point to other weaknesses of the theory.

Three recent news stories fail to support Darwinism as much as they do support the Genesis Account. Earlier in the week we talked about the “95 million year old” fossil octopi that had been recently discovered, which allegedly had lived and died in the Cretaceous period.

The “surprising” thing about these octopi (to science) was the fact that they were so similar to the octopi of today. Identical to them in all actuality.

Among the various bits of curious information provided in the EurekAlert article was this quote: “These are among the rarest and unlikeliest of fossils. The chances of an octopus corpse surviving long enough to be fossilized are so small that prior to this discovery only a single fossil species was known…”

Fossil octopi are rare but so are fossils in general. It might be instructive to review a few facts about how fossils came to be deposited in the earth’s crust.

According to Stein and Rowe, award-winning teachers and authors; “Effective fossilization usually depends on having hard parts, such as bones or shells, and being buried immediately after death. The work of predators and scavengers and the weathering effects of rain, heat, cold, and wind often serve to destroy most or all of an organism before burial takes place.”

Fossilization usually requires at least one other element; water.

As you can imagine, all these factors coming together to create a fossil are fairly rare. So, how do we account for the estimated 800 billion vertebrate fossils contained in the Karoo deposits of South Africa? Where did this astronomical number of mainly swamp dwelling reptiles come from? What about; “the Morrison beds in North America, the dinosaur beds in Montana, in the Rocky Mountains, in Alberta, the Dakotas, China, Colorado, Utah, Africa, etc., etc., containing literally millions of dinosaur fossils piled together in tremendous heaps?

Ten thousand Hadrosaurs were found on Egg Mountain alone, jumbled together in what appears to have been a mass death. ….”

…”the Sicilian hippopotamus beds, the fossils of which are so extensive that they are mined as a source of charcoal; the great mammal beds of the Rockies; the dinosaur beds of the Black Hills and the Rockies, as well as in the Gobi Desert; the fish beds of the Scottish Devonian stratum, the Baltic amber beds, Agate Spring Quarry in Nebraska, and hundreds more.”……The Boneyards

Strangely, this fossil making is not going on today. There is one explanation that fits all the data; the Genesis Flood.

But lets talk some more about; Darwinism; This weak in fossils.

Mammoth, Giant Sloth and the Whale Fossils found ‘Together” at Thomas Jefferson Law School Construction Site

Okay, stop me if you’ve heard this; a whale, a mammoth and a giant sloth walk onto a sand bar; no wait, they walk into a Weight Watcher’s.

Blah, blah, blah and blah.

….And then the whale gets all indignant and goes; fresh water!? Fresh water!? Over my dead body! I wouldn’t drink that stuff if it rained 40 days and 40 nights!

Marc P. sent me several interesting articles about this discovery, this week. “First they found the bones of a Mammoth. Then ten feet below they found the bones of a whale (one article says California Gray Whale, other says Baleen ). In another part of the excavation and at the same level as the whale, they found a giant sloth (though not in good condition).

What is a good evolutionist to do!?! They will really have to bend and twist to fit this into their paradigm (not that they can’t) but it will be interesting to watch!”

From the article: “It is rare to find such large fossils of land and sea in such close proximity,” demurred Deméré, curator of paleontology at the San Diego Natural History Museum.

Article 2: “DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO — More prehistoric bones – this time, those of a giant sloth – have been found at the East Village construction site of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, the school said yesterday. But the bones are in poor shape and may not be salvageable.

The bones – part of a vertebra, as well as tooth and skull fragments – were unearthed Friday in a different part of the site from where whale and mammoth bones were found last month.
The sloth bones were found at about the same depth as the whale bones, indicating the sloth lived about 600,000 years ago.

Paleontologist Pat Sena of the San Diego Natural History Museum, who found the sloth bones, said the bones are poorly preserved”” … March 10, 2009

According to a prior article from the same source; Feb. 27, 2009, fossil bones of a horse had also been found at the site.

Given the rarity of fossilization events it is unlikely in the extreme that all four creatures became fossilized there in one small location due to four separate occurrences at four separate times.

Gang of Juvenile Dinosaurs Discovered
Yahoo News, March 24

Stephen H. sent us this “Interesting Article”. He wrote: “Loved the quote about the three juvenile dinos dying in a flood!!!”

From the Article:

“Three juvenile Triceratops, a species thought to be solitary, died together in a flood and now have been found in a 66 million-year-old bone bed in Montana, lending more evidence to the idea that teen dinosaurs were gregarious gangsters.

Triceratops were ceratopsids, herbivorous dinosaurs that lived until the the very end of the Cretaceous Period. They have been found in enormous bone beds of multiple individuals, but all known Triceratops fossils up to now have been solitary individuals.”

We already mentioned the vast bone beds of dinosaurs and other creatures which are scattered worldwide. These creatures are from as the article reports “an enormous bone bed”. This is the same enormous bone bed from which other, solitary triceratops have been found.

Can we now safely assume that the cause of death of all of the animals in this enormous bone bed was also, drowning?

Thought so.

Earlier in the year we reported on a story suggesting that many dinosaurs died agonizing deaths; as if from drowning….

The answer to all this fossil news can be found in Genesis Chapter 7:

“Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind”.

To Comment, send an email to and we will post

Poll Reveals Public Doubts over Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Church of Darwin, Religious,, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 01 2009

Belief in creationism is widespread in Britain, according to a new survey.

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Telegraph UK 31 Jan 2009

This year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species Photo:

More than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a “designer” must have lent a hand, the findings suggest.

And one in three believe that God created the world within the past 10,000 years.

The survey, by respected polling firm ComRes, will fuel the debate around evolution and creationism ahead of next week’s 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, said the findings revealed a worrying level of scientific ignorance among Britons.

In the survey, 51 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement that “evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages”

A further 40 per cent disagreed, while the rest said they did not know.

The suggestion that a designer’s input is needed reflects the “intelligent design” theory, promoted by American creationists as an alternative to Darwinian evolution.

Asked whether it was true that “God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years”, 32 per cent agreed, 60 per cent disagreed and eight per cent did not know.

The findings – to be published tomorrow in a report by Theos, a theology think-tank – follow a row over the place of creationism in education.

A recent poll of science teachers found that one in three believe creationism should be taught in science classes alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.

However, Michael Reiss, a biologist and Anglican cleric, was forced to resign as the Royal Society’s director of education after suggesting that creationism should be discussed in lessons “not as a misconception but as a world view”.

Speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool last year, Professor Reiss estimated that about one in 10 children was from a family which supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.

He said his experience had led him to believe it was more effective to include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories, rather than simply giving the impression that such children were wrong.

The research for Theos shows that the level of support for creationism is much higher than Professor Reiss’s estimation, but also indicates that many people who believe in God also consider evolution to be the most realistic explanation for the origins of living things.

Paul Woolley, the director of Theos said: “Darwin is being used by certain atheists today to promote their cause.

“The result is that, given the false choice of evolution or God, people are rejecting evolution.”

While many fundamentalist Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible’s account of the earth’s creation, the Church of England last year issued a statement conceding it had been over-defensive in dismissing Darwin’s ideas in the past.

The Church launched a website promoting the naturalist’s evolutionary views on which it said: “Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still.”

Prof Dawkins expressed dismay at the findings of the ComRes survey, of 2,060 adults, which he claimed were confirmation that much of the population is “pig-ignorant” about science.

“Obviously life, which was Darwin’s own subject, is not the result of chance,” he said.

“Any fool can see that. Natural selection is the very antithesis of chance.

“The error is to think that God is the only alternative to chance, and Darwin surely didn’t think that because he himself discovered the most important non-theistic alternative to chance, namely natural selection.”

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, accused Dawkins of evolving into a “very simple kind of thinker”.

He said: “His argument for atheism goes like this: either God is the explanation for the wide diversity of biological life, or evolution is. We know that evolution is true. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

“I’m an evangelical Christian, but I have no difficulties in believing that evolution is the best scientific account we have for the diversity of life on our planet.”