Search This Blog

Sunday, June 03, 2012

Go get another bag of popcorn. More ammunition for Creationists.

Recently this blog presented Darwinists with the evidence that Creation Science has made predictions in advance that were absolutely falsifiable or confirmable and presented a few precise predictions and then the later findings that confirmed them. Also we demonstrated yet again that there are modern animals found in "ancient" fossil layers and also that historical records and various forms of artwork and also fossil tracks prove that man and dinosaur co-existed.   So two false claims made by Darwinists are refuted.   Creation Science does make falsifiable claims and modern animals are found in many different so-called "ancient" layers.   Today we address some additional arguments.

First, I open the floor to Carl Wieland to explain why the fossil record is not a continuum of evolving organisms and in fact that it is hard to identify transitional fossils that are absolute certainties.   

After that there will be a post about The power of asking the right questions. 

Certainly Creation.com is my favorite source, although I have a great number of them.  There will be many more very compelling arguments coming to help people understand why Darwinism can be dismissed as a broken hypothesis.

The evolutionary parade of ‘missing links’

The floats keep changing!

Published: 29 May 2012(GMT+10)
Unqualified sound bites such as ‘no missing links have been found’ are unhelpful statements that we recommend people do not use. However, many do use them, and they are taken by skeptics as a standard creationist argument. Dr Carl Wieland shows how the proper creationist argument on transitional forms works.


123rf.com/Yurii Bezrukov

Chelle B. from the United States writes:
I am a big fan of Creation.com! I do have one question. Sometimes, I will browse the internet looking for atheist and/or evolutionist argumentation. One complaint that I often find goes something like this: “Creationists are always *saying* that no ‘missing links’ have been found, but they actually have… and lots of them. Evolution has been proven over and over again.” Like you, I believe this is completely false, but assuming they aren’t all out to deceive people, how are they able to say those things and really believe them?
CMI’s Dr Carl Wieland responds:

Dear Chelle

This is an important question, and requires a detailed answer. Evolutionists are not ‘lying’ when they say things like that, they really believe them. I trust that the following analysis will show why firstly the creationist argument is on solid ground in this regard, but why we also recommend (e.g. in our article Arguments not to use) against simply saying ‘there are no transitional forms’ as a ‘sound bite’ with no qualification.

First, the fact that the links (transitional forms) which the concept of evolution would prima facie cause its adherents to expect are definitely still missing is highlighted in Chapter 3 of Dr Sarfati’s classic book Refuting Evolution.

Like so many of these proposed or alleged ‘transitional forms’, the fossil reconstruction [of Pakicetus] … involved a great deal of evolutionary speculation, to put it mildly.

What makes the question complex is that in place of the countless thousands of transitional forms expected (as Darwin logically indicated should be found, and anticipated would be found in future), there exists at any point in time a handful of candidates, i.e. fossils put forward as transitional forms by evolutionary proponents. [Note: By ‘transitional forms’ is meant here fossils showing intermediate stages between major evolutionary transitions, i.e. from one kind of creature to a wholly different kind. For example, stages in the supposed transition of a walking reptile to a flying bird, nothing which creationists could regard as variation/speciation within a kind. Some evolutionists argue that we have countless thousands of transitional fossils, but they empty the term ‘transitional fossil’ of any content really meaningful for the creation-evolution debate. They define a fossil as ‘transitional’ in the same sense that a car is ‘transitional’ between a unicycle and a truck. That is not in view here.] Creationists by definition would argue that there are none, so to evolutionists this is seen as ‘proof’. From a creation perspective, though, consider the following:

 

Fig 1. This diagram graced the cover of Science magazine, making people believe that a ‘walking whale’ had really been found.

Imagine if one were to bury every one of the billions of creatures in the present world in a global flood to produce a fossil record. Let some imaginary aliens, who had no real idea of our world and its biology, discover that record thousands of years later. It is almost inevitable that by sheer chance a tiny handful of creatures’ remains would be found for which their structures, and their positioning in that record, were such as to allow speculation about their being ‘transitional’ between two types of creatures. The living platypus might be one such example. But the stress is on the fact that it would be very few. And the more that was found out by the aliens examining the record in more depth, the more likely it would be that they would eventually find out that the platypus, in fact, could not qualify as such a transitional form.

Returning to our current reality, the following makes sense, therefore. That is, that we find firstly that the numbers of such alleged ‘transitional forms’ are indeed very tiny. And they are changing over time, as one such ‘link’ is quietly dropped once another is available to take its place. In other words, the ‘links’ that one generation grows up with as ‘proving evolution’ (certain apemen are a prime example) are mostly not the same as the following generation is shown as ‘proof positive’ for evolution. In fact, candidates for transitional forms are sometimes ‘dumped’ rather rapidly as more evidence is found. In the case of the recent ‘Ida’ missing link, it started to recede embarrassingly within months—see this article.


Perhaps the most classic example of how links get shown over time to be untenable is Pakicetus, the so-called ‘walking whale’ found in Pakistan. Fig. 1 shows the picture on the cover of Science magazine. The fossil’s discoverer, paleontologist Dr Philip Gingrich, said about it that:
“In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales.”1
Like so many of these proposed or alleged ‘transitional forms’, the fossil reconstruction (see Fig. 2) involved a great deal of evolutionary speculation, to put it mildly.

And, again like so often happens, years later it is quietly dropped as evidence mounts against it. Fig. 3 shows how Pakicetus turned out, upon the discovery of more bones, to be nothing like the ‘walking whale’ shown by Gingerich and his colleagues. But vast numbers of people had had their faith in evolution reinforced.


Fig 2. What was actually found were the stippled portions of the skull bone. The rest of the picture was obviously based on sheer speculation.
Fig 3. A Pakicetus reconstruction 7 years later as featured in Nature. More bones had been found, which means that this creature had to be quietly dropped from the list of ‘transitional forms’.

Another example is Tiktaalik, the so-called perfect link between fish and amphibians, i.e. the first creature to allegedly crawl from the early oceans out onto the land. Although there were always reasons to doubt the claim, as CMI’s article from the time Tiktaalik roseae—a fishy ‘missing link’ showed, the nail in the coffin occurred when fossil footprints were found in Poland. This was because they were clearly footprints of four-legged animals walking on land, and thus had to be after land creatures had evolved in the evolutionary scheme. However, according to that scheme’s own assumptions, they had to be ‘dated’ some 18 million years earlier than Tiktaalik. Ergo, Tiktaalik could not be the ancestor of land creatures.

We can anticipate this sort of process to continue; a turnover of claimed transitional forms, such that committed evolutionists will always have something they think they can ‘hang their hat on’.

We can anticipate this sort of process to continue; a turnover of claimed transitional forms, such that committed evolutionists will always have something they think they can ‘hang their hat on’. But in the bigger picture, there remains firstly a severe paucity of fossil candidates that even committed evolutionists could put forward as candidates for transitional forms. The fossil record remains, as Gould and others pointed out long ago, characterized by sudden appearance and stasis (staying the same). The notion of punctuated equilibrium was developed precisely because of the remarkable scarcity of these expected chains of in-between forms—see this 1994 article by Dr Don Batten in CMI’s Journal of Creation.

Secondly, the handful of ones that are put forward as alleged transitional forms at any point in time are legitimately open to challenge in terms of their status as true transitional forms.

Thirdly, the repeated pattern is an on-going turnover of even that handful of candidates. I.e. in time, even evolutionists themselves acknowledge that a once-loved transitional form no longer qualifies.

I trust that this goes some way to answering your query.
With kind regards
Yours sincerely in Christ,
Carl W.

(Below this point no colors or emphasis will be added)

Readers’ comments

Jason T., United Kingdom, 29 May 2012

Another great CMI article.

It is concerning that the Natural History Museum still shows the incorrect 'version' of the fossil.
For a 'world class museum' they certainly lack research or perhaps they forgo intellectual honesty to push their pseudo science on the unsuspecting public?
[Link provided but deleted according to comment rules]

William I., United States, 29 May 2012

Thankfully, science is allowed to be wrong. Often, that is precisely how we move forward in scientific fields. "Scientist A" states that he uncovered a new "transitional form"....people get excited to learn more, popular magazines such as "Science" display unscientific articles to promote the discovery, findings get submitted for review at a scholarly journal, and eventually "scientist B" stumbles onto a mistake or new evidence or even outright frauds, unraveling the original find and requiring a new explanation for it.

This process(or METHOD)is why science provides such valuable knowledge to the world, it constantly questions itself and is always looking to improve. What it is not is an opening for Creationists to make claims that evolution, as a whole, is wrong. For example, If a scientist discovers that the sun is actually made of ice, debunking hundreds of years of scientific knowledge about the sun, that doesn't mean the sun no longer exists
.
If you do not understand the scientific method, that's your problem.

Carl Wieland responds:
This idea of the 'self-correcting' nature of evolutionary science is worth exploring a little. It's not quite the way this idealized picture paints it. The first important point is that whatever the correction is, it may not go outside of the overall paradigm, i.e. that evolutionary transformism on the major scale (microbes to microbiologists, magnolia trees and mammoths) has indeed happened, period. This would be fair enough, as all science must proceed within paradigms--except that creationists are not afforded the same luxury or leeway. And when a particular transitional form is trumpeted, this tentative nature of the claim is not exactly highlighted--it is usually presented in our culture as an incontrovertible fact which means everyone must bow to evolution. Further, in practice, and in less spectacular cases than Pakicetus, the transitional form is usually only fully retired once another has been elevated or unearthed to take its place. And we are not claiming that because one transitional form is debunked, hence evolution is wrong, period. What is more than reasonable to state, however, is that the claim that evolutionists can show all these transitional forms is extremely misleading, and that the 'big picture' of the fossil record (which mostly demonstrates sudden appearance and stasis, not chains of links that Darwin expected) cannot be claimed to support evolution without serious massaging. In the real world science is not the neat thing that people like to package it as, whether done within an evolutionary or creationist paradigm, it is a far more messy endeavour in which beliefs, biases and social constructs play a huge role. And it can't be stressed often enough that the type of historical/forensic enquiry that is involved with attempting to reconstruct the history of life on earth does not have the self-correcting nature of normal operational/experimental science, where each correction, tested by repeatable experimental observation, brings us closer to the truth. Newton's physics is not overthrown by Einstein's in the way that transitional form X are overthrown by another set of opinions about alleged transitional form Y. Rather, because both were tightly based on experiment, it complements it and Newtonian physics is subsumed within Einstein's. All in all (and I digress here from the main point of this response), one wishes that there was intensive teaching on the philosophy of science in senior high at least, so that the glossy images of what science is and isn't are more readily understood for what they are. For those not trained in the subject (as I was not) I recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and JP Moreland (the latter a Christian).

R S., Canada, 29 May 2012

The problem with this article is that it ignores the fact that scientists expect the debunking of theories put forward by one generation by the next. Cladistics, for example is a form of classification of taxonomy designed from the ground up to account for the addition of new information. Therefore, each candidate for a transitional form is placed, not between two previously discovered forms, but on its own branch forking off of the earlier form's ancestral tree. This is designed to avoid saying definitively that a particular form is THE transition between x and y, in anticipation the event that new information is uncovered. This is actually a crucial aspect of the scientific method and is indicative of academic honesty rather than assumptions based on ideological preconceptions. The entire mainstream scientific community will change its consensus in light of new information, fully aware that some day in the future, new facts may one day be uncovered that change the fundamental theory yet again. This is how a worldview based on REALITY rather than DOCTRINE is constructed. How many times has CMI completely reworked is cosmological or biological model of history based on the discovery of new evidence?

Carl Wieland responds:
Please see the response to William I's similar comment just above. It should also be noted that these changing consensuses do not--no way--involve a willingness for scientists to change their entire 'cosmological or biological model of history'. Evolutionary science may be open to changing their view of HOW the biological world, for instance, made itself (evolved) but not WHETHER it did so. The mechanism may be argued about, or which fossil is transitional, but not the alleged 'fact' that there must have been such a transition. Both creationists like CMI and evolutionists generally hold to core dogmas, or sets of axioms. The world-made-itself dogma permits no alternatives (see creation.com/the-rules-of-the-game, and creation.com/lewontin). So that is the 'DOCTRINE' (upper case yours) which is permitted to trump 'REALITY' where necessary. What changes when there is contradictory evidence is that either auxiliary hypotheses are established to explain it away, or the various submodels that make up the 'big picture' are modified or abandoned. It is the same for both sides. (See the works of Lakatos particularly, mentioned in the other response). So yes, CMI has done that, with e.g. the vapour canopy model of the preFlood world, or the moon dust argument (see creation.com/dontuse) - and appropriately so. In the process, given how few are working on the issues compared to the taxpayer-funded countless billions working on evolution, there has been very heartening progress in understanding and developing the models of biblical creation. For an example of a set of facts which ucomfortably points to not just creation, but recent creation, and which currently has evolutionists scrambling for an auxiliary hypothesis or some other counter, see creation.com/sanford. Now, maybe there will be an answer to salvage evolution for now, maybe not. But it's important to at least be able to see clearly what is happening here, and no matter which side of the ideological fence one is on, not be beguiled by fairytale images of some idealized concept called 'science', nor the equally misleading idea that it is somehow synonymous with 'evolution'.

Jack C., Australia, 29 May 2012

As a scientist myself (retired) I never understood why so many of my colleagues were atheists. It's so obvious that there must be a God given all the evidence around us. This is even before I started studying the Bible seriously. I know there are many scientists even today who believe in God but the issue I see is they are treated like fools or sick in the mind by their atheist colleagues. I know as it's happened to me. It's really time to turn the tables around and start calling the atheists for what they are, fools and/or liars who will do anything to avoid the truth, even corrupting the evidence. Us God believers don't need to corrupt the evidence since the scientific evidence is in our favour, when it's examined and studied honestly.

Carl Wieland responds:
Jack, the sentiments are understandable, though I think we should recall that we are to give answers 'with gentleness and respect' (1 Peter 3:15). There is a difference between assertiveness and boldness in defence of the faith (which is what one wishes more Christians would exhibit) and agressiveness/bitterness, etc. which can come through if one engages in any sort of name-calling (which your comments could be interpreted as supporting, though I think you don't mean it quite like that). God can say that the one who refuses to acknowledge God is 'a fool', but He is in a very special position to do so, obviously.
Turning the tables and boldly challenging their basis for belief, if sufficiently informed, is a good idea; you may want to consider, too, the sorts of approach outlined in this article, which do not require high levels of proficiency in science: http://creation.com/why-not-and-why
Regards

Alex V., Canada, 1 June 2012

This is with regards to the caption under the Pakicedus picture: "Fig 3. A Pakicetus reconstruction 7 years later as featured in Nature. More bones had been found, which means that this creature had to be quietly dropped from the list of ‘transitional forms’."

Are you sure it has really been "dropped" as a transitional form by evolutionists? They keep telling me it is still a transitionary form, and refer me to sources like
[Two weblinks to evolutionary sources were provided here -- Ed. ]
Thank you for clarifying - in advance!

Carl Wieland responds:
I think I should have added to the response, after 'is quietly dropped', the words 'by informed and fairminded evolutionists and the media generally'.

Certainly the initial hype about Pakicetus died away rapidly (I was involved in the creation/evolution battle already at the time, and recall it all well) with the disappointment that accompanied the discovery that it looked nothing like the 'diving part-whale' on the cover of Science magazine, and certainly not the 'perfect' transitional form its discoverer proclaimed it to be at the time.
Evolutionary sites, and evolutionists themselves, are not going to all be on the same page or all uptodate in terms of what is superseded and what is not. (To be fair, that is often so for creationists as well.)
The Thewissen site you sent shows the same picture of Pakicetus as in our article, but insists on regarding the 'Pakicetids' as transitional forms. To quote the site: "Pakicetids did not look like whales at all, and resembled land mammals. However, the skulls of pakicetids have an ear region that is highly unusual in shape, and only resembles that of modern and fossil whales." This is their reason par excellence for including it as a 'link' type. All in all, a very tenuous candidature. Grant creation, and there is no reason why certain design features might not be shared between unrelated groups, in fact this is often found in groups that evos themselves admit could NOT have shared a common ancestor, where it is fudged over by calling it 'homoplasy'. (A word worth researching on creation.com's search engine, btw.)
The other link that listed transitional fossils in general does not actually refer to Pakicetus as such, as far as I can tell, but to the pakicetids, and under that heading refers to Ambulocetus. The very name 'ambulocetus' means 'walking whale'. To see our response to when ambulocetus itself was first discovered, see http://creation.com/a-whale-of-a-tale. See also this technical article from our Journal of Creation, http://creation.com/walking-whales-nested-hierarchies-and-chimeras-do-they-exist which includes documentation that in fact cladograms show ambulocetids and pakicetids to be sister groups, with no line of descent from one to the other. In short, most evolutionary sources do not regard the a/cetids as encompassed within pakicetids, as far as I can tell from a brief foray on the web.

Robert G., Australia, 1 June 2012

I agree entirely with the thrust of Carl's comments. I would add that the existence of a transitional form does not prove that the organism represented by the fossil was evolving. Fossils are 'snapshots' not 'videos'. It can be asserted that an organism existed with the form of the fossil. But even though that form appears to be 'halfway' between to other fossil forms it does not prove 'transition'. Only the existence of many so-called transitional forms, where there is a gradation in transition, would qualify as the basis of an hypothesis that evolution is demonstrated by the fossil record. This sort of evidence has never been found.
To put it another way, a few so-called transitional fossil forms only proves that organisms looking like these fossils existed. It does not point to 'movement' from one form to another.

Alan M., Canada, 1 June 2012

These answers are quite clear and truthful. There is however one point that is frequently missed while discussing the technicalities. Evolution is a weapon of the enemy. It is a delusion from which its victims have no power to escape. The presentation of the creation case only helps creationists and we see all to often that sound arguments and evidence have zero impact on their deluded minds. We often gasp at their dullness. This fails to help them.

Darwin was the high priest of a new religion. We need to respond to this with spiritual weapons. When the spiritual power behind this goes the scientists will follow.
Alan Montgomery

Carl Wieland responds:
Alan, these are important considerations. I think that looking at the apostolic examples, though, we need to do more than just pray (which is probably not what you're implying, but it gives me a chance to make these points) be also ready and willing to engage the arguments.
Not only are we to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15--note gently and respectfully) but to be engaged in tearing down arguments that exalt themselves against biblical truth (2 Corinthians 10:5) Despite the powerful delusion, to which 2 Thessalonians 10:11 may well be relevant, as the church remains alert and obedient to these sorts of things, people (including scientists) ARE being won over. It's God's business, for His reasons, as to when and whether (or even if ever) the trickle turns into a flood, but we should keep prayerfully active, recognizing the ultimately spiritual nature of this battle, as you do.

William G., United States, 2 June 2012

I thank you for your great work at CMI of answering challenging questions proposed by evolutionist. I think that we must always be aware that evolutionist have a 'mindset' to see 'transition' where none really exists. They 'expect' to see a transitional form in almost any fossil find and will be financially rewarded if they can develop a plausible scenario or mythological picture of their fossil 'transitioning'. CMI and other creationist organizations provide the only stablizing influence to 'historical science', and I thank God for your work.

Related articles

Further reading

Reference

  1. Gingerich, P.D., The whales of Tethys, Natural History, p. 86, April 1994. Return to text.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why not? And why?

The power of asking the right questions.

Yoke-Peng Kong
Yoke-Peng Kong was born in Malaysia and now lives in Melbourne, Australia. She knows from first-hand experience the evangelistic effectiveness of asking simple questions.
Published: 5 April 2011(GMT+10)
After having devoured lots of information from Creation Ministries International in various forms—public talks, books and magazines—I have experienced a lot of ‘aha’ moments.

Like: ‘Now I see it!’. ‘That’s amazing!’. That is the reason why I’m eager and excited to lead people to creation.com, as CMI materials have made me appreciate the Bible so much more. Through CMI, I am so empowered with the confidence that the Bible is truly the word of God that nowadays it actually makes evangelism easy.

Through CMI, I am so empowered with the confidence that the Bible is truly the word of God that nowadays it actually makes evangelism easy.

In fact, these days I am actually very excited to have the opportunity to interact with someone who is not a Christian—as in the following accounts. They are meant to indicate how simple it can be to point people to the materials, e.g. this website, in a way that has them keen to find out more. It also shows how, very often, when you ask the right questions, most often these Bible-science issues turn out to be bubbling away below the surface.

Noah and the animals

Recently, I was in a shop in the town of Warnambool (in Victoria, Australia) that sells all sorts of knick-knacks including some old books. As I was about to pay for a nice white Bible, the gentleman at the counter asked if I’ve seen an even older version than the one I was planning to buy. He kindly walked me to the area upstairs where several Bibles were displayed. (Incidentally, I had noticed the Bible that he was referring to, but had decided on the white Bible anyway.) He seemed to know quite a bit about the various Bibles, so I asked, “Are you a Christian?” He gave a little laugh and said, “Surely not!”. I don’t quite know why, but I just blurted out openly, with a friendly smile, “Why not?” He was quite taken aback by my question. So I eagerly repeated it.

evangelising
Being genuinely interested in another person’s viewpoint helps keep the conversation going—and can give opportunity to share the Gospel further.
(Credit: iStockphoto) 

He replied that it was because he couldn’t accept that the Ark could have fitted all the animals on board. I found it interesting that the objection that popped straight into his mind had to do directly with creation and Genesis—in fact, one of the issues covered by the Creation Answers Book. So, I told him that firstly, it was God who led the animals to the Ark, and asked him if it wouldn’t make more sense to send healthy young animals rather than full-grown ones? I then told him there is much more to the answer—so much more information than I could give him there on the spot. “There are just so many materials on creation.com that you’ll be amazed.” I also mentioned that he could search on many different subjects, such as ‘aliens’, ‘Is there a God?’ etc. I told him he could even critique the articles and ask questions (if he had any left after checking out the Q & A section) and he would get an answer.

On the way back to the counter, he promised me, quite sincerely, that he would definitely look up the site that evening. I’m sure he has a lot of questions. I wish in hindsight that I had taken his email address so that I could follow up and find out where he is at.

Dinosaurs

Another case was when a young man came to sell me some garbage bags for charity. I told him I am a Christian and therefore believe in charity. Then I asked if he was a Christian. He said no, but he respected other people’s faith. I then asked him much the same as I did the first person in the bookstore, i.e. “Why not?” Why wasn’t he a Christian? He said he could not accept the Bible because dinosaurs are not mentioned in it. I explained to him that the word ‘dinosaur’ was coined long after the Bible was written. He said, “Wow, no one has explained that to me before.” Naturally, I directed him to creation.com and told him about the searches and all. He promised to visit the site and even took a pamphlet off me.

Sometimes it’s ‘Why?’ instead of ‘Why not?’

The third case was at my work, where a colleague said that if it were a matter of choosing between God and evolution, she would definitely choose evolution. I then asked her simply, “Why?”. She didn’t really have an answer. So I asked her if she knew that by evolution’s own principles of mutation and natural selection, evolution doesn’t work? And in any case, what does she understand by mutation and natural selection? It turned out to be not much at all. She hadn’t even heard of Richard Dawkins, for example, yet still chose to believe in evolution. (The context of that discussion had to do with showing CMI DVDs at lunchtime at work, by the way, another great way to break down these barriers to belief.)

But it’s simply asking the “Why?” and “Why not?” that can make all the difference in creating these openings, before sharing e.g. from the magazine, or via videos, or just pointing folk to creation.com.

Questions are powerful

Some years ago, former Australian speaker Warwick Armstrong, while working for the ministry prior to his retirement, apparently passed on similar advice. Ask people to explain, he said, why they would not want to accept the most wonderful ‘free’ gift of eternal life. (This is similar to my “Are you a Christian? Why not?”—always delivered with a smile, because I really am positive and excited about it.)

And if they say something about ‘science’, he said, most of the time it is not something they have thought through well at all. So if they say, “Well, it’s because of evolution”, ask them to explain what it is about evolution? If they say “the fossils”, ask them, “What is it about the fossils?” Keep this gentle probing up and you’ll find, he said, that most of the time they don’t really know why they believe what they believe, and soon come to the end of their answers. Which is a good opportunity to ask them if they would like to know more about such-and-such. And the above example shows that this really is so. It means they are in the position of having run out of answers, and they are the ones being invited to ask you to give them more information. Which means they will be much more receptive than if you had barged in uninvited.

When so many people give these Genesis-related issues as their no. 1 reason for unbelief, we need to sit up and take notice. It doesn’t mean that there are not deeper issues, but at the least these are tangible barriers to faith, and God has over and over seen fit to use CMI’s creation materials to ‘demolish arguments’ (2 Corinthians 10:5) within a person in association with doing His regenerating work.

Be encouraged—and don’t wait to be asked

With these few examples, I hope to encourage all of us who are aware of the wonderful creation ministry. I encourage you to seek out all those who are unaware that there are solid answers to the reasons that many of them see as why they are not trusting the Bible and God’s message of salvation. Pray for wisdom (James 1:5) and opportunity; you will find that opportunities abound. Notice that I didn’t hit them over the head with anything, and I didn’t have to be a science whiz to be able to direct them in the search for truth. In fact, I didn’t give them any detailed information at all—which also means that there is less chance that one will ‘put one’s foot in it’ inadvertently. You can rely on the ‘battle-tested’ information that CMI’s scientists and researchers present in so many different ways.

Non-Christians are not keen to know whether we are Christians or not. So, don’t wait for them to ask you; they probably never will. By raising the subject yourself, perhaps considering the sort of ‘question-asking’ approach I’ve outlined, you will find that many non-Christians are actually more open-minded than you might think. They are often very happy to discuss and even explore these issues if encouraged to do so in a friendly and positive way.

Readers’ comments

(Below this point no colors or emphasis will be added)

Russell W., Australia, 5 April 2011

Great article. Handing over a CMI pamphlet will reduce the chance of them forgetting the important sound bytes they just heard. This article shows just how effective a primed, properly equipped believer can be in this humanistic society. It also blows away the popular opinion in the church that creation/evolution is a side issue. It isn’t. In my street preaching experience, evolution is the number one barrier to the Gospel, especially for young people. For anyone reading this feedback, if you are shy about speaking to a stranger, hand them a tract, or leave them lying around. People do read them. Your effort’s, with prayer will be a vital link for their salvation.

John J., United Kingdom, 5 April 2011

Thank you for this excellent article—a method of communicating creation I’d not thought about although, in hindsight, quite obvious! Non-threatening thus giving better opportunity to guide people to the Truth.

Jim S., United States, 7 April 2011

Yoke-Peng Kong’s article this morning was the slap in the face I have needed. Although I don't believe that one has to have all the answers in order to bear witness to the Faith, I have been acting and proceeding “as if” this were true. I daily read material from CMI and other good apologetic and creation-related stuff, but take few opportunities to use that knowledge in a practical way. By God’s grace I intend to change that. Thanks so much for your frequent e-mails.

Dr Col L., Australia, 27 April 2012

Oh How Gift giving is our God.

Your article by Yoke Peng-kong "Why not? And Why? is oh so simple yet oh so true. By that I am thinking of the truth that one does not need to be a highly educated person to be able to be a witnessing agent for God. Yoke has shed light on the fact that ALL can partake in being part of Gods Plan to spread the truth that God and Creation with all it's truths in the Bible starting with Genesis do show Gods WORD is truth in it's clearest form.

The question's "Why not & Why" may be the most profound ways to get to the point and heart of most peoples reasons for not knowing or accepting God and their separation from God by their sins.
I give Yoke-Peng Kong 3 Gong's and a GOLD STAR AND GOD the credit for her wonderful brain. We can ALL learn much from her article and improve our effectiveness to the glory of God should we follow the same logic to help people think more logically about why ONLY God's CREATION can tell the reality behind CREATION, CORRUPTION, REDEMPTION, ETERNITY.
GO YOKE !! I'm with you & and all at CMI.
Dr. Col

Jim P., United States, 29 April 2012

The article 'Why not? And Why?' shows an approach that is often lacking in the Christian World. Instead of telling others the 'Truth' in spite of their beliefs, Yoke's approach tells others we are interested in them and what they have to say. This builds relationships instead of confrontations. True Christianity is not about religion, but relationship with our loving Father and Creator.

Yoke's approach shows interest in others, and gives them the 'floor' to speak their heart and mind, showing them they (and what they believe and have to say) are important in our eyes, and ultimately in God's eyes. It also allows them to ask for the truth when they are ready, instead of having it forced upon them.
This is a wise way to go about being a humble and honorable representative of our loving God.

Related articles

Further reading

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

31 comments:

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"modern animals are found in many different so-called "ancient" layers"

And the deception continues.

Fact is, remains of modern, non-extinct animals aren't found where YEC would predict they are (especially in the bottom-most layers, where there would have been untold numbers of modern animals subjected to rapid burial instead of "only bacteria, plankton and multi-celled algae", as the theory of evolution would predict) and consistently show up where the theory of evolution predicts they are, thus falsifying YEC and confirming evolution and an old Earth.

When YECs even try to put a dent in the evidence for evolution and an old Earth, they almost immediately indulge in baseless conspiracy theories involving evidence being hidden.

Readers wishing to see Radar's dishonest tactics in action should check out this post and its comment section:

http://radaractive.blogspot.ie/2012/05/why-god-and-evolution-do-not-go.html

followed by this post and its comment section:

http://radaractive.blogspot.ie/2012/06/grab-popcorn-modern-creatures-in-fossil.html

Radar, why are you incapable of addressing this subject in an honest way?

radar said...

Time for HLH to stop impugning my character, which is bad behavior and uncalled for, and start actually presenting evidence.

You have no idea what YEC says about the location of fossils, apparently, so I will not call you a liar and just say you are mistaken. There is no baseless accusation about fossils being hidden and altered, I have actually presented evidence of fossils being changed to fit Darwinist fantasies and also very significant fossil remains being stored in basements and warehouses away from public view because they are bad for Darwinism.

It is obvious that I am not one to hide evidence because I allow people like you to make all sorts of ridiculous statements in the comments threads without moderation. The fact that I let you and Jon Woolf and completely anonymous commenters make all sorts of false claims validates my position. I do not lie and I do not hide evidence. That is apparently for Darwinists to do. Good thing for us they are not efficient enough to hide things completely or properly.

Anonymous said...

"It is obvious that I am not one to hide evidence because I allow people like you to make all sorts of ridiculous statements in the comments threads without moderation. The fact that I let you and Jon Woolf and completely anonymous commenters make all sorts of false claims validates my position."

Actually, it's quite the opposite. The way you react to their comments clearly show that you have no rebuttal to their well-founded claims.
It would really do you good to actually address them in a serious manner instead of running away from them...

radar said...

Rather than run away I make a lot of blog posts that speak to the subject. Maybe you should actually read the posts and linked sources because I would hate to think the material was over your head, you must simply be scanning down to where you can make yet another comment claiming that answers have not been presented. They have been presented in blog posts and I have made a lot of very specific claims and included the evidence.

We have not seen anything happen in our memory that would equal a global year-long flood with the dynamic events associated with it such as the Noahic Flood. No tsunami or earthquake or atomic blast is even comparable. The idea that one continent was pulled apart by tectonic plate subduction, that earthquakes and volcanoes were happening all over the planet, that a continual barrage of rainfall was added to great quantities of superheated water being released from the ground? The violence of this caused the Earth's magnetic field to reverse several times, may have actually produced some comets (that subject is pretty complex just in itself) and there are other after-effects we still study.

Creation scientists have been able to reproduce the kinds of sedimentary layers in miniature that we see around the world and the Mt. St. Helens event gave us something of a lab experiment that was something of a small recreation on a miniscule scale of some of the effects that would have been observed had we had an observer for the Flood. Oh, wait, we did have one...God!

So the Bible relates the story of Creation and the big Flood and the tower of Babel and we find references to these events in the ancient histories of most cultures albeit the farther they were from retaining a contact with God the weirder the story gets. The Bible has an accurate history of the events which actually fits the evidence.

Every aspect of origins requires a start. Christians know that God created the Universe, life, information, intellect and etc. Certainly such things required a miraculous act of creation. However, God is a capable Agent for such things. Darwinism simply has *poof*. You depend on magic or pagan-style thinking rather than simple logic. William Paley's Watchmaker argument remains effective. This is especially true with the additional knowledge we have about organisms and their information-packed makeup.

So Darwinists believe in magic and I believe in God. That pretty well covers it. You can have your Wizard of Oz with the little man behind the curtain while I will remain confident in the Transcendent God Who is able to create and destroy according to His will and was willing to give us free will ourselves. We did kind of muck up the first chance of being in charge of Creation by rebelling against God. But God made a way to fix that individual by individual.

You may think secular science will give you answers but what it actually will do is keep you away from accepting Truth.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Radar said: "You have no idea what YEC says about the location of fossils, apparently, so I will not call you a liar and just say you are mistaken."

Radar also said: "Rather than run away I make a lot of blog posts that speak to the subject."

And Radar also made this claim: "The bottom-most layers have both modern and extinct creatures and there are modern creatures amongst the fossils at most levels. The lie that only extinct animals are in those layers is just that, a lie."


RADAR,

Okay, so speak to the subject. Rather than run away, please tell us about the fossils that are located in the bottom-most layers according to YEC. Not the top-most layers, not the middle layers, but - according to your very own claim - the bottom-most layers. Tell us what creation scientists are finding in those bottom-most layers.

(cont'd in next comment)

Jon Woolf said...

Anon whatsit, apparently your second comment got eaten by Blogger.

"Tell us what creation scientists are finding in those bottom-most layers."

Creationists aren't finding anything in those layers. Creationists don't do fieldwork. They prefer to lurk in their caves, waiting for scientists to publish things that they can twist into support for their crackpot ideas.

As with the matter of "transitional forms." The only reason that creationists get away with their lies about transitionals is that - thanks to the creationists themselves - too many people don't understand how biologists work, how they decide which forms are likely transitionals and what other forms they're transitionals between. The list of similarities between, say, Diarthrognathus and Morganucodon are so extensive and so exactly like what evolutionary theory predicts that there are only two possible conclusions to be drawn: either evolutionary theory is correct, or the Creator lied by making it look like evolutionary theory is correct when it actually isn't.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Anon whatsit, apparently your second comment got eaten by Blogger."

Ah, I've been chopping the original comment into smaller and smaller chunks to prevent exactly that...

Anonymous whatsit said...

(cont'd from comment 3 comments above this one)

Those bottom-most layers that according to your beliefs correspond to the global flood. After everything you've told us about rapid burial, what we should find in those bottom-most layers are the fossil remains of suddenly-buried modern, non-extinct animals. You know... dogs. Cats. Mice. Heck, humans. That's what YEC tells us we should find there.

Mainstream science tells us we should find extremely simple forms of life there.

And that is what we find there, isn't it, Radar? We don't find gerbils and humans and chimps and elephants in those bottom-most layers, do we, Radar?

Even the creationist article that you copied confirms this assessment: "complex life forms appearing suddenly in one of the "bottom layers", i.e., the Cambrian Explosion, with only bacteria, plankton and multi-celled algae appearing below"

(cont'd in next comment)

Anonymous whatsit said...

(cont'd from previous comment)

Radar, are you willing to admit that the bottom-most layers in fact do not feature the remains of modern creatures?

If you're not willing to admit that simple fact, please provide evidence to the contrary. Your clear evasions in one long-winded blog post after another, jumping to any subject other than an answer to the clear questions posed to you, are incredibly transparent, and I suspect even people who share your overall worldview think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

(Speaking of which, where are highboy and Hawkeye these days?)

radar said...

Apparently we have reached the troll tipping point. Since those few Darwinists who follow the blog have run out of arguments, they now pretend that answers were not given and are reduced to making personal attacks and hiding behind pretense. Clearly you guys ran out of material.

Not only are modern creatures found in rock layers and also so-called ancestors of modern creatures found still living, we find remarkable sophistication in some organisms that went extinct.

For you who are casual observers, simply reading through Tas Walker's blog will help you understand what Creationists teach about the rock layers, how they were laid down, why the surface of the Earth has so many big canyons, buttes and strange structures, why the lowest layers consist primarily of bottom-dwelling sea creatures and other point of interest. Darwinists do not usually have a clue about what the Flood did and therefore make ludicrous claims. For the most part, if you find a fossil it was not originally from the area where you found it and may well have been alive and well two thousand miles away 4300 years ago. Only the topmost fossils are likely to be from the area in which they are found.

Trolls like to call names and tell lies. After years of posting with good intentions and speaking truth, when you call me a liar you are actually the one who is lying. Perhaps you disagree with me, but in doing that you are the one who is lying. Maybe we should have a contest to see which troll lies the most often and I can name a troll of the year in December?

If you want to really fight for Darwinism, quit lying and quit putting up long lists of weighted questions and come up with some answers instead.

Anonymous said...

"Trolls like to call names and tell lies. After years of posting with good intentions and speaking truth, when you call me a liar you are actually the one who is lying."

To all those who might still think Radar is interested in a serious discussion: there is your wake-up call.
I mean, seriously Radar. That's pretty disgraceful. Surely you must have a bit of pride?

Jon Woolf said...

Pride he's got plenty of. It's confidence that he doesn't have.

Which isn't all that hard to understand. I mean, how often has he seen his arguments sliced into gory bits -- about the age of the Earth, the geologic column, the fossil record, taxonomy, intermediate fossils, genetics, mutations ... as with all creationists, he can't answer any of science's arguments except with this sort of drearily repetitive lashing-about.

I mean, he can't even give a reasonable answer to a question as simple as this: "what do the lizards of Pod Mrcaru demonstrate about evolutionary theory?" If I was in his shoes, I'd get depressed too.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"To all those who might still think Radar is interested in a serious discussion: there is your wake-up call.
I mean, seriously Radar. That's pretty disgraceful. Surely you must have a bit of pride?"

Radar's been pulling this nonsense for years, insults instead of a meaningful engagement with the issues.

He has pride in abundance - that's actually his key problem: personal hubris above intellectual honesty.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Since those few Darwinists who follow the blog have run out of arguments"

The arguments are plenty, and solid. You've been trounced again and again.

But just as an aside: since you choose to make an issue of "those few Darwinists who follow the blog" let's keep in mind that creationists/religious fundamentalists seem to have abandoned your blog altogether. Or do you count everyone who reads your posts as a loyal follower except for all the people who choose to comment? Any basis for that, other than wishful thinking?

I suppose you'd have to believe something like that, given the fact that your comment section approaches 100% dissent.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"they now pretend that answers were not given"

No pretending required:

1. You couldn't present any evidence of modern, non-extinct animals in the bottom-most layers, which should be there according to your own previous claim. Anyone can see that in your attempted response.

Anonymous whatsit said...

2. You couldn't present any coherent "calibration" of C-14 dating methods, which as they stand very clearly falsify YEC. Game, set, match... but wait - what if we re-calibrate? Okay, what then? No answer is forthcoming. How can the radiocarbon dating be re-interpreted so that you get to the only outcome you can accept and it still fits in with observable evidence? YEC has no answer.

Anonymous whatsit said...

3. Your earlier attempts to respond to Jon Woolf's list of questions are also severely lacking. One of them is taken apart quite effectively here: radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2012/05/why-god-and-evolution-do-not-go.html?showComment=1338581236647#c3007772061592479419.
It's obvious that the text that you cranked out doesn't answer the question at all.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Any reader can check out these examples for themselves, and I think they'll soon find that it is you, Radar, who is pretending that you've answered these questions when you really don't have any answers at all.

Where is the evidence of modern, non-extinct animals in the bottom-most layers?

How can C-14 dating data be calibrated so they yield a result of 4,300 years and still line up with other observable evidence?

Why aren't dolphins and ichthyosaurs ever found together? etc.

And all Radar has in response? Calling us liars. Very telling.

radar said...

I am only calling out lies that I specified. There is no reason to expect to find dolphins and ichthyosaurs together in the fossil record if they did not swim together in real life. In fact, who is to say that mammals were not relatively rare before the Flood but were more successful afterwards with a new climate and new conditions? We've found a few, but very few mammals in dinosaur layers (even found a mammal a couple of months ago with dinosaurs in his tummy) and therefore I think mammals were niche creatures and rather rare in the pre-Flood days and did not become more predominant until the new conditions after the Flood prevailed.

How many creatures in the lowest layers were capable of living in non-tropical/subtropical conditions? With one continent probably more or less centered around the Equator perhaps dinosaura, lizards, amphibians and etc were common and mammals rare. Now mammals are commonplace and dinosaurs are probably extinct, while lizards are less prominent. Amphibians may be a little less common as well.

Jon Woolf said...

"In fact, who is to say that mammals were not relatively rare before the Flood but were more successful afterwards with a new climate and new conditions?"

Well, for one thing, there's the fact that you claim the entire fossil record was laid down in the Flood. Those rock layers that creationists assign to the 'upper Flood' or 'receding Flood' and geologists assign to the Cenozoic have huge numbers of mammal fossils in them. Many belong to groups that that no one has ever claimed survived the Flood, such as the hulking titanotheres and the towering 'hornless rhinoceros' Paraceratherium. See also the entelodonts, chalicotheres, creodonts, and mesonychids.

radar said...

No, Jon, I have clearly presented the evidence that the top layers of sedimentary rock are post-Flood. The various canyons and buttes and badlands are primarily the result of waters receding from the Flood, hydraulic effects post-Flood and the storms, mudslides and dike breaks of the Ice Age following the Flood. I have made this abundantly clear.

If you go to Tas Walker's blog you will see the chart of rock layers as they were actually formed rather than the mythical "geologic column" that uniformitarians made up long ago. That concept has been falsified long ago.

That is how real science works. Science is primarily the task of casting aside ideas that do not work until the one that is left is the best explanation. A world designed and created by God is still the best explanation for existence. Darwinism is a scientific absurdity foisted upon the public by religious zealots who have imposed a metaphysical veneer on the world of science.

Climate alarmists and Darwinists are peas in a pod, bereft of evidence but armed with a loudspeaker and a bullwhip (figuratively speaking) and dominating the secular conversation. The idea that the tiny portion of the atmosphere that is CO2 causes global warming is hilarious! CO2 is plant food, the more there is, the better for crops. We should be encouraging folks to emit it and not try to cap it!

As for Darwinism, it is the folklore of the foolish. Hide while you can behind the so-called fallacy of "incredulity" until the public realizes that Darwinism is incredible because it is all myth and no evidence. It is a stack of fables atop one another ready to fall over at any time. Did you ever build a house of cards or dominoes? If you keep adding cards and dominoes the point is reached where the entire thing tumbles down. Here goes Darwinism no-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-w....

radar said...

Also, Jon is dead wrong about what is "claimed to have survived the Flood." All air-breathing vertebrates that were land dwellers and all birds were taken in either pairs or sets upon the Ark. That means apatosaurus and aardvark, titanothere and tufted titmouse, pteranodon and pelican.

Microorganisms that live in and on such creatures hitched a ride. Meanwhile, fish and water-dwelling dragons, insects and plants, bottom-dwelling sea creatures and spiders and everything else was left to live or die. All vertebrates and birds not taken in the Ark would be killed in the Flood along with the civilization of man. God wanted the legacy of evil to be destroyed while Noah's family would have the history of mankind to pass along to their descendents. When Moses compiled the Pentateuch he surely was led by God to immortalize the stories of the family line and the history of mankind as well as the beginning of all things. Some will believe and some will deny. But Truth will remain true.

Jon Woolf said...

"The various canyons and buttes and badlands are primarily the result of waters receding from the Flood, hydraulic effects post-Flood and the storms, mudslides and dike breaks of the Ice Age following the Flood."

I wasn't talking about the landforms cut into the rock. I was talking about the rocks themselves, and the fossils preserved in them -- and your own source agrees with what I said. From Tas Walker's site, http://biblicalgeology.net/General/geologic-column.html (an article by Michael Oard):

"There also are mammal tracks in some of the Cenozoic strata in these basins that reinforce the deduction that most of the remaining Cenozoic strata were deposited in the Inundatory Stage (Lockley and Hunt, 1995, pp. 243–281; Oard, 1998, pp. 79–81). Based on Walker's (1994) model, tracks of mammals on Flood strata must have occurred in the Inundatory Stage. This evidence indicates that practically all strata, clear up to the Pliocene, in the higher areas of the western United States were deposited in the first half of the Flood during the Inundatory Stage."

A little further down, Oard says that later Cenozoic strata "would be a late Flood or Recessional Stage feature."

Huge numbers of mammal fossils in Flood-deposited rocks. There is no way that mammals were 'rare' prior to the Flood.

Jon Woolf said...

Then there's this: "All air-breathing vertebrates that were land dwellers and all birds were taken in either pairs or sets upon the Ark." Of course, this also makes nonsense of any claim that mammals were rare before the Flood. Modern biology counts 5600 species of living mammals and several hundred known extinct species. Almost all of these are good species which must represent "baramins" in the creationist world, and each "baramin" must of course have had many living representatives in the pre-Flood world.

Jon Woolf said...

Of course, the Ark would have also had to carry the 700 known species of dinosaur, the 10,000 (more or less) living species of birds, the 9,500 species of landbound reptiles, and the 7,000 or so known species of amphibians. Most of which are also good species and must qualify as "baramins" under creationist taxonomy. One ship would not have room to carry them all plus food and fresh water for a year, and eight people couldn't possibly take care of them all.

radar said...

One, John Woodmrappe has written a thesis concerning the Ark and how every baramin could be taken on board and even have plenty of room for food and time to feed and clean up after them.

Naturally, one would think that most of the organisms would be juveniles so that less room was taken up by them, and it is possible that they were hibernating or denning or in some other way shutting down their metabolisms for the voyage. My latest article has a few examples and definitions of the kinds of "dying" animals do in order to live.

A baramin is a kind. For instance, the wolf-dog would be the progenitor for all the dog kinds on Earth. One pair could produce hundreds of so-called species that we find on Earth today. In fact it is rapid speciation (proven by research) that explains why all basic land-dwelling vertebrates and birds could fit easily on the massive Ark.

As to mammals, I said they were rare compared to the world of today. Mammals in the fossil record are not so numerous, whereas we have myriad dinosaur types which have all apparently now gone extinct.

Furthermore, the top-most rocks are formed by the receding Flood and by the events of the Ice Age and dike breaks and mudslides and loess storms. You can be sure Mammoths frozen and found with clover in their mouths/stomachs were not preserved by the Flood.

With such a feeble grasp of the rock records but a host of verbiage to release, you seem to confuse yourself. I thought Darwinists thought mammals evolved from dinosaurs? How could they be in the same layere, then? How is it a large mammal was found with dinosaurs in his stomach?

The answer is not so hard. The biggest and smartest animals lasted the longest before being overwhelmed by the Flood. In the post-Flood world of great variation in climates, dinosaurs were not successful in the North during the Ice Age but their range moved North probably due the the Medieval Warming Period and population pressures. So eventually the interaction between dinosaur and man was recorded all over Europe and England and up into Scandinavian lands for a time.

The most common dinosaur sightings otherwise were in the subtropical areas where dinosaurs likely resorted in advance of man. They did not grow nearly so big or live nearly so long post-Flood but nobody wants a twelve-foot-tall aggressive dragon eating their cattle or children. Meanwhile, big herbivores were likely wiped out for their food value.

We quit eating up all the wild beasts while some big ones, such as bison, remained extant. It is amusing that the very same people who profess to believe in Darwinism then frustrate the process by not allowing the less successful organisms to go extinct.

True Darwinism is hideously ugly, though. We've seen it tried on the national level with human beings and spark world war. We've seen it used to fuel a murder industry that continues to this day. Kill the babies but save the whales? Wow.

radar said...

No, Jon, a baramin is a root animal from which come species. There were hardly 700 dinosaur baramin types. I might believe 40. The same goes with other organisms. You do not have a grasp on baraminology. Linnaeus tried to categorize the world of animals and I suppose baramin is perhaps in between class and order as Darwinists use the terminology now. I did publish a couple of articles that provided the definition of baramin and the general classification system being developed now by baraminologists.

Linnaeus and his system was descriptive, not prescriptive, and it was done with good intentions but with little knowledge of genetics and reproduction compared to 21st Century science. Darwinists keep moving the classification football down the field and rearranging the deck furniture but the system is not based on genetics.

Baraminologists are using genetics to assign organisms to baramins and go from there. Like Flood Geology, it is relatively new and growing as more scientists hop on board and add input. ID and Creation science is growing and will continue to grow for obvious reasons.

Jon Woolf said...

"I thought Darwinists thought mammals evolved from dinosaurs?"

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I really don't anymore. How could anyone who knows anything about conventional taxonomy or evolutionary theory say such a thing? I know you don't accept evolutionary theory, Radar, but can't you at least be bothered to learn something about it? If only to fulfill Sun-tzu's dictum to "know the enemy"?

"The biggest and smartest animals lasted the longest before being overwhelmed by the Flood."

Then why don't we ever find fossils of sauropods and hadrosaurs mixed with fossils of large advanced mammals like indricotheres, titanotheres, mammoths, mastodons, cave bears, ground sloths?

"their range moved North probably due the the Medieval Warming Period and population pressures. So eventually the interaction between dinosaur and man was recorded all over Europe and England and up into Scandinavian lands for a time."

Are you really, honestly claiming that dinosaurs and pterosaurs were still alive in large numbers as little as a thousand years ago?

radar said...

When there is intentional ignorance there is little hope. Of course pterosaurs and other dinosaurs lived with man and were around 1,000 years ago, we have ample historic narratives and artwork to prove it. Hiding your head in the sand doesn't help.

As to understanding the enemy, I understand that you commenters are not talking to me, you are trying to mislead others who come into the comments thread. The fact is that Darwinists have changed their ideas about what evolved from what when and where that it makes Rube Goldberg contraptions look simple. Darwinism is a messy, unscientific collection of fairy tales and rigged charts and fakes and altered fossils and hidden discoveries.

David Berlinski (courtesy of Good Reads) said: “Before you can ask 'Is Darwinian theory correct or not?', You have to ask the preliminary question 'Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?'. That's a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is 'Man, that thing is just a mess. It's like looking into a room full of smoke.' Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.”

Since the time Berlinski commented, we have learned much more about organisms that further removes credibility from Darwinism. I know the basis of Darwinism and the claims of Darwinism but I also know the whole thing is a slapped-together sham that long ago lost any coherence. I think Thomas Huxley's fake new organism, Bathybius, was a sign that Darwinism was all hat no cattle.

Huxley has had a long list of followers who've presented faked evidence on down to Gingerich, the presenters of "Lucy", those who reworked the Neanderthal fossils of France and etc. Darwinism is mostly about fakes and frauds and rumors and outright forgeries and a whole lot of imagination all intended to hide the complete lack of evidence.

Jon Woolf said...

"When there is intentional ignorance there is little hope."

For once you've said something I agree with. As long as you remain intentionally ignorant about science, there is little hope you will break free of this creationist drivel.

Anonymous said...

Ah, one of the many ad-hoc explanations that YECs try to impose on the fossil record:

"The biggest and smartest animals lasted the longest before being overwhelmed by the Flood."

Funny thing is, see, that as soon as YECs utter such a statement, they don't investigate it, they run away from it.

Come on, Radar, stay here a second. Tell us more. The biggest and smartest animals. Okay. So if a tsunami was coming at you, if you were big and smart, you'd be able to escape.

Now, here's the thing: is that what we see in the fossil record?

Is it?

Cue Radar running away..