Search This Blog

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Destroying Darwinist Mythology - Evolution lies exposed!

We have numerous examples of fossils that are anomalous in the Darwinist way of thinking.   The finding of massive layers of fossil creatures all aligned as if trapped and sorted by a massive flow of water are ignored or hidden.   In fact the basic evidence of the fossils has been completely twisted by Darwinists but Sean Pitman gives you a great overview here.    

Below is one sample photo from his site and a few words on orientation of fossil bones:

Excerpt: 

As far as the fossilized bones of large animals, such as the dinosaurs and large mammals, they are also generally oriented in the same direction for any given layer, and this is true the world over. Did these animals position themselves in the same direction as they died? This does not really sound too likely. Even the legs and tails of these animals are oriented in the same direction for a given sedimentary layer. How does this happen? If you think this is strange, consider also that huge masses of large bones are found matted together in places like Bighorn Wyoming. Did these animals choose to die in the same location and in the same general orientation? Some have argued that the bones from Bighorn, Wyoming (pictured to the right) are not really oriented since they obviously pictured as pointing in different directions. However, water flow orients long thin objects in two ways - perpendicular and parallel relative to the flow of the water. There are many places where literally thousands of fossilized skeletons can be found all mixed up together in mass burial. In many of these places the bones are severely damaged, fractured, and mangled - yet oriented. It is all quite interesting as well as very difficult for today's popular scientist to easily explain, if at all, without using a catastrophic flood model.

Consider also the Jurassic Morrison Formation (famous for its dinosaur fossils). It covers over 1,000,000 square kilometers - being spread from Canada to Texas. It has been suggested that it was distributed by widespread flowing water. The fossils found within it, millions upon millions of them, are generally oriented with respect to flow - confirmed by GPS mapping (Arthur Chadwick). However, ancient channels of major rivers that would help distribute the sediments over such a wide area have not been found. Jack Horner noted the same thing, orientation with respect to flow, in the Montana deposits containing tens of thousands of dinosaurs..."


 The findings of human remains and tracks in rock assigned to Cretaceous and Jurassic and other Darwinist labeled rock are hidden or ignored.   But we can and have proved that fossilization can happen in very short time periods and that the fossil remains of man have been found with dinosaurs.    If you ignore the ridiculous talk origins site and their propaganda and research the Delk track or the Acambaro figurines you will see solid evidence that man and dinosaur lived together for a long period of time until man and the environment killed them off.  

Wood petrified in spring

Creationist’s rapid claims recognized

Secular research at a hot spring in Japan shows that wood can turn into stone much faster than geologists previously thought.1

The belief that fossils and rocks petrify over millions of years is a part of modern culture-like microwave ovens and jumbo jets. We are constantly fed the idea through newspapers, magazines, museums and text books. Like sticks of chalk in coloured water, people have absorbed the notion that fossils are millions of years old.

Images from ref. 1
Fig A: Steaming lake.Fig B: Opal deposits are composed of tiny spheres of silica.Fig C: Silica filled wood tissue.
Fig D: Mineral deposits in woodFig E: Naturally fallen wood petrified at the lake’s edge.Fig F: Wood samples immersed for several years in steaming lake.
Silica filled wood tissue (C) from wood samples (F) immersed for several years in steaming lake (A). The mineral deposits resemble those in naturally fallen wood (D) petrified at the lake’s edge (E). Opal deposits are composed of tiny spheres of silica (B).

But the idea is false. And wrong ideas have bad consequences—sometimes serious ones.
Creation magazine often surprises readers with real examples of rocks and fossils that formed rapidly—surprises, because they contradict popular belief. Like removing dye from a stick of chalk, it’s not easy to remove a powerful myth that colours someone’s perception of Bible history.

Recently, five Japanese scientists published more real examples of rapid petrification, confirming creationist claims.1 Even more unusual, their report to a secular geology journal quoted an article by Dr Andrew Snelling from Creation magazine.2,3

The scientists, led by Hisatada Akahane, studied a small lake cradled in the explosion crater of the Tateyama Volcano in central Japan (fig. A). A mineral-rich solution gushes from the bottom and fills the 15-m pond with steaming acidic water. It cascades over the edge as a waterfall.

The scientists found that the naturally fallen wood in the overflow was hard and heavy because it was petrified with a mineral called silica. Yet the wood was less than 36 years old.

After seven years the wood had turned into stone.

As an experiment, they fastened pieces of fresh wood in the lake with wire. After seven years the wood had turned into stone, again petrified with silica.

Under a powerful microscope, they saw that the silica had deposited like opal, as tiny spheres smaller than the diameter of a human hair (fig. B). It filled the pore spaces in the wood and covered the cell walls. Silica was deposited in the same way in the naturally fallen wood and in some wood found in nearby volcanic ash. Hot mineral-rich water had soaked into the spaces in every case.

Their study confirmed that under suitable conditions, wood can turn to stone in ten years or less. This clears away one powerful objection to believing the Bible. It means that the rocks and fossils we find on the earth could easily have formed in the 4,500 years since Noah’s Flood. And conditions would have been favourable for petrification because there was plenty of volcanic activity and mineral-rich water at the time.

Objections about rapid petrification answered

‘Geologists already know petrification can happen quickly. It’s misleading to say that rapid petrification is a surprise.’

Answer: It may not be surprising to some geologists, but examples of rapid petrification are surprising to most ordinary people. Geologists often avoid mentioning how long it takes when they write about petrification, but they usually imply it was very slow. Anyway, the Japanese researchers considered it surprising.

‘The wood was still present so it was just permineralized. Petrification requires the wood itself to be replaced slowly by another mineral.’

Answer: When wood is replaced by another mineral, it is called replacement. When the mineral fills the cell spaces but does not replace the cell walls, it is called permineralization. Petrification is often used to describe both processes.

Even so, it does not need millions of years for wood cellular material to disintegrate and be replaced by mineral. All chemical processes depend simply on the chemical and physical conditions.

‘Examples of rapid petrification do not prove the world is young.’

Answer: Agreed. But they do prove that millions of years are not needed (as evolutionary articles so often imply), and so destroy a false objection to accepting biblical history.

References

  1. Akahane, H., et al., Rapid wood silicification in hot spring water: an explanation of silicification of wood during the Earth’s history. Sedimentary Geology 169(3–4):219–228, 15 July 2004. 
  2. Snelling, A.A., ‘Instant’ petrified wood, Creation 17(4):38–40, 1995;
  3. Snelling, A.A., Rapid petrification of wood: an unexpected confirmation of creationist research, Impact 379
~~~~~~~

Let's go ahead and take on the TO propagandists head-on:  Response Article


Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Talkorigins.jpg





 







Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man. CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]
Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two site are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.
2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.
The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.
* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).
This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion. The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the Hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized. The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.
* The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]
Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.
3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.
Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.
This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.





Claim CC111:
Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.


We didn't know that paleontologists had been finding not just fossils but also REMAINS until Mary Schweitzer's T-Rex let the cat out of the bag.  In fact the occasional Darwinist had revealed remains being found as early as 1962 but this was not publicized widely.   Now the discovery of remains along with fossils is understood to happen and so reporting is becoming commonplace and the Darwinists are in trouble, because fossils created by a Flood-era disaster might well include actual remains, while fossils millions of years old could not contain even a trace of actual flesh or blood!

Let's take a look at a discourse on Collagen fibers and then a quick discussion of the now-famous Malachite Man fossils:

I cannot reprint the first article without permission so I will post a photo and a lead-in and point you to the website.   
"Copyright © 2001 by Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.

Scanning Electron Microscope Study of Mummified Collagen Fibers in Fossil Tyrannosaurus rex Bone

CRSQ Vol 38 No 2 pp 61-66 September 2001

Abstract
A specimen of hip bone from a Tyrannosaurus rex, excavated from a ranch in Wyoming over 100 years ago, and thought to be 65 million years old is shown, by scanning electron microscopy, to have intact, mummified microscopic collagen fibers and other ultrastructural features within compact bone. Bone Haversian canals as well as lacunae and canaliculi are well preserved. Networks of collagen fibers remain intact within lacunae and what may be mummified osteocytes are shown to be present. Twenty-year-old, similarly fractured natural human hip bone shows comparable patterns of canals, collagen networks and cells, including crenated erythrocytes. Hip bone from “Moab man,” human remains collected from Utah and thought to be less than 200 years old, contains no such soft tissue features within compact bone. Moab man specimens appear cleanly stripped of soft tissues and harbor burrowing insect remains. These data call into question the long ages ascribed to these dinosaur fossils and support their rapid preservation in the absence of decomposers. The high level of ultrastructural preservation also implies that these dinosaur bones are simply not very old..."

figure 7 T-Rex collagen
figure 8 human fresh collagen

Collagen fibers from a fresh human wound scab (Figure 7) and similarly positioned T. rex bone collagen at the same magnification (Figure 8) are remarkably similar. The T. rex collagen appears somewhat shrunken and deformed compared to the human specimen, but in all other respects could pass as recently laid down collagen. (pictures from the already credited article from The Creation Research Society.
 


Malachite Man article


you can purchase a few items if you like


The bottom line is that everything that Darwinists teach is wrong or presented untruthfully.   They have no explanation for existence or life or information, they stole the concept of natural selection from a creationist and use the findings of creationists like Mendel and Linnaeus and twist them to meet their needs.   The history  of Darwinism is a series of hoaxes and complete fabrications that are not identified as such until sometimes many decades after the fact.   It is a big box full of Peppered Moths, Nebraska Men and Haeckel Embryo Charts tied together with make-believe and presented to young minds as fact.   Shameful!



"God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
  The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,  since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools  and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.


  Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

  Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,  slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;  they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.  Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."


The entirety of Darwinism is preposterous just-so stories that strain credulity and defy statistical analysis.   The truth is that the Creator God made all things and all living organisms and has revealed His plans and promises within the Bible.   What the Bible says about creation makes much more sense and fits the evidence nicely.   Darwinism is simply ridiculous.   I will keep saying it and keep posting evidence that demonstrates that Darwinism is a Atheopathic Faith that is based on hopes and wishes rather than evidence. 

17 comments:

radar said...

One reason creationists don't rush to Darwinist scientists to share their findings? The Acambaro figurines are a good example. The university that did the dating of the figurines changed their findings once they realized they had given dates that falsified the Darwinist credo, as the figurines were anatomically correct representations of dinosaurs!!!

Now creationists have tired of trying to work with the Darwinist organizations and have established their own peer review organizations and their own technical journals and magazines in order to disseminate information that would otherwise be hidden from view by the censoring propagandists I refer to generally as Darwinists.

Creationist organizations, particularly YEC organizations, are growing in size and number. It is only a matter of time before the man in the street begins to hear more than propaganda and discovers that his inner doubts about the whole Darwinist tale were simply a common sense reaction to a nonsensical proposition. Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could. To make the world and all that is in it requires a Creator and, by the way, a Creator is required to allow it to exist. Your next breath, your next heartbeat, it could be your last. Are you willing to put all your chips on 18th Century science?

radar said...

Before you Darwinists sputter that Darwin was a 19th Century scientist, remember that Hutton set the table for Darwin in the 18th Century and by the end of the 18th Century the Law of Biogenesis had been all but settled. The final acceptance of Biogenesis in the 19th Century should have stopped Darwinism in it's tracks.

Also, Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus was one of the prime inspirations for his grandson's scope of work. So giving Darwinism the benefit of the doubt it would only qualify as science in the 18th Century and by the end of the 19th Century should have been cast aside.

Jon Woolf said...

As far as the fossilized bones of large animals, such as the dinosaurs and large mammals, they are also generally oriented in the same direction for any given layer, and this is true the world over.

Nope. Even a leisurely perusal of the primary sources will show that this just ain't so.

Since the whole article is based on this falsehood, the whole article is thereby shown to be nonsense, not worth further consideration. However, just in case any lurker still doubts that YEC is nonsense ...

In many of these places the bones are severely damaged, fractured, and mangled - yet oriented.

Thus disproving the YEC mantra that these animals were killed and buried by the same event. If they had died and been buried quickly by a flood, the skeletons would be articulated. Instead the bones are tumbled like jackstraws. This shows that after they died, considerable time passed during which the carcasses rotted and the bones fell apart. Then a second event rearranged the bones and sorted them by size and weight, and only then were they buried and fossilized. This is, of course, entirely inconsistent with YEC.

Doesn't it get annoying, Radar, to see your lovely theories destroyed by ugly facts, time after time after time? Doesn't it ever make you wonder that maybe, just maybe, there's more to the story than mindless religious dogma would have you believe?

Anonymous said...

"The findings of human remains and tracks in rock assigned to Cretaceous and Jurassic and other Darwinist labeled rock are hidden or ignored."

Quite a statement. Evidence please? Or a retraction.

Anonymous said...

"It is a big box full of Peppered Moths, Nebraska Men and Haeckel Embryo Charts tied together with make-believe and presented to young minds as fact."

Still not gotten over your Haeckel obsession I see.
I advise professional councelling.

Anonymous said...

"‘Examples of rapid petrification do not prove the world is young.’

Answer: Agreed. But they do prove that millions of years are not needed (as evolutionary articles so often imply),"

Yeah, as if mainstream science claimed that millions of years were needed for the fossilization of wood.

What a pointless article. The only thing it demonstrates is that creationists can't be bothered to find out what mainstream science actually says.

Anonymous said...

This creationist response cracked me up:

"Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago."

Of course they would date it to that, because that's what the Bible says. But as Radar unwittingly showed some time ago on this blog, there are no YEC explanations for the data shown by radiometric and other dating methods, and contrary to Radar's claim, there are no YEC dating methods - other than looking at the Bible and repeating what it says.

Anonymous said...

"Now creationists have tired of trying to work with the Darwinist organizations and have established their own peer review organizations and their own technical journals and magazines in order to disseminate information that would otherwise be hidden from view by the censoring propagandists I refer to generally as Darwinists."

And has that helped them come up with as much as a single, verifiable, falsifiable statement that supports their scenario and disproves evolution?

I'm not talking about your standard arguments from ignorance and incredulity that you present here in a constant stream, I'm talking about actual, scientifically verifiable evidence.

Even when they slink away from the horrors of peer review and start up their own little club, they still can't come up with the goods, can they?

That's because evading peer review isn't a good thing for them. When a scientist has to present work that passes peer review, he tries very hard to get it right. Take that away, and you have a license to get sloppy.

radar said...

Darwinists can quit flattering themselves. Nebraska Man passed peer review.

ID and Creationists have their own peer review because Darwinists censor them. Right now secular peer review is as unbiased as Venezuelan news media. Well, not quite that good. Since so many great scientists have given up on Darwin the YEC and ID circles have grown and the technical journals are comprehensive.

Darwinists run smack into helium in zircons, polonium radiohalos and other dating signposts that falsify millions of years and they try to hide the evidence concerning man and dinosaur living together even though we have human fossils mixed in with dino fossils and tracks of dino and human together and literature and art describing dinosaurs accurately and etc. The public is going to find out.

Jon Woolf said...

Sorry, Radar. Any 'peer review' by creationists is corrupt from the start, because creationists assume their conclusion.

"Darwinists run smack into helium in zircons, polonium radiohalos and other dating signposts that falsify millions of years"

Except that they don't.

"and they try to hide the evidence concerning man and dinosaur living together even though we have human fossils mixed in with dino fossils"

Say what?!?

"and tracks of dino and human together"

All such claims are either fraud or mistakes.

"and literature and art describing dinosaurs accurately"

Also explainable as either fraud, mistakes, or 'primitive' people who themselves had found fossils and tried to explain them.

radar said...

Jon Woolf has no authority and no evidence. EVERYTHING I have just asserted has been presented in one or more blogposts on this site with evidence and explanations. His wishful naysaying is kind of like all the criminals in the pen proclaiming their innocence. Not worth considering.

radar said...

...AND Darwinists have a foregone conclusion in their peer review that doesn't require and in fact doesn't have a basis in evidence. It is secular humanist ruling paradigm peer review that is broken.

Science is rather like the Amish, who decided that modern man had advanced enough at about the 1880 or so level and they decline to drive cars or use electric lighting and they make their own clothing. Is there a reason they decided that the right place to halt progress was there? Is there a reason science decided to just run with 19th Century Darwinist suppositions and forbid progress? You have to ask them. I think they just hate God and do not want to admit that He made everything.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, your 'evidence and explanations' is all worthless because it comes from creationist sources. Creationists, especially young-earth creationists, assume the conclusion before they start, and will do anything to make the evidence fit that conclusion. And yes, I do mean anything, including lie their heads off. I've demonstrated this a number of times.

Case in point: your claim that dinosaur fossils and human fossils have been found together. No such thing has ever happened. Not even once. There's not a single case on record of human bones and dinosaur bones being found in situ in the same fossil deposit.

Show us original source data that hasn't ever been touched by a creationist, and you might have an argument worth listening to. But as long as you use only creationists as sources, you lose before the game even starts.

highboy said...

"Radar, your 'evidence and explanations' is all worthless because it comes from creationist sources."

You've once and for all exposed yourself as one of the least objective people ever to post on this blog, and your admitted dismissal of any evidence or research based soley on the fact that it came from a creationist source is so fallacious I can't believe someone actually publicly posted such an admittance.

creeper said...

"your admitted dismissal of any evidence or research based soley on the fact that it came from a creationist source is so fallacious I can't believe someone actually publicly posted such an admittance."

While I wouldn't go quite as far as to dismiss a source simply because it is creationist, it is generally a good indicator that if a source is an outspoken creationist website, it will generally feature untruths, logical fallacies etc. Frankly, I can't think of a single one that doesn't. Could you suggest one? Even Sarfati, a chess genius, apparently thinks it's appropriate to include demonstrable untruths in his writings.

Jon Woolf has read even more such sources than I have, and is simply drawing the logical conclusion that they are on the whole not worth considering. The worst he can be accused of is not being fallacious, but being mildly impolite.

Sure, it's possible that there may be some gems hidden in there, but every time Radar does post something from, say, creation DOT com, it invariably is full of fallacies etc.

About creationists having their own peer review, I think you can admit that this allows for the interpretation that they're doing this to evade the harsh light of scientific criticism. Even if you don't think that's what they're doing, you can see how that interpretation is possible, right?

Now look at the flipside, Radar and Highboy: peer review depends on being able to demonstrate something that withstands independent scrutiny. You can complain about conspiracies and bias, but if you want to dismiss the opposing point of view - namely that creationist papers can't pass peer review because they can't pass logical, scientific scrutiny - all you really need to do is take a paper that has passed creationist peer review and subject it to real-life peer review.

I think we can all agree that it will be rejected, and to save face, YECs will claim conspiracy at this point. But here's the crucial difference: a rejection will be accompanied by actual reasons given. So if you actually do have a testable, falsifiable, verifiable claim that lines up with observable, demonstrable reality (I know, what a drag, huh?) and it doesn't pass mainstream peer review without a solid reason given, that's when you have evidence of at least bias.

But if the rejection comes with a good reason, then sorry folks: the claim just isn't up to scratch.

Highboy, I think you'll notice that no YEC has ever attempted such a thing, even though it would be quite a coup - and certainly possible - if science was on the YECs' side, as Radar keeps claiming.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Being human, highboy, I suppose I do have a bit of bigotry about me, so I carefully expend it on creationism in order that I won't be tempted to use it on anything with a shadow of intellectual decency about it.

(phraseology borrowed, with slight modifications, from the late, great Dr. Isaac Asimov)

Or to borrow from a well-known Scottish philosopher: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Every time I've trusted a creationist source, it turned out to be a mistake. Not just once, not just twice, but every time. So I don't do it anymore.

highboy said...

LOL. That's how I feel about Michael Moore Jon so I guess by those standards I'm guilty myself.