Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[konradv]

All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together.

I also said they weren't found together. The question is , "Why not?" Pleasde try and stick to one line of reasoning. It sounds like you're trying to make MY point!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together.

I also said they weren't found together. The question is , "Why not?" Pleasde try and stick to one line of reasoning. It sounds like you're trying to make MY point!!!

What is your point ?

 

[rdean]

And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.

The strata in the grand canyon disagrees with your views as well.

Oh this is where you will turn to plate tectonics as an explanation.

I don't say plate tectonics did not happen, i just think it happened during the global flood.

Why should we answer your questions, if you won't answer ours and answer your own for us? I'll speak for myself, please. You don't even have to use plate tectonics to explain why whales appear in Michigan, the central US used to be an inland sea. That still doesn't address why you don't find trilobites and dolphins in the same strata. Care to man-up and tackle that question, instead of tap-dancing around it?

I have no idea.

I would say a global flood that may have caused plate tectonics was a very catastrophic ordeal. No telling what evidence it would have produced roughly 5,200 years ago.

What is your view on polystrate trees ?

Interesting video here on Grand Canyon evidence.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNlb3lFhFM&feature=related[/ame]

I couldn't stand to watch it anymore. It was just too dumb. Sorry.

One thing we know about floods is they are messy. The thing about the Grand Canyon is the layers are very neatly laid down with simple fossils at the bottom and the more complex at the top as you move up through the layers. Depending on the layer, we can tell when it was under water and when it was dry. Magic is fun to read about, but not to believe.

The Geology of the Grand Canyon

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?

How about that list of questions I continually repeated at the end of every one of my posts in the first pages of this thread which you had to avoid every single time? Why don't you start by addressing those findings, and then moving on to every other question myself or GTH has put forth and you have pretended doesn't exist. Smoke and mirrors indeed.

Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.

There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.

OK so you're schizophrenic. This actually explains a lot. We have very good drugs you can take to stop these fallen angels so you don't hear the voices or see their actions. The scientific method can help exorcise your demons.

 

[rdean]

Sorry but those dates are being established by guys that believe every fossil is older then it actually is. You could not detect the sarcasm ? The dating methods used has been shown to be unreliable.

This is actually not true. Things like this are said about people who are dumb enough to believe that we use carbon for dating. We don't. It IS an unreliable dating source thus it's not used. That doesn't stop ignorant religious groups from claiming otherwise though. Meanwhile the dating techniques that are verified as reliable even against other reliable dating techniques are never mentioned.

This is the same story as evolution. The actual knowledge we have on evolution or dating isn't actually addressed by creationists. Instead, false information and inaccurate statements are propagated to continue spreading the ignorance.


Except it has. You pretend it hasn't, just as you pretend that carbon dating is used to acquire the age of old rocks, when neither is actually the case.


I find it funny that dumb hicks like you talk about smoke and mirrors. In your discussion in this thread you have used every evasion possible to mask the actual topics and evidence. Science remains transparent and open in its findings, whereas creationists lurk in the shadows and spread false information. Do you really want to talk about smoke and mirrors when you have so adamantly refused to answer simple questions regarding reproducible evidence?


Yes, this is known as blind faith. It contradicts verifiable evidence, and defines ignorance. It comes as no surprise that your sad excuse for an education on this topic leaves you with the inability to discuss it honestly and transparently. You've come to your conclusion, and it would be impossible to change it regardless of the evidence presented before you. I mean, really think about that idea: what could possibly be found today that would make you reconsider your beliefs? Nothing. It's impossible to change when ignorance is your core.

When did i say i was against education ? education is a good thing. We have benefitted greatly from education.

Somewhere around when you thought searching creationists websites was an equivalent education to a biology major, it dawned on me that you don't actually understand education or promote it freely.

All dating methods are reached by assumptions. You know what i find funny ? they rely on known flawed dating systems to agree with others to determine accuracy.

Take a look at the various dating systems and their problems, Not just carbon dating.

Radiometric Dating Methods

What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?

My core beliefs have never been refuted. Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.

Hey now you're wrong. I am an honest person if there was evidence to prove you right i am a big enough person to admit to being wrong. But to throw everything i believe out the window over intelligent peoples vivid imagination,now that would be ignorance. When so many of your colleagues are also speaking out about the problems with your theory.

There is absolutely no way to look at the distant pass and accurately describe what it was like,what happened,and describe how it happened. Now whats really nice is we do have someone who was there, and passed on what happened, and what it was like. He just did not go into detail on how it happened.

Yes i have reached my conclusions,and i have no reason to doubt what i believe. Just weighing the evidence i see around me. Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.

There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.

Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.

Wrong. Details are being "filled in", not "overhauled".

As far as those "spirit thingy's", they have a name. They are called "delusions".

 

[Youwerecreated]

What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?

How about that list of questions I continually repeated at the end of every one of my posts in the first pages of this thread which you had to avoid every single time? Why don't you start by addressing those findings, and then moving on to every other question myself or GTH has put forth and you have pretended doesn't exist. Smoke and mirrors indeed.

Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.

There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.

OK so you're schizophrenic. This actually explains a lot. We have very good drugs you can take to stop these fallen angels so you don't hear the voices or see their actions. The scientific method can help exorcise your demons.

I asked you how what you were asking proves macroevolution and you did not attempt an answer, other then to say its possible to get new information through those mutations. Dr. Spetner said there is no way the mutations you cited can produce the information needed for macroevolution.

Have you ever seen one organism evolve into a destinct new organism ? if you have explain.

Amazing ! drugs for all 6 witnesses that saw the same thing,nice duck. Trust me i rather have no one see what i have seen, but if it means saving a life from ignorance then i hope you someday get that chance to exp what i have. You can think people are nuts if it makes you feel better, but they really exist. If they exist, God exists,it just only adds to my core beliefs.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is actually not true. Things like this are said about people who are dumb enough to believe that we use carbon for dating. We don't. It IS an unreliable dating source thus it's not used. That doesn't stop ignorant religious groups from claiming otherwise though. Meanwhile the dating techniques that are verified as reliable even against other reliable dating techniques are never mentioned.

This is the same story as evolution. The actual knowledge we have on evolution or dating isn't actually addressed by creationists. Instead, false information and inaccurate statements are propagated to continue spreading the ignorance.


Except it has. You pretend it hasn't, just as you pretend that carbon dating is used to acquire the age of old rocks, when neither is actually the case.


I find it funny that dumb hicks like you talk about smoke and mirrors. In your discussion in this thread you have used every evasion possible to mask the actual topics and evidence. Science remains transparent and open in its findings, whereas creationists lurk in the shadows and spread false information. Do you really want to talk about smoke and mirrors when you have so adamantly refused to answer simple questions regarding reproducible evidence?


Yes, this is known as blind faith. It contradicts verifiable evidence, and defines ignorance. It comes as no surprise that your sad excuse for an education on this topic leaves you with the inability to discuss it honestly and transparently. You've come to your conclusion, and it would be impossible to change it regardless of the evidence presented before you. I mean, really think about that idea: what could possibly be found today that would make you reconsider your beliefs? Nothing. It's impossible to change when ignorance is your core.


Somewhere around when you thought searching creationists websites was an equivalent education to a biology major, it dawned on me that you don't actually understand education or promote it freely.

All dating methods are reached by assumptions. You know what i find funny ? they rely on known flawed dating systems to agree with others to determine accuracy.

Take a look at the various dating systems and their problems, Not just carbon dating.

Radiometric Dating Methods

What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?

My core beliefs have never been refuted. Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.

Hey now you're wrong. I am an honest person if there was evidence to prove you right i am a big enough person to admit to being wrong. But to throw everything i believe out the window over intelligent peoples vivid imagination,now that would be ignorance. When so many of your colleagues are also speaking out about the problems with your theory.

There is absolutely no way to look at the distant pass and accurately describe what it was like,what happened,and describe how it happened. Now whats really nice is we do have someone who was there, and passed on what happened, and what it was like. He just did not go into detail on how it happened.

Yes i have reached my conclusions,and i have no reason to doubt what i believe. Just weighing the evidence i see around me. Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.

There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.

Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.

Wrong. Details are being "filled in", not "overhauled".

As far as those "spirit thingy's", they have a name. They are called "delusions".

Really ? like when evolutionist's say a fish went extinct 65 million years ago,and a few years ago they find one still living. There was another creature they said evolved into another creature and became a land animal, but wow it didn't show any change at all from the fossils they had of this creature and it was still a good swimmer before it supposedly evolved i'm drawing a blank on the name of the fish or creature whatever it was. Yes they had to overhaul the story.

Delusions ,nope,but think what you like. Boy are you guys in for a shock someday.

 

[rdean]

All dating methods are reached by assumptions. You know what i find funny ? they rely on known flawed dating systems to agree with others to determine accuracy.

Take a look at the various dating systems and their problems, Not just carbon dating.

Radiometric Dating Methods

What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?

My core beliefs have never been refuted. Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.

Hey now you're wrong. I am an honest person if there was evidence to prove you right i am a big enough person to admit to being wrong. But to throw everything i believe out the window over intelligent peoples vivid imagination,now that would be ignorance. When so many of your colleagues are also speaking out about the problems with your theory.

There is absolutely no way to look at the distant pass and accurately describe what it was like,what happened,and describe how it happened. Now whats really nice is we do have someone who was there, and passed on what happened, and what it was like. He just did not go into detail on how it happened.

Yes i have reached my conclusions,and i have no reason to doubt what i believe. Just weighing the evidence i see around me. Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.

There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.

Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.

Wrong. Details are being "filled in", not "overhauled".

As far as those "spirit thingy's", they have a name. They are called "delusions".

Really ? like when evolutionist's say a fish went extinct 65 million years ago,and a few years ago they find one still living. There was another creature they said evolved into another creature and became a land animal, but wow it didn't show any change at all from the fossils they had of this creature and it was still a good swimmer before it supposedly evolved i'm drawing a blank on the name of the fish or creature whatever it was. Yes they had to overhaul the story.

Delusions ,nope,but think what you like. Boy are you guys in for a shock someday.

Oops, you just showed you don't know anything. Now aren't you sorry you opened your mouth?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.

Wrong. Details are being "filled in", not "overhauled".

As far as those "spirit thingy's", they have a name. They are called "delusions".

Really ? like when evolutionist's say a fish went extinct 65 million years ago,and a few years ago they find one still living. There was another creature they said evolved into another creature and became a land animal, but wow it didn't show any change at all from the fossils they had of this creature and it was still a good swimmer before it supposedly evolved i'm drawing a blank on the name of the fish or creature whatever it was. Yes they had to overhaul the story.

Delusions ,nope,but think what you like. Boy are you guys in for a shock someday.

Oops, you just showed you don't know anything. Now aren't you sorry you opened your mouth?

You just showed you don't know much, and you will believe whatever evolutionist say.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Fairytales a many when dealing with the evolutionist.



Missing? or misinterpreted?

Walking fish.

Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish - Answers in Genesis

Go into a dark room alone and summon the head of the fallen angels you can meet him if you like,but i wouldn't do it. They call him satan.

 

[konradv]

All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together.

I also said they weren't found together. The question is , "Why not?" Pleasde try and stick to one line of reasoning. It sounds like you're trying to make MY point!!!

What is your point ?

DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Is your memory THAT bad. I said trilobite and dolphin fossils are NEVER found in the same strata without there being some after-the -fact disturbance. Do you think you can remember that long enough to tell us why that would be, if we were all created at about the same time?

 

[Youwerecreated]

All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together.

I also said they weren't found together. The question is , "Why not?" Pleasde try and stick to one line of reasoning. It sounds like you're trying to make MY point!!!

What is your point ?

DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Is your memory THAT bad. I said trilobite and dolphin fossils are NEVER found in the same strata without there being some after-the -fact disturbance. Do you think you can remember that long enough to tell us why that would be, if we were all created at about the same time?

After the fact disturbance ? is this your attempt to answer why supposedly older evidence is found on top of younger evidence ? The explanation is you guys are wrong on whats older evidence and the evidence was distributed by the global flood but nice try.

Regurgitating theories will get you nowhere.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest your theory is wrong.

“UPSIDE DOWN”
— The Distorted Theory of Evolution



Evolution stands exposed as a myth; a fanciful theory where so-called “fact”

is built upon assumption; where theory replaces data; where guesswork replaces

logic; where anti-supernaturalistic bias reigns supreme. Evolution is built on the

house of cards called “The Geologic Succession Of Strata,” which assumes

that the “oldest rocks” containing the “simplest forms of fossil life” are always

beneath “younger” rocks. Here, you will discover the astonishing truth about

evolution’s big lie!



By Garner Ted Armstrong [printer-friendly] [pdf format]

There are literally thousands of proofs that a Creator God exists. The Bible says we can know much about our Creator by looking at the things He has made! Paul wrote, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them [evident to them; plain to see, right before their eyes!] ; for God hath showed it unto them.

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world [by looking at the creation itself] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:18-21).

We know a house had an architect and a builder. We know an automobile had a manufacturer. We know a child had parents. We know a watch had a maker. We know that an airplane was designed by aeronautical engineers, and that crystals form the same way every time, according to their properties. We know that mosquitos hatch from larvae, which were laid by adult mosquitos, which were hatched from larvae, just as we know chickens were hatched from eggs, which were laid by adult hens, which were hatched from eggs. We know that all life exists in a cycle, and that life comes only from pre-existing life. Further, life comes only from pre-existing life of the same kind.

These are absolutes. They are inexorable, immutable, unchanging.

It is important to remember, however, that there is such a thing as “micro-evolution,” almost limitless variety within a Genesis kind; almost limitless adaptation. Hundreds of examples are instantly evident; moths which adapt to their environment, becoming virtually invisible as they take on the texture and color of plants and trees so as to conceal themselves from predators; the many hundreds of breeds of dogs (resulting, in the main, from man’s selective breeding); the incredible variety within the human race, from pygmies in the Ituri Forest in Africa to a Swede who is seven feet tall; from tiny Shetlands and miniature horses to the huge Percheron and Clydesdale; the myriad species of birds.

Evolutionists are fond of pointing to ‘micro-evolution,’ meaning the many varieties within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved into a different kind! This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. A snowshoe rabbit, which is white in the winter and brown in the summer is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey. A chameleon which is green on a green leaf and brown on a brown leaf is still a chameleon, and will give birth to other chameleons, not to a different species. Actually, the very fact of such marvelous adaptation, such as the camouflage of certain birds, insects, animals and fish, is another proof of a Great Designer and Creator.

All around us are proofs of God. The closer we look into the marvels of what men refer to as “Mother Nature” (interesting they refuse to call it “Father”), the more awesome, the more law-abiding, the more intricate, the more perfectly designed.

We know much about the Creator by looking at His creation. Creation means all that is; all that exists. That means the entire universe; all the stars and their planetary systems; all laws, all energy, all matter.

We know that matter is energy arranged in intricate, law‑abiding ways. Matter is anything that has weight and occupies space. Even air is "matter." Air consists of different kinds of gases, mostly oxygen, hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and suspended particulate matter. Where did it come from? What was before it? Oxygen in air is the result of the action of living plants and diatoms in the sea. Carbon dioxide results from humans and animals’s extracting oxygen, and giving off carbon dioxide. There is no “air” on the moon, or the other plants. Some of the planets are surrounded by thick, gaseous mantles which would be poisonous to life.

Obviously, a study of only a part of creation would require enough books to fill a very large library. Every conceivable physical science would be involved: Astronomy, Biology, Geology and all the subdivisions of such fields, such as historical and dynamic geology, microbiology and genetics‑‑a vast field of special disciplines involving every aspect of the material universe would be involved in such a study. You should do yourself a favor, and, limiting your study to only one subject of the myriad number available, go to a public library, and study the articles in an encyclopedia about such mundane, taken-for-granted things as “air,” or “water,” or “light.” I promise you, you will be fascinated for the simple reason that most quit studying such things the moment they graduated from high school.

“Terra Firma,” The Rocks Beneath Our Feet

Nothing is more immediately obvious when thinking of “the creation,” than the rocks beneath our feet. To illustrate only a few of these thousands of challenges to the vain theory of evolution, let's investigate the so‑called “geologic succession of strata.” This phrase suggests there is an orderly succession in the rocks of our earth; that the most ancient rocks are always on the “bottom”, and that the younger rocks, containing much more “recent” forms of fossil life, are always on top.

Are the “oldest” rocks always on the bottom? In a sense, this is an irrelevant question, for the “geologic succession of strata,” having used a false system of measurement, has labeled so-called “older” rocks which they claim are atop so-called “younger” rocks, and then tried to explain away this anomaly by devious means.

As you will see, according to their false system of labeling strata, evolutionists have erroneously labeled the rocks. The terms “older” and “younger” are applied, not because of the order of the rocks; the depth at which they are found, or which layer is atop another, but because of the kind of fossil life forms found within the rocks!

As you will see, this is reasoning in a circle, and not true science at all. Evolutionary geology is built around the presupposition that our earth consists of layers of rock found in succession as they were deposited over aeons of time; that the very oldest rocks, containing no fossils, are at the bottom; that the “Archeozoic” and “Proterozoic” (“before life”) rocks contain no fossil remains; that the early “Paleozoic” rocks contain only “simple” life forms; that “Mesozoic” rocks contain ever more complex life forms until one arrives at the most “recent” strata, such as the ice ages (Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Recent), where one finds mammoths and man.

Further, evolutionary hypotheses are based upon the supposition that all these rocks were laid down over vast aeons of time; that the fossil record shows the passage of billions of years; that the fossils in the rocks were not laid down suddenly, as a result of great catastrophes, like a world‑wide flood! Yet, the Bible not only asserts that the flood of Noah was global, but allows, in the first verses of Genesis, for any number of submergences of the continental land masses beneath the waters of the seas. Any geologist knows that fossil sea shells are found atop the highest mountains on earth; from the Rockies to the Himalayas, from the Atlas to the Alps.

Evolutionists are fond of arranging the fossils as they are allegedly found in the rocks in museums, and in illustrations in textbooks. Yet, most laymen have assumed that only the deepest, most “ancient,” strata contain these “primitive” fossil forms. This, in spite of the fact that fossil dinosaurs are found on or near the surface in places from China to Colorado. Evolutionists established a theory long ago, and have built an incredibly warped, shaky, unstable superstructure atop it. They date the strata by the fossils found in them, and then date the fossils by the supposed age of the strata.

As one collegiate‑grade text asserts, “All fossil evidence has some significance in determining the geologic time of deposition of strata. Thus in the case of man the correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals is the chief reliance in dating stone age man with regard to the various glacial and interglacial stages of that epoch.”

Did you notice the important admission here? The author is asserting that “stone age man” is assigned a certain date because of “correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals.”

Once this false concept is assumed, it leads to incredible errors in dating fossil life. The author continued, “Again, any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic; those with vertebrate remains must be later than Ordovician, and trilobite fossils mean Paleozoic time” (“Geology,” by von Engeln and Caster, p. 435, emphasis mine).

Talk about dogma. Note that well. “Any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic.” While this is simply not so, it sounds like a pronouncement issued by an individual that claims infallibility. A kind of evolutionary pope, speaking from the holy see of erudition and anti-God evolution, issuing an infallible edict which all are required to accept.

There are insurmountable difficulties with the so‑called “Geologic Succession of Strata,” Let’s take a look at some of them.

The “Geologic Succession Of Strata” Is False!

First, there is no place on earth where the entire Geologic Succession of Strata can be found. Obviously, the concept of the earth’s sedimentary rocks being found in orderly form, from most ancient to most recent is impossible to begin with. Where did the rocks come from? Rocks are either sedimentary (water deposited), metamorphic (formed by changes caused by faulting and pressure) or igneous (volcanic). Since there are no fossils in igneous rocks, and since there are virtually no fossils in metamorphic rocks, scientists are limited to investigating the water‑borne deposits, such as various kinds of marbles, sandstone, limestone and shale, to establish an age for the strata.

The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them. The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is. As we shall see, evolutionary geology immediately discards data; facts — evidence in the amount of billions of tons of rock; whole mountain ranges, mammoth regions of the earth, where the fossils found in the rocks contradict their theories.

True science always alters a given theory to admit proven facts. Not so with evolution. To illustrate this point, let's get right to one of the most poignant and embarrassing, proofs. An important one is the ridiculous attempt by geologists to claim that whenever the fossils are “out of order” according to their “geologic succession of strata,” there is something wrong with the rocks! They say in many cases the rocks are upside down — completely out of order!

When you walk into your bedroom and see the bed made, you probably suppose your wife spread the sheet on the bed prior to the cover, and the cover prior to the bedspread. She would look a little silly putting the bedspread on first, and then burrowing beneath it, attempting to spread the sheet. If she had done so out of caprice, there would probably be evidence pointing to the fact, for it would be virtually impossible to do a neat job unless she once again straightened the bedspread.

When you view layers of rock as exposed in highway cuts, canyons (like the Grand Canyon of Arizona) and river banks, and you see massive layers, sometimes twenty, thirty feet thick, seemingly as smooth and cohesive as if they had been mixed in a blender, lying conformably atop each other in orderly succession, it is logical to assume the layers on the bottom (if no evidence of faulting, such as tilted, folded, or fractured strata: isoclines, synclines, etc., is present) were deposited first; then the ones immediately above them, and, lastly, the layer on the top, like a chef would make a layer cake.

You would be quite correct, of course. However, evolutionists often tell us we are wrong to assume the younger strata are always atop older strata. Why? Because the fossils found in so‑called “younger” strata are often found beneath so‑called “older” strata.

When this occurs, as it quite frequently does, evolutionists become incredibly inventive. In order to tenaciously cling to their theories, in many regions, including large areas of significant mountain ranges, they seek to explain away the arrangement of millions of tons of rocks; miles upon miles of rocks where the fossils are out of proper order; sometimes “upside down.” Not that they are really “upside own,” please note, but that it appears “older” fossils are found in rocks above “younger” fossils, when these “older” fossils were supposedly extinct for millions of years! Yet, the layers appear undisturbed!

Problem! The rocks appear to have been smoothly laid down; are conformable to each other, showing no evidence of massive faulting, overthrusts, or any other activity. What a headache! What a problem for evolutionists! If they admit what their eyes plainly tell them, they would be admitting their entire scheme of the “geologic succession of strata” is wrong; admitting that the supposed younger fossils did not evolve from supposed older, simpler ones!

But such an admission would be disastrous to evolutionists!

So, presto! Forget the evidence. Claim the rocks are “upside down!” Those rocks just have no right to be sitting there, mute, weighing billions of tons, in a ridiculous posture, containing the wrong kind of fossils! Like many a clever defense attorney, just because the defendant was standing there, holding the gun, with the smoke still issuing forth, doesn’t mean he was the one who pulled the trigger!

What kind of force would be required to superimpose massive layers of rock, weighing millions of tons, atop other layers? The kind of forces which caused mountain‑building; overthrusts, isoclines, synclines and geosynclines. When one sees twisted, tilted, and folded strata, which is clearly visible throughout the Swiss Alps, many other major mountain ranges, and in highway cuts in Southern California, one is seeing evidence of massive earthquakes on a scale never experienced in the history of mankind. Whenever a “younger” layer of rock is allegedly found beneath an “older” layer of rock, there is inescapable physical evidence which demonstrates how such an unusual phenomenon could have occurred.

To be sure, there are cases where such things can and do occur. Such vast movement of massive regions of land would cause grinding, crushing destruction of the rocks closest to the moving layers, reforming them into “metamorphic” rocks, destroying all fossils. Certainly, there could not have survived such delicate fossil forms as worm tracks, ferns and leafs, ripple marks, and the like after such catastrophic crushing and grinding. Any layman can look at two layers of rock, and determine if “slickensides,” the polished rocks formed at the place where faulting and slippage of the rocks occurred, is present. But what if the layer of rock (stratum) containing the so‑called “older” fossils, and the stratum containing the so‑called “younger” fossils beneath it show absolutely no evidence of any twisting, faulting, or movement? What if there is perfect conformity between them?

Obviously, they were deposited just as you view them. Therefore, assertions that fossils beneath other fossils are younger than the fossils atop them--perhaps by countless millions of years--are simply false. Though evolutionists may claim they are somehow “out of order,” or that we are viewing “deceptive conformity,” we are actually seeing the fossils in their respective layers of rock reposing in the exact order in which they were deposited.

You and I know that when mud is deposited by flooding, then gradually hardens, it begins to crack. Then, it erodes. Animals walk about upon it. Wind blows. Summer storms come along. In other words, any deposits of alluvial soil, slowly drying as the water which carried it there recedes, will show obvious evidence of the passage of time. Especially when that time is assumed to be measured in the millions or even billions of years!

When any two layers containing so‑called “upside down” fossils record are lying perfectly, smoothly, uninterruptedly together, as if the tide of mud which had deposited the bottom layer had no sooner receded when another flow of different mud, containing different forms of life, came from another direction and was deposited immediately, it is obvious that the evolutionists have made a serious error in their dating theories.

The rocks are not in error. Evolutionists are. When one cannot slip a thin knife between two smoothly‑mixed layers of sandstone; when there is absolutely no evidence of any erosion, or overthrust faulting (which would crush the rock, grind it, metamorphose it, and cause a completely different kind of rock structure), then one must assume the rocks were deposited exactly as they appear --- the older on the bottom, and the younger on the top, like your sheet and your bedspread.

Of course, what you are looking at when you see such strata piled atop each other so uniformly is in itself evidence of a massive catastrophe; floods on unimaginable scale which held vast amounts of silts and muds in dissolution, and which came flowing over the recently‑deposited mud of a previous tide. That huge amounts of the rocks in the earth's surface were deposited suddenly is anathema to evolutionists, for they detest the word “catastrophism,” a word which means much of the geologic formations on the earth were the result of gigantic catastrophes, such as huge floods, giant earthquakes, and the unimaginable movement of the tectonic plates.

Their false theories require vast amounts of time! Time for birds to evolve from dinosaurs; for four-footed quadrupeds to climb down from trees, enter the oceans, and gradually have their nostrils move from their nose to their foreheads; their hairy bodies become sleek skin, until they become toothed whales and dolphins!

Evolutionists simply will not admit that different layers of strata, containing vastly different species, could have lived contemporaneously. Once having insisted that their supposed “geologic succession of strata” is correct, they stolidly refuse to alter the theory to suit the facts.

“Rock Bottom” — Where Is It? Which Layer Is “On The Bottom?”

Which stratum is the oldest of all fossil‑bearing rock, and therefore (according to evolution) contains the “earliest” and “simplest” of all life forms? Long ago, evolutionary theory accepted as fact that primitive, simple life forms are invariably found at the “bottom” of the layers of rocks; that, as one progresses through layer after layer toward the “top,” the life forms become ever more complex. This is a given. Virtually every high school graduate who has been introduced to only a little sample of geology, or history, or biology, has been told repeatedly that this is so. But it is not so.

Long ago, evolutionists used the order of fossils found in a few regions in Western Europe and New York state to establish their evolutionary column. They have assumed that fossil forms of ancient life are invariably found in the same order all over the world. Such is not the case. In fact, evolutionary geologists have not yet determined, with any degree of certainty, which layer of rock is the “bottom” insofar as the fossil record is concerned.

As one eminent geologist says, “For any given limited locality, where stratigraphy can be followed out, the lowest beds are certainly the oldest. But we can make no progress by such a method when we come to deal with the world at large, for actual stratigraphical relationships can be proved over only very limited areas.

“These beds may be the lowest in this locality, may rest on the granite or crystalline schists, and have every appearance of antiquity. But other beds containing very different fossils, are in precisely this position elsewhere, and where stratigraphical order can no more prove the relative age of their fossils than the overlap of scales on a fish proves those at the tail to be older than those at the head” (Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by Price: p. 78, emphasis mine).

Price goes on to show how “...any kind of fossiliferous rock whatever, even ‘young’ Tertiary rocks, may rest upon the Archaean or Azoic series, or may themselves be almost wholly metamorphosed or crystalline, thus resembling in position and outward appearance the so‑called ‘oldest’ rocks” (ibid. p. 79).

In his chapter on “finding bottom,” Price concludes, “...I see no escape from the acknowledgment that the doctrine of any particular fossils' being essentially older than others is a pure invention, with absolutely nothing in nature to support it” (ibid. p. 87).

Evolutionary geology operates on a false assumption that the layers of rock on the earth are invariably found in the same order, like the layers of an onion. Obviously the whole world is not like an onion, with the oldest rocks on the bottom, progressing upward until arriving at the most “recent” rocks, for the earth is round, after all, and each layer of sedimentary rock was water borne, and had to come from some other area, where the materials the water carried were scoured by massive floods; tides, rivers, and so‑on. Logically, the area so scoured is now absent the exact amount of materials which were deposited elsewhere.

Bottom, or the lowest rocks next to the liquid magma upon which the tectonic plates “float” is naturally where there are no fossils in evidence, according to evolutionary theory. Bottom means, usually, “bedrock” of granite and various schists; metamorphic rock, atop which one finds sedimentary rock, containing various fossil forms. But, as Price proves, “Since the life‑succession theory [evolution] rests logically and historically on the biological form of Werner's onion‑coat notion that only certain kinds of rocks (fossils) are to be found at the ‘bottom,’ or next to the Archaean, or Primitive, and it is now acknowledged everywhere that any kind of rocks whatever may be thus situated [including Tertiary rocks, containing fossils of mammoths and men!], it is as clear as sunlight that the life‑succession theory rests logically and historically on a myth, and that there is no way of proving what kind of fossil was buried first”(ibid. p. 87).

In spite of such overwhelming evidence, evolutionists cling to their false theory. Students who intend entering the teaching field in the subjects of anthropology or paleontology are not taught from books such as those by Nelson, Price, Whitcomb and Morris, and a host of others. They are never told about such books, which are dismissed by evolutionary geologists; completely ignored.

Yet, there are many studious works which completely dismantle the evolutionary theory. Outstanding examples are "Darwin On Trial," by Phillip E. Johnson, published by Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C., and "Evolution‑‑Possible or Impossible?" by James F. Coppedge, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and "The Bone Peddlers‑‑Selling Evolution," by William R. Fix, published by Macmillan. Two excellent and very recent books are those by James Perloff, “Tornado in a Junkyard,” published in 1999, and “The Case Against Darwin,” published in 2002.

Price conclusively shows, most of the rocks of our earth prove great catastrophes occurred in the past; and most of the sedimentary rocks, including miles and miles of coal beds show very recent “catastrophes,” such as massive floods. Since God's word speaks of a global flood, and the rocks cry out in a great roaring voice that “A massive flood caused this,” only a fool would ignore the obvious message of the rocks. It requires on the average about a forty foot thick layer of vegetation ripped up, and water borne to then be crushed beneath subsequent layers of muds to form a seam of coal only one foot thick. Coal beds prove gargantuan catastrophes in the past, as do many, many other strata, such as marbles, which are sometimes formed from solid masses of sea bottom life.

All such evidence completely destroys the theory that it required vast aeons of time for various forms of life to “evolve” into other, remarkably different forms of life; that men eventually evolved from “simple, one-celled animals” like amoeba.

To assume that our continents and islands; the massive mountain ranges of our earth, and all topographical features of the land are the result of “uniformity;” that we are viewing the results of a very slow, gradual process which required billions of years is sheer nonsense.

Our present river systems and deltas portray only a very recent development. In the North American continent are hundreds of dry lake beds, vast areas where ancient inland sea shores are clearly visible. The Great Salt Lake is but a tiny puddle remaining from massive “Lake Bonneville,” which was a massive inland sea at one time. The Mississippi River is but a tiny trickle when compared with the monstrous drainage basin that once surged toward the South, carrying untold amounts of silts and sediments that were deposited across many states. When the North American continent was thrust upward from the seas which covered it, the buckling of the tectonic plates beneath caused the massive mountain building that is evident by looking at the great Rocky Mountains; the Cascades, and the Sierra Madre mountains. In the river valleys one discovers deep layers of sedimentary rocks. Along the spines of the mountains, one sees the ancient granites and schists; upthrusts of “bedrock” that soar as high as 14,000 feet in the continental United States, and above 22,000 feet in Chile.

Here and there, at incredibly high elevations, one discovers fossils which could only have existed in the seas; fossils preserved, not through the process of gradual change, but uprooted, sorted by alluvial action, and deposited by the millions, suddenly.

The vast San Juaquin Valley of California was once a gigantic bay, teeming with sea life. At its southern end, around Bakersfield, are supposedly some of the “oldest” mountains found on the North American continent. Why the so-called oldest? Because paleontologists have found fossilized sharks there, and, since the kinds of sharks found “belong” to a certain stratum found elsewhere, and therefore must be of a certain “age,” that same age is assigned to the hills around Bakersfield.

Among these rolling, yet steep and gravely hills is “Shark Tooth Mountain.” Actually, it is not just one mountain, but a number of ridges and ravines; smaller hills, which contain countless hundreds of thousands of sharks teeth and bones.

Many years ago, it proved one of the most exciting “classes” of the year when I would arrange a field trip for my college students to go to “Shark’s Tooth Mountain.” We would take wire mesh baskets with wooden frames, into which we would shovel the gravely soil. By shaking the loose soil rapidly, like a winnowing process, the dirt and smaller pieces would fall through the mesh, and, with surprising regularity, we would discover shark’s teeth of various sizes. Some were found right on the surface.

Our field trips proved to us that, at some time perhaps many thousands of years ago, a vast inland basin, or bay, had existed in central California, of which San Francisco Bay is but a tiny remnant. Further, that this shallow inland basin, or sea, contained countless fish and sharks. Further, that some great catastrophe had suddenly killed all that sea life. Further, that, due to the sorting action of water, and massive tides flowing this way and that as the former inland sea drained, the decaying bodies of millions of fish and sharks were mangled and torn; that there were so many of them, that hundreds of thousands of teeth were deposited in one small region. A study of specific gravity; the density of various bodies in water and how they are “sorted” by fluvial action is all that is necessary to understand the process.

“Reading” the rocks by noting the kinds of fossil forms found within them; the shape and texture of the rocks; the accompanying rocks above, below, and all around them, is not difficult. These rounded, yet steep hills had obviously been deposited by massive tides and waves which had sluiced back and forth for many years, as what had once been a salt water basin was being raised above the level of the Pacific, and the millions of creatures which lived in it were trapped, died, were torn apart; their remains being “sorted” so that they were deposited as we found them.

The entire journey was a fascinating study in paleontology and geology, for in the highway cuts between the mountains, we could see plain evidence of massive faulting, folding, twisting of the strata. Of course, we drove right through the famous “San Andreas” fault, where mind-boggling earthquakes have occurred in the past.

Perhaps those who live on the plains, or in farming states like Iowa or Illinois, are not quite so aware of how great catastrophes formed and shaped our continent. Yet, they have only to look at the rich black soil of Iowa, note its depth, determine which kinds of rocks lie beneath it, and so-on, to appreciate how America’s richest soil was formed by the fluvial action of water, many thousands of years ago. It is ludicrous to assume, for example, that the Grand Canyon of Arizona is the result of the slow, gradual scouring action of today’s Colorado River! One only has to journey downstream for a few hundred miles, to the dams along the Colorado River system along the border with California, to see “conglomerates” and other sedimentary deposits which show immediate evidence of massive river flows in the past.

When you see huge stones, as large as automobiles, lying mixed among rocks of every conceivable size and shape, as well as gravels and sand--when those rocks, no matter how large, or how small, are rounded; many of them smoothed off, so as to have very few jagged edges, it means they were rolled and tumbled along for many, many miles together.

The operative word is “together.” It requires massive flows of water to tumble rocks that are as large as a house! Only by river flows that are hundreds of times larger than the present flow of the Colorado could those rocks have been deposited together, obviously at the same time.

Evolutionists may not like the word “catastrophe” being applied to geology and paleontology, but it is the only word applicable when one looks at the plain chapter and verse of the rocks themselves. Only a casual study of the Grand Canyon tells us of at least two of the most massive floods imaginable: the first, when the huge layers of sedimentary rock were deposited all over the southwest--layers which lie smoothly mixed, perfectly conformable to each other, for many, many miles. The second, when those water-deposited layers were scoured to the depth of one mile, carving out the most awesome, massive canyon on earth, and depositing billions of tons of rock in jumbled profusion for hundreds of miles.

“Uniform” flows of the Colorado did not deposit the gigantic layers of sandstone, many of them 60 to 80 feet thick, mixed as smoothly as if in a giant blender, which are visible along the rim of the Grand Canyon. Neither did “uniform” flow of the river, even including seasonal variations due to flooding, accomplish the scouring of the entire Grand Canyon.

Your eyes and camera which can record such awesome sights, and which does not lie, tell you, “this was a massive catastrophe” at some ancient time in the past, not the result of gradual processes; not the result of the deposition of sands and silts along a single river bank.

“Evolutionary Geology And The ‘New Catastrophism,’” by George M. Price (Pacific Press) is a book I highly recommend to serious students of the question of whether evolution is true, or whether God exists. It is replete with examples from all over the world like that mentioned above; geologic evidence of “catastrophes,” which occurred suddenly which are simply irrefutable. Unfortunately, it may be out of print, although it might be possible for one of the large Internet book sellers to find a copy, or it might be found in a used book store.

As David said, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

There are many educated fools in this world.

"Upside Down" - The Distorted Theory Of Evolution

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?

 

[konradv]

After the fact disturbance ? is this your attempt to answer why supposedly older evidence is found on top of younger evidence ?
------------------------------------
There are reasons why that could happen, which you know very well. Per usual, you haven't answered the question asked. Never mind the on-top-of or underneath part, that's plate tectonics at work. Why are they NEVER found in the SAME strata?

 

[konradv]

That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?

That's total BS. Fossils can be dated by atomic methods. Once the age of a stratum is known, if you find that stratum in another area you can safely assume the fossils there are of the same age. Your explanation of the method is circular and, therefore, ludicrous in that it in no way describes how scientists really go about determining age.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?

That's total BS. Fossils can be dated by atomic methods. Once the age of a stratum is known, if you find that stratum in another area you can safely assume the fossils there are of the same age. Your explanation of the method is circular and, therefore, ludicrous in that it in no way describes how scientists really go about determining age.

Yes it is circular reasoning,the very thing evolutionist's accuse creationist's of doing.

This is not the only article i have read this about.

They jumped out there with their conclusions before all the evidence was uncovered,now they have to explain why older evidence is on top of younger evidence. And you used their explanation, that something happened "after the fact".

Yes they use many methods to put an age on something but first they use several methods of dating to try and get them to agree on the age even though they know they are flawed dating methods. And the date is affected by their presuppositions.

If you begin with the view that the earth is 4.5 billion years old that will have a different effect from the view the earth is only 6,000 years old. I don't blame you because that is what you have been taught.

How can you say exactly what the enviornment was like thousands of years ago ? to put an accurate date on something you need to know such things.

It still comes back to, no one was there to know these things. That is where they make their mistake by believing the enviornment then was the same as it is now.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?

That's total BS. Fossils can be dated by atomic methods. Once the age of a stratum is known, if you find that stratum in another area you can safely assume the fossils there are of the same age. Your explanation of the method is circular and, therefore, ludicrous in that it in no way describes how scientists really go about determining age.

How is the age of stratum determined ?

So do you deny fossils are used to determine the age of strata ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

After the fact disturbance ? is this your attempt to answer why supposedly older evidence is found on top of younger evidence ?
------------------------------------
There are reasons why that could happen, which you know very well. Per usual, you haven't answered the question asked. Never mind the on-top-of or underneath part, that's plate tectonics at work. Why are they NEVER found in the SAME strata?

You said they were not found together unless there was a disturbance after the fact,i am saying that disturbance was the flood. There is world wide evidence of the flood just do some research, And quit taking the words from people on your side as the absolute truth.

 

[konradv]

That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?

That's total BS. Fossils can be dated by atomic methods. Once the age of a stratum is known, if you find that stratum in another area you can safely assume the fossils there are of the same age. Your explanation of the method is circular and, therefore, ludicrous in that it in no way describes how scientists really go about determining age.

How is the age of stratum determined ?

So do you deny fossils are used to determine the age of strata ?

Of course not. If the fosssils found are a certain age, so is the stratum. Strata can also be aged without fossils by atomic methods. Once that's done strata found around the world that have the same pattern of strata are assumed to bew of the same age. That's the way it works. How does that have anything to do with creationism? It would seem to throw that theory completely out the window. Since things obviously weren't created at the same time and many species found today aren't found in the past, evolution would seem to be the answer. The only way to reconcile those facts would be to backtrack and claim multiple creations over billions of years, which is totally unbiblical. I really don't see where you have a logical leg to stand on in this discussion.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I asked you how what you were asking proves macroevolution and you did not attempt an answer, other then to say its possible to get new information through those mutations. Dr. Spetner said there is no way the mutations you cited can produce the information needed for macroevolution.

Oh you don't like that I accidentally didn't answer a single question you put forth? How many have you purposely avoided at this point? Dr. Spetner over a decade ago wrote on a topic you STILL actually distinguish from microevolution at a genetic level. You haven't even provided a creationist copied and pasted propaganda. Why is it that you think no creationist can actually differentiate the two at the molecular level? Oh no! Another question!

Have you ever seen one organism evolve into a destinct new organism ? if you have explain.

Well, actually yes speciation has been observed. We have that knowledge now. But I'm not getting into yet another topic with you for you to avoid, produce copied and pasted garbage or mangle if you can't even tell me the difference between micro and macroevolution at the genetic level.

Amazing ! drugs for all 6 witnesses that saw the same thing,nice duck. Trust me i rather have no one see what i have seen, but if it means saving a life from ignorance then i hope you someday get that chance to exp what i have. You can think people are nuts if it makes you feel better, but they really exist. If they exist, God exists,it just only adds to my core beliefs.

You really are describing the signs of schizophrenia. I'm not saying that to be mean, I think you really should talk to a doctor. Please, describe what you saw further.

Really ? like when evolutionist's say a fish went extinct 65 million years ago,and a few years ago they find one still living. There was another creature they said evolved into another creature and became a land animal, but wow it didn't show any change at all from the fossils they had of this creature and it was still a good swimmer before it supposedly evolved i'm drawing a blank on the name of the fish or creature whatever it was. Yes they had to overhaul the story.

YET AGAIN you show that you actually don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. One species evolving from another does not by default make the initial species extinct. If we take a finch and isolate it on say the galapagos islands, and they evolve, the original finches found thousands of miles away do not all suddenly drop dead.

That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?

That is completely wrong, and yet you put it forth as if it were fact. Are you really still wondering why people find you and other creationists as liars, underhanded, and disreputable people?

 

[konradv]

After the fact disturbance ? is this your attempt to answer why supposedly older evidence is found on top of younger evidence ?
------------------------------------
There are reasons why that could happen, which you know very well. Per usual, you haven't answered the question asked. Never mind the on-top-of or underneath part, that's plate tectonics at work. Why are they NEVER found in the SAME strata?

You said they were not found together unless there was a disturbance after the fact,i am saying that disturbance was the flood. There is world wide evidence of the flood just do some research, And quit taking the words from people on your side as the absolute truth.

If there was a flood, then why weren't more layers disturbed? Why are there strata of sea life fossils in the peaks of the Himalayas in such numbers and thickness that can't be explained by a flood of relatively short duration as recounted in the Bible? The flood also doesn't explain why in undistrurbed layers trilobite and dolphin fossils are NEVER found together. Care to explain all that?