Search This Blog

Saturday, June 09, 2012

More of that irritating Evidence for Creation and against Evolution

The written word has great power, but in this day of multi-media the video has even more of it.   When I teach now I invariably use a Powerpoint and often embed movies into said presentation so that I am not just speaking, but presenting the words on the screen, or a picture that fits the message or cutting to a short video.   That is the 21st Century for you.   Not complaining at all, the fact is that the people who are auditory learners are also given visuals and visual learners get much more from such a presentation than they would listening to some guy up there speaking and maybe using a blackboard or flipchart.   Which leads us to the intro of this blog, a Ian Juby Video!!!




Now onto more evidence for the Flood we learn from coal...


The origin of the Carboniferous coal measures—part 1: Lessons from history


Early geological researchers into the coal measures of the Carboniferous System sought to explain its origin in terms of geological processes operating over eons of time. Yet the evidence that they were continually uncovering presented more and more difficulties within that framework of thinking. Particularly troublesome were the difficulties relating to the roots of the fern trees, the dominant Carboniferous vegetation. The confusion even extended across national borders with the ideas of the geologists on the Continent conflicting with those in England and America, such as the Silvomarine hypothesis of the German Otto Kuntze. This confusion led the early geologists to devise secondary hypotheses to salvage their paradigm, hypotheses that are today part of the standard explanation for the origin of coal but are still inadequate to resolve the problems. The evidence suggests that geological processes were qualitatively different and of a larger scale than the pioneers of the discipline were prepared to consider. In other words, their paradigm needs updating.

Focusing on the Carboniferous

 

The Carboniferous was the very first complete section of the geological column to have been described. The name ‘Carboniferous’ or ‘coal-bearing’ (from ‘carbo’, the Latin for ‘coal’, plus ‘fero’, the Latin for ‘I have’) was proposed by the English geologists William Conybeare and William Phillips in a paper published in 1822 to designate the coal-bearing strata in north-central England. Conybeare and Phillips’ Carboniferous Order included the Mountain or Carboniferous Limestone at its base, the Millstone Grit (or graywacke) in the middle, and the Coal Measures on top.1


 
Figure 1. Schematic of a Lepidodendron fern tree showing the location of some of the numerous ‘form genera’ associated with it.

As the early geological researchers sought to explain the origin of the coal measures and to understand the fossils contained within the measures, they thought in terms of modern depositional environments. Their framework of thinking involved geological processes that operated slowly over eons of time, yet they uncovered evidence that demanded processes of larger scale than they were prepared to consider. As they encountered more and more anomalies that contradicted their expectations they resorted to secondary hypotheses that are still part of the standard explanation today, but which are still inadequate to account for the evidence. A review of the historical development of geological explanations for the origin of the Carboniferous Coal measures will be given because this will help us understand the issues involved as well as the problems that remain unresolved to this day.

The challenge to explain the fossils

 

Despite there being an incredible biodensity indicated by the abundance of fossils in the Coal Measures, there was a disturbing lack of biodiversity in them. They presented numerous well-preserved examples of fragments of plants, but they emphatically did not contain easily-found samples of the whole of these organisms. So prevalent was this disarticulation and so unfamiliar were some of the flora in them that the early pioneers were forced to place the fragments into ‘form genera’ instead of being able to describe genera of whole plants (figure 1).2 They did this in order to make any progress at all. That is, those interested in the subject produced descriptions and graphics of parts of the plants, waiting for future fossil evidence to illuminate the relationships among them.

One illustrative case of the challenges they faced was that of classifying the bark or periderm of the predominant fern trees (the lycopods) of the Upper Carboniferous. These often occurred in flattened and fragmented sections. Different layers of lycopod bark with different patterns soon became different form genera. In fact, lycopod bark from the same layer of the tree but situated at different levels on it also gave rise to different form genera.

Collection of Daniel A. Woolley

Figure 2. An interpretative challenge: flattened lycopod bark (arrow at top) in close proximity to a Stigmaria (its central core or stele is the cylinder at the bottom center—bottom arrow). This is a typical occurrence in the sandstone layer immediately below the Middle Kittanning Coal of Portersville, Pennsylvania, United States of America.


Figure 3. Schematic of Stigmaria structure, including radiating rootlets.
This was typical for all the parts of lycopods. Hence a single lycopod fern-tree could have rootlets, roots, different layers of bark, various protuberances in the bark, leaves, seeds (i.e. integumented megasporangiums), and spores all in different form genera (figure 2). This was also true for other Carboniferous plants. Indeed, there were even cases of the same part of a Carboniferous plant being placed in different form genera due to its having undergone more than one type of distinct fossilization.

Despite there being an abundance of lycopod fern-tree trunk fossils (as examples, Sigillaria and Lepidodendron), they were found to be disturbingly separated from any roots (the Stigmaria), were often casts (implying a hollow or easily-destroyed interior), and were sometimes found as flattened or decorticated bark. Concerning fragments of Stigmaria (the roots—figure 3) without Sigillaria (the trunks), C.W. Williamson, the leading expert on Stigmaria, stated “How these roots have so often become disturbed and broken up is a question not easily answered.”3
 
Not surprisingly, the separation of the Stigmaria from the fern-tree trunks initially caused a great deal of consternation. The problem was that such excellent preservation combined with disarticulation of the trees pointed to catastrophe rather than slow deposition over millennia by present processes within a swamp, as they had expected from their geological philosophy. Some extent of the intensity of the catastrophe involved can be gleaned when we examine quantitatively the forces necessary to shear the trunks and limbs of these trees.4
 
Especially disconcerting was the fact that the Stigmaria (the roots) were found in different stratigraphic layers than the trunks. At first it was thought that the Stigmaria were a sort of succulent aquatic plant with its rootlets being considered its leaves.5 Yet these leaves were arranged spirally around the main root (like a little brush). The mystery was eventually solved when Binney found a Sigillaria (the trunk) attached to Stigmaria. Then, to produce an amazing confusion out of this newly-found order, in the Cape Benton Coalfield a Stigmaria was found attached to a Lepidodendron (the other type of dominant Lycopod trunk)! So there was the unprecedented situation of having one uniquely distinguishable root fossil for two readily differentiable and dissimilar tree-sized plants. This quandary has gotten worse due to additional fossil finds.6
 
One late nineteenth century researcher summarized the state of wondrous confusion as follows:
“All the geologists who have examined the distribution of the carboniferous measures and the composition of the strata have remarked the predominance of Stigmaria in the clay deposits which constitute the bottom of the coal beds. As the remains of Stigmaria are always [sic] found in that peculiar kind of clay and also in the intervening siliceous beds generally called clay partings, without any fragments of Sigillaria, it has been supposed that the clay materials were merely a kind of soft mould where the Sigillaria began their life by the germination of seeds and there expanded their roots, while their trunks growing up did contribute by their woody matter the essential composition formed above clay beds. This opinion has the appearance of truth indeed. But how to explain the fact that beds of fireclay twenty to thirty feet [6 to 9 meters] in thickness are mostly composed of Stigmaria, or filled from the base to the top with remains of these plants, stems, and leaves, without a fragment of Sigillaria ever found amongst them and without any coal above? Roots cannot live independently of trunks or of aerial plants.”7

Once the extent of Carboniferous coals became known, their phenomenal distribution in area and uniformity in thickness and flora composition became problems of the greatest magnitude.

The abundance of ferns in the coal and shale layers led to the conjecture that the environment in which they flourished was a warm or tropical one. Of course, as noted very early by Charles Darwin (in his well-known Voyage of the Beagle), peat-forming swamps do not exist in the tropics: they are confined to the temperate zones.8 Not only that, but once the extent of Carboniferous coals became known, their phenomenal distribution in area and uniformity in thickness and flora composition became problems of the greatest magnitude. This did not go unnoticed in the non-English-speaking world.

Furthermore there was an unstated but rather natural assumption that the fern foliage that was so similar in appearance to that of modern ferns reflected a plant that was closely related to them, occupying the same ecological niche. It wasn’t until the beginning of the twentieth century that two researchers were able to discern by clever deductions from fossil evidence that these ferns were seed ferns whose seeds may have been well suited to an aquatic environment.9 By that time paradigm paralysis had set in, and the premature hypotheses became standard working assumptions.

Problems with the notion of Paleozoic swamp-generated coal

 

The inferences of the early English and American researchers concerning the coal measures tended to differ from those of some German and French scientists. The English-speaking geologist milieu quickly ran into a multitude of seemingly inexplicable observations, ones that pointed to the untenable or questionable nature of their favored premature explanation of coal having formed in ancient swamps. Some of these observations and the complex explanations of the English-speaking geologists will be dealt with first and then the contrasting work of Continental geologists will be examined.

Figure 4. Spirorbis (marine tube worm) fossils (left) from supposedly swamp deposits from Mazon Creek, Illinois, United States of America.
Living Spirorbis (right). From author’s collection.


A rather direct challenge to the idea of the swamp genesis of coal was the existence of marine fossil tube worms (figure 4), among other marine fossils, attached to the exterior, and sometimes the interior, layers of Sigillaria. These were seemingly identical to contemporary descendants of these animals. Dawson argued that these Spirorbis carbonarius fossils came from “closed lagoons and estuaries” because they could be found on the inside of Sigillaria, supposedly indicating that these Lycopods were dead and hollow when the infestation occurred.10
 
Charles Lyell saw the same evidence as indicating marine invasion of ancient coastal swamps, even coming up with an inadequately small-scale contemporary analogue from an extremity of the Mississippi Delta to buttress his argument.11 The incongruity of this explanation is obvious: continent-sized coal layers were supposedly invaded pervasively by coastal phenomena! These ad hoc arguments or fixes to the problem of maintaining the swamp explanation for the coal measures in the face of conflicting evidence certainly seemed to fail in the matter of scale, if not in other aspects.

The sandstone wedges in the coal measures were another problem. These were expected to be aligned in one direction given the unbelievable uniformity of the coal layers and the expectation of sediment transport analogous to that observed today. However, they were not. Instead the wedge-shaped strata varied in almost every layer. It was as if they had been deposited by numerous rivers flowing from every direction into a closed sea or large lake. Furthermore, all the rivers had unnaturally wide mouths.12
 
To overcome this problem, geologists suggested that widely-spread simultaneous changes in land levels were responsible for both the wedge patterns and the uniformity and purity of the coal layers.13 Edward Martin commented on this: “[T]he astonishing part of it is that the changes in the level of the land must have been taking place simultaneously over these large areas.” He also quipped that “[F]orms of ‘flora’ found in the coal-beds in each country bear so close a resemblance to one another” that the suspicion was aroused that they unnaturally ignored latitude.

Furthermore, considering the thin clay and shale partings in the coal, it was observed that it was surprising that so little sediment found its way into the coal itself. But this was ingeniously explained away by Charles Lyell when he noted that Cypress swamps at the mouth of the Mississippi River filter out the sediment, leaving periodic floods to account for the coal ‘partings’ of sandstone or shale.14 As it was stated at the end of the 19th century by one geologist, concerning the artifice of using large-scale uniform changes in the elevation of the land to explain the multiple layers of coal: “Many a hard geological nut has only been overcome by the application of the principle of changes of level in the surface of the earth, and in this we shall find a sure explanation of the phenomena of the coal-measures.”15 The idea of doing a geodynamical calculation to test the feasibility of such speculations seemed to be anathema to this new breed of geologist.

Still, there were more troubling anomalies that plagued those promoting a swamp origin for the coal measures coal. Coal layers often times were discriminating in what plants they contained. In the Joggins, Nova Scotia area, at least two of the 56 coals were found to be composed almost entirely of leaves.16 Unnatural plant associations were found, such as roots fossilized next to bark, and ferns or Stigmarian rootlets invading calamite stems. The relative absence of fauna in the Carboniferous was accompanied by the presence of ‘land reptiles and land snails’ within the hollow fern-tree trunks there.17 The biodensity of the apparent coal environment was phenomenal, yet the biodiversity was remarkably low.

In addition, coal layers were seen to bifurcate or split cleanly, without a hint of a facies-like transition.18 There were hundreds of coal layers stacked one upon another in the associated repetitive strata units. And always there was the problem of scale, of their immense geographical extent. In an exacting science like physics, the immense scale of the deposit alone would have been termed a ‘catastrophe’, but all these anomalies drew scant attention as hard geological questions were answered by clever arguments, however tortuous those arguments may have been.

The Silvomarine hypothesis

 

The English and American geologists may have reached a metastable consensus regarding their speculations on the swamp origin of coal but that did not prevent a Continental scientist from coming up with an alternative explanation that addressed the difficulties without reliance upon a plethora of contortedly clever arguments. Otto Kuntze was a German botanist whose first love was geology. In his pioneering 1884 book entitled Phytogeogenesis: Die Vorweltliche Entwickelung der Erdkruste und der Pflanzen in Grundzugen (Phytogeogenesis: A basic outline of the prehistoric development of the earth’s crust and plants), later supplemented by his book Geogenetische Beitrage and subsequent publications, Dr Kuntze came up with many disturbing and cogent arguments challenging the peat-forming swamp paradigm for the formation of Upper Carboniferous coal.19 He pointed out further salt water species that were to be found in these coal layers, as well as many fresh water and terrestrial ones.

He sampled and chemically analyzed an incredible geographic distribution of coals and consistently confirmed that the coal measures were always associated with a marine environment when they were Upper Carboniferous (and a continental one when they were Tertiary).20 He confirmed and reported upon what others had observed about the odd distribution of upright but truncated and hollow lycopod logs being stratigraphically separated from their roots. He noted a full-scale experiment that showed the upright placement of logs was likely to be the case for some time after their denudation and aqueous deposition; although he admitted to being baffled by the separation of lycopod trunks from their roots.

He speculated that a coal-forming swimming mass or mat of leaves, bark, etc. was likely to be hydrodynamically separated from the trunks and roots of the lycopod fern trees. He had trouble explaining the mechanism for the burial of the repetitive Pennsylvanian coal layers, especially the intervening limestone layers associated with them, but he finally settled upon a windblown or aeolian origin for these observed sediments. Falling victim to the uniformitarian framework of thinking, which requires a full explanation in terms of present processes, his aeolian-origin hypothesis was a weak link in his otherwise strong case. It tended to present problems of scale—problems of scale, ironically, being one of his primary arguments against delta splay formation of coals.




Figure 5. Otto Kuntze’s reconstruction of an Upper Carboniferous floating forest appeared in both his books on the subject (Otto Kuntze, ref. 19, frontpiece and Geogenetische Beitrage, Gressner and Schramm, Leipzig, p. 72, 1895.)

Kuntze also proposed that the Upper Carboniferous coals were formed from floating forests (figure 5), the likes of which do not exist today (even though he was able to find small-scale floating island analogues in the Rio Paraguay and Mississippi rivers). These forests had as their matrix or core a mass of lycopod fern tree roots that were interlocking with stiff rootlets that he suggested were used to fend off animal predators. They were in a non-acidic marine environment, floating on or just below the surface, depending on the maturity of the lycopod trunk (which would sink with age as he noted in some present-day partial analogues from Scandinavia and Switzerland). Surprisingly, he believed the upward-pointing rootlets on the lycopod stigmarian root were exposed to the air (while believing the downward ones were immersed in a muck).

The coal-forming floating forests, which Kuntze dubbed “silvomarine”, had to have been washed into place, according to him. His arguments were based on the disturbances of the flora forming the base of them as well as their apparently having been laid down on limestones (including a Devonian one in Russia), shales, granites, gneisses, slates, and other silicate stones. Finally, according to Kuntze, the flora and fauna extinctions of this period were due to total habitat destruction of the silvomarine environment.

The coal-forming floating forests, which Kuntze dubbed ‘silvomarine’, had to have been washed into place, according to him.

Kuntze is to be credited with not having followed the English lawyer Lyell’s propensity to apply local or coastal observations to continent-sized coal deposits. However, like Lyell and the English-language geologists, he steered clear of mechanical or physical calculations (despite having applied quantitative chemical analyses in his reasoning). Statistical arguments were absent from his whole argument.

Generally speaking, any consensus about the origin of coal tended to be confined within narrow, almost national boundaries. The English and American scientific communities held in situ (autochthonous) interpretations of the origin of coal while the French and some German scientists held the floated-in view (allochthonous). It would be a long time before experimental evidence would be found to clarify this question.21
 

Conclusion

 

Early geological researchers sought to explain the origin of the coal measures in terms of modern depositional environments that involved geological processes that operated over eons of time (conforming to an historical and cultural deist milieu, which seems to have been a major driving force). Yet the evidence that was uncovered from the Carboniferous coal measures presented more and more difficulties within their framework of thinking.

Problems that presented themselves included the incredible biodensity of fossils in the coal measures coupled with a lack of biodiversity; the disarticulation of the fossils coupled with their excellent preservation; the separation of different parts of the same object, such as roots and trunks, into different stratigraphic layers. Other anomalies included the presence of marine fossils in supposedly terrestrial deposits, the immense lateral geographical extent of the coal seams, the high purity of the coal seams with minimal contamination from mud and sand, and the inability to find an analogous modern environment.

As the early geologists uncovered this disturbing array of anomalies that contradicted their expectations, they resorted to secondary hypotheses. It led to conflicts between the English-speaking geologists (of England and America) and the geologists on the Continent. While the hypotheses developed have today become part of the standard explanation for the origin of coal measure, they are still inadequate to account for the evidence and have in no way been resolved over time. Quite the contrary: the more the problem is studied (and despite a large quantity of solid work done to elucidate the geochemistry of the situation) the greater the apparent discrepancies seem.

This leads to the conclusion that the problem is with the interpretive paradigm. The predicament geologists have gotten themselves into over this origin question arises from their propensity to put forth qualitative and premature hypotheses. Lack of quantitative calculations, statistical tests, and experimentation is also a major factor. We are now at the place where we need to consider geological processes that are qualitatively different and of a larger scale than the pioneers of the discipline were prepared to consider. In other words, the paradigm needs updating.

Acknowledgement

 

This article has been kindly reviewed by Barry Lee Woolley. Joshua A. Woolley provided the reference information necessary for the cantilevered-beam-analogue-of-a-lycopod-trunk calculation.

Related articles

Further reading

References

  1. Later, in the United States, geologist Alexander Winchell proposed the name “Mississippian” in 1869 for the mainly limestone Lower Carboniferous strata exposed along the upper Mississippi River drainage region, and after that, in 1891, Henry S. Williams suggested “Pennsylvanian” for the coal-bed containing Upper Carboniferous. These terms were subsequently used by American geologists and paleontologists in place of the one Carboniferous System used in Europe. Agreed-upon adjustments in stratigraphic boundaries have brought the Early Carboniferous and the Upper or Later Carboniferous into alignment with the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian, respectively. Return to text.
  2. Often times a major part of the plant which has become a form genera (viz. Lepidodendron) has come to designate the whole plant. Return to text.
  3. Williamson, C.W., A monograph on the morphology and histology of Stigmaria ficoides, London Palaeontographical Society, p. 12, 1887. Return to text.
  4. If a lycopod be modeled as a cantilevered 30-meter-long circular wood cylinder, it will fail in 130 km/hr [80 miles per hour] winds. The failure will not be in bending induced compression, but in the associated shear. The failure will be at its full circular base. This may be a hint as to why Stigmaria are usually separated from their fern tree trunks. There are a variety of empirical formulas that give the force of wind on a vertical cylinder, all of them giving nearly identical answers. One of the simplest is F = APCd, where F is the force in pounds per square foot, A is the projected area of the item in square feet, P is the wind pressure in pounds per square foot given by P = 0.00256 V2, where V is the horizontal ideal sustained wind speed given in miles per hour, and Cd is 1.2 for a long cylinder (though more likely to be 1.0 for mature lycopods). If P and Cd were to be changed to P = 0.004 V2 and Cd = 0.67 (again for a cylinder), this would take into account a 30% gust factor. (Though this empirical formula gives smaller values than the previous one, this seeming physical contradiction goes away when refined definitions of the different wind speeds are taken into account.)
    A more involved formula explicitly taking into account the gust factor and an ‘exposure coefficient’ could be given, but the simplest (top) formula is sufficient for the purposes of this paper. (English units have been used, corresponding to civil engineering practice in the United States.) The lycopod or Sigillaria has been modeled as a 2.0-meter diameter, 30-meter-high right circular cylindrical column attached to its root system.
    The formulas used for stress induced by bending and shear stress (as well as for maximum deflection) are found in: Timoshenko, S. and Young, D.H., Elements of Strength of Materials, 4th ed., D. Van Nostrand, New York, pp. 212, 107, 128, January 1962. The material parameters for wood were taken from Table A.2 on page 343 of the same work: the average of the listed properties for the various woods found in the table was chosen as representative. The indentations on all three layers of lycopod bark will decrease the bending and increase the resistance to failure by shear stress; this has not been taken into account in the calculations. Return to text.
  5. For French botanist and geologist Adolphe-Theodore Brongniart proposing Sigillarias and Lepidodendrons were aquatic see More Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 2, Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York, 1972 after the original in 1903, Letters 552, 553, and 555 to J.D. Hooker of May 1846; 2 June 1847; and 22 May 1860, respectively. Binney took up this same argument in Binney, E.W., The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Phil. Mag., vol. 24, p. 173, 1844; and Binney, E.W., On the Origin of Coal, Mem. Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, volume 8, pp. 148–193, 1848. Return to text.
  6. Currently Stigmaria is considered the root system of the Lepidodendraceae (Lepidodendron, Lepidophloios, Diaphorodendron and Paralycopodites) and Sigillariaceae (Sigillaria). It is considered by some as a shoot modified for rooting. Return to text.
  7. Lesquereux, L., Description of the Coal Flora of the Carboniferous Formation in Pennsylvania and Throughout the United States, vol. 1, Board of Commissioners for the Second Geological Survey, Harrisburg, PA, pp. 510–513, 1880. Return to text.
  8. Bouska, V., Geochemistry of Coal, Elsevier Scientific Publishing, New York, p. 25, 1981 states “Coal deposits corresponding to present day highmoor bogs have not yet been found. Highmoor bogs with their growth of Sphagnum, moss, various grasses and heath occur in cool northern and mountainous regions. They are known from western Wales and northern and central England.” He asserts that there is no real equivalent of a modern tropical peat-to-coal sequence anywhere in the world today. Return to text.
  9. Oliver, F.W. and Scott, D.H., On the structure of the Paleozoic seed Lagenostoma lomaxi, with a statement of the evidence upon which it is referred to Lyginodendron; in: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 197B:193–247, 1904. Return to text.
  10. Dawson, J.W., Acadian Geology, 2nd ed., Macmillan and Company, London, pp. 205–206, 1868. The lycopod periderm (bark-like tissue) was waterproof and decay resistant. This would have been of great advantage in a multilayer silvomarine environment. Return to text.
  11. Lyell, C., The Student’s Elements of Geology, Harper, New York, 1871. Return to text.
  12. Martin, E.A., The Story of a Piece of Coal: What It Is, Whence It Comes, and Whither It Goes, G. Newnes, London, p. 20, 1896: “each time the land was raised above the sea and the forest again grew, the contour of the land was very similar.” Concerning coal-measure sandstone wedges all pointing in one direction: “this is just what we do not find, for instead of it, the direction of the wedge-shaped strata varies in almost every layer … inference is that it was well within the sphere of influence of numerous streams and rivers, which flowed from every direction. … sandstone was originally formed in a closed sea or large lake, into which numerous rivers flowing from every direction poured their contents.” Return to text.
  13. Martin, ref. 12, p. 21. Return to text.
  14. Martin, ref. 12, p. 22. Return to text.
  15. Martin, ref. 12, p. 19. Return to text.
  16. Dawson, J.W., Regarding the drifted trunk deposits, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London 10:13–14, 1854. Return to text.
  17. Three of the thirty-five (or 8.6%) of the layers at the Joggins site had these terrestrial fossils present. Ferguson, L., The Fossil Cliffs of Joggins, Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia, p. 332, 1988. Return to text.
  18. The concept of facies, that is, the idea that two dissimilar parts of one lateral stratum were deposited next to each other as a result of natural, observable processes, was developed by Amanz Gressly (1814–1865). The author has seen, in the Rhode Island Formation at the Masslite Quarry in Plainsville, MA, the abrupt termination of Carboniferous and coal layers. This includes what appears to have been the diapiric (pushed up) puncturing of the layer above it by a ripped but intact shaley coal layer. (E.g. the layer quarried between December of 2005 and March of 2006.) Researcher Austin, S.A., Depositional Environment of the Kentucky Number Twelve Coal Bed (Middle Pennsylvanian) of Western Kentucky, with Special Reference to the Origin of Coal Lithotypes, Ph.D. thesis, Pennsylvania State University, PA, 1979 commented on the parting of coal layers in Kentucky, United States of America. Return to text.
  19. Kuntze, O., Phytogeogenesis: Die Vorweltliche Entwickelung der Erdkruste und der Pflanzen in Grundzugen, P. Frohberg, Leipzig, Germany, 1884. Return to text.
  20. The author’s examination of the organic remains and mineral content of siderite nodules in shale below the Middle Kittanning Coal in western Pennsylvania fixed the environment at euxenic marine (Eh of –0.2 volts and pH of 8.1).
    These conclusions (–0.2 volts for Eh and 8.1 for pH) were based on the examination of the phase diagrams for the following minerals in a siderite concretion containing a Calamites section, a crinoidal columnal, and a shell fossil: siderite, pyrite, chalchopyrite, galena, covellite and cerrussite. Krauskopf, K.B., Introduction to Geochemistry, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979, and Garrels R.M. and Christ, C.L., Solutions, Minerals, and Equilibria, Harper and Row, New York, 1965. Considerations of the likely variance to be seen in them by changes in molality and chemical species present were taken into account. The diagrams for Cu-Fe-S-O-H at 25 °C and one atmosphere total pressure with dissolved sulfur being anywhere from 0.0001 to 0.1 molality have several extremely narrow, adjacent stability regions for the existence of pyrite, marcasite, covellite and chalcopyrite. As if to emphasize the fact that all geochemical reactions are local, concretions within a meter of each other horizontally (i.e. at the identical stratigraphic level) would randomly have galena, pyrite, and chalcopyrite at their core at the Portersville, PA fossil site, possibly related to the original organisms that decayed or the bacteria allegedly responsible for this taphonomy. Return to text.
  21. In studying a washed in peat deposit in southern Florida, a researcher reported in 1970 that a thin section of it resembled thin sections of Carboniferous coals rather than the thin sections of in situ deposits he studied. “A peculiar enigma which developed from study of the allochthonous peat was that vertical microtome sections of this material looked more like thin sections of Carboniferous coal than any of the autochthonous samples studied.” Cohen, A.D., An allochthonous peat deposit from Southern Florida, Geological Society of America Bulletin 81:2477–2482, 1970. Return to text.

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

The horrid logical twists used by Darwinists to avoid the obvious solution to the coal problem would be humorous if they did not cause widespread ignorance and misunderstanding.   Besides the problems addressed in the above article, the common polystrates found in coal that are inexplicable in a uniformitarian scenario are mostly ignored by Darwinists because they have no ready answers for them.   While beds of limestone or shale or other sedimentary rocks between layers of coal would be a likely result of a world-wide flood, they certainly are not explained by uncause massive changes in rivers and the shifts in terrain Darwinists refer to while actually failing to explain the problems at all.    Giant floating vegetation mats in a world-wide flood and trees becoming soaked with mineral-rich floodwaters and thus fossilizing easily while being stripped of leaves and rootlets is exactly what a Noahic Flood would accomplish, as we could see when Mt. St. Helens produced trees that were on the way to becoming exactly what is seen in fossils today.

The pretense of Darwinism to be scientific and honest is apparent to those who have been there and done that.  The world is gaining more and more former Darwinists who have seen the evidence falsify Darwinism and support Creation or at least Intelligent Design (for those who are unclear on the identify of the Designer).   But normal folks who actually study the cell and are not religious zealots for Darwinism realize that the cell, organisms and in fact the Universe must be designed.

32 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

It's a fascinating phenomenon, how creationists spend megabytes arguing that all scientists are idiots who can't see the facts right in front of their faces ... unless the scientists are saying something that the creationists want to hear. And if the scientists find new evidence and change their views as a result, the creationists immediately insist that the new finding is a mistake - or worse, a deliberate lie - and the old interpretation is still the right one.

Case in point: the use of "Spirorbis" fossils, in this article and others, to suggest a marine origin for coal measures.

Six years ago, Paul Taylor and Oleg Vinn re-studied a variety of fossil spirorbiforms, and came to the conclusion that many of them, including all those older than the Cretaceous, aren't Spirorbis at all. They differ from Spirorbis in numerous subtle but important ways - ways not visible to nineteenth-century science. Taylor and Vinn reassigned these fossils to the microconchids, a group whose exact taxonomic placement is unknown, but which apparently inhabited freshwater and brackish habitats as well as marine ones. At which point this particular bit of evidence for a marine origin of coal goes up in smoke.

Countdown to Radar's furious, desperate declaration that these scientists are idiots in 5..4..3..

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Countdown to Radar's furious, desperate declaration that these scientists are idiots in 5..4..3.."

More likely he'll simply call you a liar and/or unable to accept the "evidence" because it doesn't conform to your worldview.

radar said...

Most dedicated Darwinist scientists are not idiots at all. It requires a good mind to earn a Ph.D (although a few honorary ones are passed out to goofballs). It is typical that you can find one who will give a different name to the same kind of animal depending upon where the fossil is found. This kind of bait and switch tactic will give Darwinists a few more years to stall while everyone waits for some kind of "proof" of evolution.

To anyone but a zealot or a ve-e-e-e-e-e-ery low-wattage brain, organisms are designed. The argument from incredulity cannot be stretched this far now. In fact normal people should be incredulous that such a so-called fallacy is your best argument against design. Every single day it seems we learn more about the complexity of higher organisms, the variety of all kinds of organisms, the presence of information with no source, the inexplicable navigational abilities and symbiosis that spans the world of organisms...

What I do say is that Darwinism only sounds reasonable to those who do not know much about the rocks, the cell, DNA, life or information. Joe Average going about his busy life will accept it with not a moment of hesitation. After all, it doesn't feed the bulldog. But real scientists? No excuses.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"It is typical that you can find one who will give a different name to the same kind of animal depending upon where the fossil is found."

Perhaps you chose not to read the article that Jon Woolf linked to above, because you would easily be able to read there that they didn't just give a "different name to the same kind of animal depending upon where the fossil is found".

Your willful ignorance and/or intellectual laziness is nothing to be proud of. Or is it just plain dishonesty - you did read the article and chose to misrepresent it? If so, please tell us more about this supposed moral superiority of Christianity. It's almost as if that Ninth Commandment just doesn't exist, isn't it?

"To anyone but a zealot or a ve-e-e-e-e-e-ery low-wattage brain, organisms are designed." --> "To a zealot or a ve-e-e-e-e-e-ery low-wattage brain, organisms are designed." Fixed it for you.

"In fact normal people should be incredulous that such a so-called fallacy is your best argument against design."

It's not the best argument at all, just an observation that easily discounts what appears to be one of creationists' favored argument for design. "It looks complex? Then it must be designed." Simple argument from incredulity, and it holds no weight at all.

The piles of evidence that establish evolution as having occurred (and which YEC simply can't address) are a pretty good argument against design. No need to indulge in logical fallacies.

"Every single day it seems we learn more about the complexity of higher organisms, the variety of all kinds of organisms, the presence of information with no source, the inexplicable navigational abilities and symbiosis that spans the world of organisms..."

And there you go again, another argument from incredulity.

"Darwinism only sounds reasonable to those who do not know much about the rocks, the cell, DNA, life or information."

It also sounds reasonable to people who do know plenty about that but are not mired in a worldview that requires them to have pre-conceived notions about particular outcomes.

radar said...

I would like to thank all you commenters for failing to present arguments supporting evolution and instead falling back to your typical tactics:

1. Attack me (and this supports your viewpoint how)?

2. Deny the evidence presented, even with all the citations and references to varied sources.

3. Use a fallacy that you have made into a fallacy, the argument from incredulity. It isn't that organisms appear to be designed, but rather there is no competing hypothesis that is coherent and based on evidence. Someone familiar with the immense complexity of the cell, the wonderful DNA/Cell system of reproduction, the ATP system, the presence of meta-information and the quality control mechanisms found within the cell and obviously in place long before mankind ever considered such a process? I say that I am incredulous at those who understand these things and still pretends they could have formed themselves. Folly!

Jon's reference to a couple of guys who decided the two organisms were not quite the same? Let's see them examine a few dogs and see what they say. It is the typical and very common Darwinist practice of finding a modern animal or plant in the "wrong" place and renaming it.

You can always find someone to make a declaration that fits your need, especially for money. William De Peso, for instance, who was hired to go down to Acambaro site and declare the figurines a fraud. Experts from the Mexican museum, Earl Stanley Gardner, an American University and others all agreed that the figurines were genuine. Yet Darwinists still depend upon De Peso, whose testimony was fraudulent and was proved to be so.

Gardner, an American lawyer and both a student of detective work and a writer of some famed detective novels, investigated the Acambaro figurines and took witness statements and did tests. Later on, as more fossils were found and we advanced our knowledge of, for instance, the Iguanadon, came this quote:

"There was an absolutely astonishing breathless moment as one object was unwrapped and there before us a virtually perfect representation of an Iguanodon. This was one of the first dinosaur skeletons discovered. The early concept of it's appearance was almost comical in the mid 1800's. By the turn of the century it had improved considerably but fell far short of what we now know. The figurine exhibits knowledge we have gained only in the last few years. No hoaxer could have made this model in the 1940's." - Dr Dennis Swift Ph.D

radar said...

Anyone with the time and effort can check out the Julsrud account of finding and verifying the figurines, the obvious fraud of De Peso, the further investigation of Gardner and his findings, the dating done by an American University lab that dated the figurines as thousands of year old (retracted when they realized to their horror that they had been analyzing dinosaur figurines and so they tried to back and fill).

These same tactics were applied to the Mary S. T Rex with flesh remains still intact. Studying the fossil found that collagen, blood remains and other remains were still present, which would be possible if the fossil was thousands or hundreds of years old, but not millions. Darwinists have done backflips attempting to deny this and yet the evidence was presented and remains. Since that time other digs have found tissue instead of bone on other fossils. Asian and even some European paleontologists are not so likely to cover up these findings.

Once or twice in the past I have presented charts with a few out of sequence fossils found in the "wrong" layers and the habit of Darwinists to call the same kind of organism a different name when found in a different rock layer. However, when we find living examples of such creatures aka Lazarus Taxa then they marvel at the find and then try to ignore it.
The problem is that so many so-called ancestors of modern organisms that supposedly are extinct by the record of the rocks are found alive and well that it calls into question the entire Darwinist tale.

But that is okay, because the original hypothesis of Darwin has been entirely cast aside anyway. There is no tree of evolution. There is no uniformitarian worth his salt left. The geological column is as mythical as the Haeckel Embryo chart. Darwinists have admitted that various life forms, had they evolved, would have come from differing starting points so we find that the tree once used to explain life has become a big field of shrubs and grasses. Credibility has been stretched farther than the US credit limit.

I know these things, the Darwinist commenters may or may not know them but if they do they ignore them. They key to making a scam work is to keep to the story no matter what for as long as you can get away with it. Deny deny deny and keep taking the money for as long as possible. What do they accomplish by this behavior?

More than one friend has suggested that trolls seek to use up your time. But I do not spend a lot of time answering actually. Just in case someone who really wants to know the truth wanders down into the comments I want him or her to realize that the well-reasoned and attributed arguments in the blog trump the increasingly predictable comments thread.

Hundreds read this blog every day and very few ever go to the comments. Eventually I may answer fewer of them. There are ways I could measure this should I wish to delve deeply into the monitoring tools. But then that would take time and I do not see the need.

Jon Woolf said...

"But that is okay, because the original hypothesis of Darwin has been entirely cast aside anyway. There is no tree of evolution. There is no uniformitarian worth his salt left. The geological column is as mythical as the Haeckel Embryo chart. Darwinists have admitted that various life forms, had they evolved, would have come from differing starting points so we find that the tree once used to explain life has become a big field of shrubs and grasses. Credibility has been stretched farther than the US credit limit. "

Wow.

After all the comments, all the evidence, all the links posted by commenters over the last several years, you can still say something like that?

The ability of the fanatic to ignore reality ... it is a frightening thing.

radar said...

Go to the mirror, Jon, and say that to yourself a few times. It is I who has presented vast amounts of information and you have only come back with your preloaded lists and very little else. Often I get talk origins stuff from commenters, which is like offering confederate money at the checkout counter.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"It is I who has presented vast amounts of information and you have only come back with your preloaded lists and very little else."

You have presented logical fallacies, willful misunderstanding, strawman arguments and personal attacks.

You're still short any evidence for your claim that the remains of modern, non-extinct animals can be found in the bottom-most layers - a claim so wrong-headed that (even though a global flood scenario would predict such finds) no YEC has ever thought to make it, apart from you. Go ask John Sarfati if you don't believe us. Ask him if remains of modern animals - or even humans - can be found in the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian layers.

You still can't identify any so-called "calibration" that prevents a young Earth being falsified by C-14 dating.

There's a reason Jon keeps rubbing those questions in your face - because you can't answer them, and never will be able to.

(If you really think you've answered them, one of them was recently taken apart in your comments section, and the same can be done with the others.)

radar said...

Whatsit, I do not enjoy indulging in personal attacks in this blog, unlike you and your cohorts. but your last comment reveals that you are hopelessly misled and entirely brainwashed with most likely a highly inflated viewpoint of your so-called "answers" and your fellow Darwinists. Darwinism is the most insidious, unscientific religious assault on science imaginable, wasting billions of dollars of futility attempting to hear from space aliens and trying every possible way to find a starting point for the Universe and life and intellect and frankly everything with no cause at all.

Many centuries ago there was a church-state ruling paradigm that conspired to hold the serfs down to their "class" and retain knowledge and wisdom for only the ruling class and clergy. The Renaissance was a revolt amongst the ruling class within said class, but it was the Reformation that brought literacy to the common man and freed science from the grasp of the royals and crooked clergy.

It was genuine men of God like Martin Luther and Roger Bacon who brought forth freedom and scientific investigation rather than axiomatic proclamations being allowed to rule the world of science. Now Darwinists have taken a large portion of science back to the days of Copernicus. Today's Tycho Brahe might well be Russell Humphreys. Today's Gregor Mendel is John Sanford. True scientific research does not impose the religion of naturalism upon itself, nor depend on fairy tales that begin with *poof*!

radar said...

To be clear? Not one of you has an answer for the beginning of the Universe, for life, for information, for intellect, for design, for anything at all. You are preaching a religion in the guise of science. All these fingers you point towards me? You have three fingers pointing back at you for every one pointed at me and your thumb points towards Heaven, where your answers lie. You who reject God as Creator and Savior have made a joke of origins science and are in danger of tearing a rotator cuff in the process of patting yourselves on the back.

I am not a scientist. I am simply a man who loves learning and truth. How sad that the world has a great shortage of critical thinkers and a warped view of history. I suspect an Iguanadon could walk up and tap you on the shoulder and you would claim that it was an animatronic hoax invented by a creationist even as it began to consume you!

But mankind killed off the Iguanadons and, if there are any dinosaurs left, they are in remote areas of African and South American rain forests where the natives have named them but thus far they remain uncaptured. I would not be surprised, though, if some day a brave explorer actually traps a Mokele-mbembe and brings it forth triumphantly like a real life King Kong. What will all you Darwinists say then? That birds evolved back into dinosaurs? Oh boy, I just can't wait!

radar said...

Sorry, Jon, when pre-existing genetic material is selected to fit a new environment that simply illustrates the great design features of the original kinds. Your so-called evolution is what is actually called speciation. You will have to show new information within the genome to find evidence of evolution and, since you would be the first ever, your Nobel awaits you. Also you could collect ten grand from Joe M. as well? Let me know how that goes?

Jon Woolf said...

For those who might be wondering about Radar's last comment, above, it's in response to a prior comment I posted and Blogger promptly ate. herewith a repost, and you can see that Radar's feeble attempt at answering it, as usual, entirely inadequate, not to mention inept:

"It is I who has presented vast amounts of information and you have only come back with your preloaded lists and very little else."

On the off chance there's someone reading this who actually believes that, let them consider the following: In a comment on another post ... well, actually several comments on several previous posts, I've mentioned the lizards of Pod Mrcaru. These lizards are a population of Italian wall-lizard (Podarcis sicula) which all descend from a founder population of ten individuals, 5 male and 5 female, which were transplanted from nearby Pod Kopiste in 1971. Pod Kopiste is an arid island with little vegetation and plentiful aerial predators. Pod Mrcaru has a great deal more vegetation and fewer predators. In the 41 years since the ten lizards were transplanted, their descendants have undergone some striking changes, including:

* a shift in diet from all insects to part insects and part plant material
* enlarged heads, jaws, and jaw muscles to deal with the different diet
* cecal valves in the gut to aid in digesting plant matter
* shorter hind limbs, resulting in slower movement rates
* slower anti-predator reactions
* presence of symbiotic nematodes in the gut, which also aid in digesting plant matter

No other population of P. sicula has these features. The population of Podarcis melisellensis (Dalmatian wall-lizard) that inhabited Pod Mrcaru prior to the introduction of P. sicula was entirely insectivorous, and didn't have any of these features either. But the current population of Pod Mrcaru lizards does have them.

Note also that this evolution has been so rapid that if you look at mitochondrial DNA, the lizards of Pod Mrcaru are identical to their ancestors/relatives left back on Pod Kopiste. Only if you look at nuclear DNA - or, of course, at the lizards' phenotypes - do you see these changes.

That, neighbors, is evidence for evolution.

Further reading:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.long

http://www.scitechexplained.com/2010/02/evidence-for-evolution-lizards-from-pod-mrcaru/

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, and just in passing:

"I suspect an Iguanadon could walk up and tap you on the shoulder and you would claim that it was an animatronic hoax invented by a creationist even as it began to consume you!"

1) It's IguanOdon

2) like all known ornithischians, Iguanodon was herbivorous.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Sorry, Jon, when pre-existing genetic material is selected to fit a new environment that simply illustrates the great design features of the original kinds."

So where is the scientific evidence that this was pre-existing genetic material?

This is one of many ways in which creationists could test their hypothesis.

And yet they don't. They can't.

Because they can't get the results they want.

Anonymous whatsit said...

There is so much wrong with your statements that it’s hard to know where to begin. I’ll just run down the list:

“Whatsit, I do not enjoy indulging in personal attacks in this blog, unlike you and your cohorts.”

So if you don’t enjoy it, why do it? Why do you call us liars instead of openly and honestly addressing our questions and arguments?

“but your last comment reveals that you are hopelessly misled and entirely brainwashed with most likely a highly inflated viewpoint of your so-called "answers" and your fellow Darwinists.”

Anyone looking at my last comment (the one immediately preceding yours) makes no reference to “my” answers or those of my “fellow Darwinists”. It points out that you haven’t provided the answers you claim you have.

And of course, the fact that even right now you choose not to answer them or point us to the answer speaks volumes.

You don’t have the answers.

Anonymous whatsit said...

“Darwinism is the most insidious, unscientific religious assault on science imaginable, wasting billions of dollars of futility attempting to hear from space aliens”

What this tells me is that you have absolutely no idea what SETI’s actual budget is and that you’re happy enough to make up nonsensical figures out of thin air.

“and trying every possible way to find a starting point for the Universe and life and intellect and frankly everything with no cause at all.”

A cause for everything is required no more than a cause for God is required. Some things are simply beyond our understanding... at this point and perhaps for as long as humans exist.

Anonymous whatsit said...

“Now Darwinists have taken a large portion of science back to the days of Copernicus. Today's Tycho Brahe might well be Russell Humphreys. Today's Gregor Mendel is John Sanford. True scientific research does not impose the religion of naturalism upon itself, nor depend on fairy tales that begin with *poof*!”

Exactly. The fairy tale that begins with *poof* can be found in Genesis, the religion of naturalism (presumably you mean philosophical naturalism) does not need to be imposed on science, and instead everyone (of all faiths) has to play on the common foundation of methodological naturalism.

Maybe you don’t realize how transparent it is to others that you’re whining about the referee just because actual research isn’t giving you the results you want.

Anonymous whatsit said...

How do you think C-14 data can be “calibrated” to give you the results you want and still line up with observable data? There is no way, you’ve never been able to link it, and so as it stands this is one way in which YEC is clearly falsified.

Why can’t anyone find modern, non-extinct animals (including man) in the bottom-most layers of the fossil record?

And more surprisingly – why did you claim that such evidence already exists when it’s clear that there is no such evidence and not even YECs believe it exists? And why can’t you admit even now that your claim was bogus?

Anonymous whatsit said...

“To be clear? Not one of you has an answer for the beginning of the Universe, for life, for information, for intellect, for design, for anything at all. You are preaching a religion in the guise of science.“

Do you mean a scientific answer? Mainstream science has some of the answers you claim that it doesn’t and is making good progress on others. Information, intellect, “design” were checked off quite a while ago, abiogenesis by natural means is more plausible than your blinkered worldview allows you to think.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that you don't have the answers either - answers of the same quality, with the same explanatory power. Saying that some unprovable hypothetical being simply fills in all the gaps in our knowledge and fills them with undefined magic of some kind has exactly ZERO explanatory power. It tells us nothing, provides us with no avenues for research. It's a dead end.

Anonymous whatsit said...

“I am not a scientist. I am simply a man who loves learning and truth.”

Then why oh why do you have such a problem with truth of all things? Radar, are you willing to walk back your claim that there is evidence of the remains of modern animals in the bottom-most layers, or are you going to keep squirming and evading this?

Anonymous whatsit said...

“But mankind killed off the Iguanadons”

You base this claim on what exactly?

“and, if there are any dinosaurs left, they are in remote areas of African and South American rain forests where the natives have named them but thus far they remain uncaptured.”

Again, based on what?

“What will all you Darwinists say then?”

We'd be quite surprised. Note, though, that this hasn’t happened yet and that it is extremely unlikely to happen – which is confirmed by the continuing non-happening of said event.

Anonymous whatsit said...

“That birds evolved back into dinosaurs? Oh boy, I just can't wait!”

You seem to have misunderstood yet another aspect of evolution. Just because descendant species B evolved from ancestor species A doesn't mean that ancestor species A died out. Both species can continue to live side by side. (Check out allopatric speciation for example.)

Anonymous whatsit said...

“Sorry, Jon, when pre-existing genetic material is selected to fit a new environment that simply illustrates the great design features of the original kinds.”

Where is the scientific evidence for this claim?

“Your so-called evolution is what is actually called speciation.”

Speciation = origin of new species. Hm. Sorry, doesn’t appear compatible with creationism.

“You will have to show new information within the genome to find evidence of evolution and, since you would be the first ever, your Nobel awaits you.”

I don't think they hand out Nobel prizes for this kind of thing, but the nylon-eating bacteria already serve as a good example. Or can you show that the nylon-eating characteristic was already included in the ancestor species but was somehow not expressed.

“Also you could collect ten grand from Joe M. as well? Let me know how that goes?”

Ah, always a pleasure to link to that master of inanity: radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2010/07/batting-cleanup-dr-joseph-mastropaolo.html

radar said...

I am well aware that the SETI budget is millions not billions. I was referring to all the resources dedicated to trying to prop up the dead corpse of Darwinism.

I do not need to prove anything. In fact, science is primarily about removing or disproving what cannot be in order to leave what could be and, until proven otherwise, will be considered to be the answer.

Darwinism has not followed this scientific path. Science proved beyond all reasonable doubt that life only comes from life and that nothing is either being created or destroyed AND that the entire Universe is going from energy to entropy. These accepted facts have never been disproved and they prohibit Darwinism from being possible.

Darwinism is a metaphysical thing, a religion, and it was foisted upon the world of science by such "evangelists" as Thomas Huxley and Earnst Haeckel and Richard Dawkins. It has never passed muster as a scientific theory. It has had to change continually with more and more corollaries to try to keep up with all the actual evidence which disputes it at the core.

The Universe and the Solar System and scientific laws, matter, time, intellect, information and life were all designed. Your religion belongs in some kind of church of naturalism and the sooner it removes itself from science the better!

radar said...

"Then why oh why do you have such a problem with truth of all things? Radar, are you willing to walk back your claim that there is evidence of the remains of modern animals in the bottom-most layers, or are you going to keep squirming and evading this?"

I proved that modern animals are found in ancient rocks. More than one post. The only evading happening is your brain evading the evidence. Happy trails!

radar said...

Funny how that "master of inanity" has never been challenged when he offers cash money free to any Darwinist who will go into court against him and let a judge rule on the evidence presented? If he is so inane then why don't you go get that free and easy money?

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, Mastro's challenge is a scam. It completely distorts and misstates evolutionary theory, and it's carefully phrased in such a way that he could always avoid paying off. And given that the man himself is a thoroughly vile example of humanity, as his own comments in the above-linked post prove, I'm surprised you would even consider giving him any publicity on your blog.

radar said...

Mastro's challenge is to bring evidence into a US court of law and present it before a judge. We call it the US Justice System. No Darwinist will go before a judge in civil court with money on the line because he knows he has no evidence at all that will be acceptable in court. OJ got away with fooling the criminal courts system but the families of the victims nabbed him in civil court. So right now Darwinism is like OJ Simpson. Get him into civil court and he will be exposed!

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I proved that modern animals are found in ancient rocks."

Why oh why do you have such a problem with the truth?

1. Your claim was not that modern animals are found in any old "ancient rocks", but that they are found "in the bottom-most layers".

Do you deny that?

The fact is that no modern animals of any kind have ever been found in those bottom-most layers, not once. This is a falsification of YEC.

Do you still stand by your claim that the remains of modern, non-extinct animals are found "in the bottom-most layers"?

If so, can you point us to a SINGLE piece of evidence to back that up?

2. You did not even prove that modern animals are found in ancient rocks. You showed that some organisms in the more recent "ancient rocks" bear some similarity to modern organisms, which as it stands is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution.

When it got to examples that would actually be more perplexing to modern science, e.g. evidence of modern parrots, the article you linked to - surprise! - claimed some kind of (entirely baseless) conspiracy theory.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Funny how that "master of inanity" has never been challenged when he offers cash money free to any Darwinist who will go into court against him and let a judge rule on the evidence presented? If he is so inane then why don't you go get that free and easy money?"

"Cash money free"? "Free and easy money"? You're joking, right?

Look at the way this loon shoots back with nonsense responses when asked simple, straightforward questions like, say, "what is the scientific evidence for devolution?" He shoots back with: "Are you ignorant, a mercenary, or hallucinating?"

I'd estimate that engaging in a court case with such a nitwit would represent a near-infinite time suckage that would mean a financial loss even if the man could eventually present some straightforward responses to straightforward questions and be forced to concede... simply due to the time involved. I can think of easier, faster and less frustrating ways to make 10 grand than spending months and months in court with dunderhead Mastropaolo.

Besides, creationism was fairly recently tested in the courts that you so highly praised, and it was found wanting as a scientific theory.

sangabizconn said...

Polymaid tube profile forming plant, Test Rigs, Leak testing SPM, Conveyorised industrial oven, Conveyors, Cut to length SPMs, Assembly Setups