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:
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.
Creationist’s rapid claims recognizedSecular 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|
|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.
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.
Let's go ahead and take on the TO propagandists head-on: Response Article
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man. CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
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.
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.
Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.
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.
- 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.
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 HumanityThe 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.