Don't let the beginning of the article fool you... be sure to read all the way through, especially these subsections:
The Doheny Expedition
Ica Burial Stones
Natural Bridges National Monument Petroglyph
The Acambaro Figurines
The Monster of Troy
Human Footprints with Dinosaur Tracks?
Historical Records of Flying Reptiles
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Apparently, Curtis didn't get that far.
"TRANSITIONAL FORMS"
Missing Links, Living Fossils, and Trick Photography
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
For almost a century and a half, evolutionists have been searching for the special “transitional” creature that allegedly allowed fish to trudge up onto dry land. Fossil records of a peculiar fish, thought to be 70 million years old, (think again Bozo... Carbon 14 dating grossly overestimates age due to the strong magnetic shield before Noah's Flood) often were alluded to as the key to this “transition” from water to land. Look in any biology textbook under the word “coelacanth,” and you are likely to find a description of this “missing link.” Raven and Johnson described it in their college-level biology text in the following manner: “Although Latimeria [its scientific name] is a very strange animal, its features mark it as a member of the evolutionary line that gave rise to the terrestrial tetrapods” (1989, p. 857). Other authors described it this way: “Ancestors of this coelacanth are thought to have given rise to the amphibians. The paired fins show the basic plan of a jointed series of bones that could evolve into the limbs of a terrestrial vertebrate” (Villee, et al., 1985, p. 550). Prior to 1938, the coelacanth was known only from fossils, which afforded scientists a great deal of speculation when they tried to extrapolate a physiology from the record of the rocks. Certain structures, such as fins, were determined to be the forerunners of legs for all amphibians. With joy abounding, evolutionists designated this as the animal that allowed fish to crawl out of the muck and mire in order to live on dry land.
In December 1938, a living coelacanth was caught off the coast of Africa, and soon thereafter the evolutionists’ joy turned to consternation when it was determined that the soft anatomy of the coelacanth was nothing like that of an amphibian. A 1999 book review in Nature provided the following commentary regarding the anatomy of coelacanths: “…it shares very few advanced characteristics with the tetrapods, and this puts it somewhere near the base of the sarcopterygian [vertebrates in which the fin/limbs portion of the skeleton articulates to the girdles by means of a single bone—BH] tree. In a sense, the coelacanth tells us more about the primitive condition of all bony fishes than about the origin of tetrapods” (Janvier, p. 856). Subsequent discoveries of this special fish soon made it quite apparent that these fish did not live in shallow areas “ready to crawl out onto land.” In fact, this fish has been observed in caves 200 meters down, and is known to die from decompression when brought to the surface! Additionally, researchers were placed into a position of explaining just how an animal that was supposed to have walked with the dinosaurs could suddenly show up again, without there being any “recent” fossils to account for the great gap in time.
But are these “deep” water fish found only in caves off the coast of Africa? Wouldn’t it be convenient if another group of coelacanths were found in shallow water? In the cover story in the September 24, 1998 issue of Nature (“The Lost Tribe of Coelacanths”), Mark Erdmann and his team identified coelacanths from Indonesia that also were found in deep water (Erdmann, et al., 1998)—a find that greatly changed the supposed distribution of these fish. More recently, a paper was submitted to Nature by Bernard Seret, Laurent Pouyaud, and Georges Serre in which a coelacanth was said to have been caught in the shallow, muddy bay of Pangandaran. This new find, if true, would help bolster this species as a transitional animal moving from water to land. The key words here are “if true,” because it appears that the image used to document this new find is a forgery! Roy Caldwell, a coauthor of the 1998 Nature paper from which the photograph appears to have been reproduced, scrutinized it and stated: “I am 100% certain the image is a fake” (p. 114). This allegation has many individuals in the scientific community up in arms, and has prevented the publication of the Seret paper in Nature thus far. To date, no less than four articles already have appeared in Nature in response to this “new find,” each of which castigates the authors for the forged photograph (see McCabe and Wright, 2000, p. 114; McCabe, 2000, p. 225; Erdmann and Caldwell, 2000 p. 343; News in Brief, 2000, p. 554). Bernard Seret, one of the authors of the submitted paper and an ichthyologist at the Museum of Natural History in Paris, admits that the two photographs appear to show the same fish. He stated simply: “This is very embarrassing” (as quoted in Caldwell, 1998, p. 114). Very embarrassing indeed! One of articles in Nature is titled “How New Technology Put a Coelacanth Among the Heirs of Piltdown Man” (Erdmann and Caldwell, 2000, p. 343).
A French development agency has now gone to court to inquire into the alleged forgery, and the Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement where two of the authors work has launched a formal investigation. While all this fighting is going on, several things remain clear. The coelacanth is not the transitional animal evolutionists have been seeking so desperately. The DNA and genetic data gathered from these animals show just the opposite by documenting that this animal has remained stable throughout time. In other words, the coelacanth provides strong evidence for creation, because it has reproduced its kind throughout the years, just like the Bible’s book of Genesis said fishes would!
So... for all of you "evolutionists" out there who believed that the coelacanth was the progenitor of the amphibians, here's the question: why didn't the coelacanth evolve, and why is there no evidence that it was even similar in structure internally to the amphibians? Where are your missing links" Surely you can provide one?
Here are a couple of good pages for people who like to THINK:
Infinitely Stupid Doctrine and Rest In Peace, Chuckie
17 comments:
This from the same "doctor" that professes that Dinosaurs and Humans inhabited Earth at the same time. I love that one.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/15
Can you say creationist crackpot?
First of all, thank you from the bottom of my heart. I hadn't found that page yet. Secondly, "he who judges a thing before he hears all of it is a fool," or, to put it another way, he who laughs last laughs the longest. If you had read a bit further in the article, you would have found these subsections:
The Doheny Expedition
Ica Burial Stones
Natural Bridges National Monument Petroglyph
The Acambaro Figurines
The Monster of Troy
Human Footprints with Dinosaur Tracks?
Historical Records of Flying Reptiles
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Can you say "evolutionist crackpot"?
You're quite welcome. I'd say that this topic is much better for debate than bible content.
One thing puzzles me. When you use my name as a link why does it go to Billycreek blog? The person that writes that is not me. I have commented there but I do not know the owner or even his real name. I stumbled upon his blog while Googling our local editor and there were mocking comments on the newspaper which I enjoyed. I have no blog of my own at this time. I have too much fun reading parts of yours.
I was unsure whether "Curtis" was the "alter ego" of the host at BillyCreek, or a separate entity. At the very least, the two seemed to be "kindred spirits" and BillyCreek was the location where some of our dialogue was recorded.
Interesting article, eh?
In answer to the article on Dinosaurs and humans coexisting.
Simple answer. It didn't happen. There is a 64 milllion year gap in the fossil record where neither human or Dinosaur fossils were found. The are NO findings of Human fossils with Dinosaur fossils as well as NO Dinosaur fossils found with Human fossils.
The article cites extremely scant evidence in light of the actual fossil record.
How many footprints and skeletons would you consider to be adequate evidence? You say there are NONE? Go ahead... take the bait. I dare ya. And stop with that 64 million year crap. That has been so thoroughly discredited it has become a joke.
"How many footprints and skeletons would you consider to be adequate evidence?"
Do you mean footprints like those at the Paluxy site? It isn't the number that matters. It's the credibility of the evidence. I cite the talkorigins site because it isn't written by creationists but actual scientists. If you can come up with something that isn't from one of your wacko sites I'll certainly look at it.
"And stop with that 64 million year crap. That has been so thoroughly discredited it has become a joke."
By whom? And where are the findings published in a scientific journal? I haven't heard any laughter.
Still waiting for the "evidence".
Still waiting..........
O.K. Read my lips... blog this, http://web.archive.org/web/20010816173706/www.creationism.org/sthelens/wonders.htm , Butthead. You might also check out Robert Gentry's work, which NO ONE has been able to refute. It shows that the entire crust of the earth (granite) HAS NEVER BEEN IN LIQUID FORM, and it was formed in about 3 minutes (= the half-life of polonium 218) as proven by the polonium 218 halos. Just click the link next to the granite photo. When you look at granite, whether it be a gravestone, a countertop or a floor, you're looking at proof that the earth is not more than a few thousand years old.
Butthead? You are just too clever.
This morning I discovered a dog turd in my yard that wasn't fully hardened. You would probably believe that qualifies as evidence of a young Earth if you read it on one of your wacko sites.
But I digress. The evidence you were supposed to provide was about the claim that Dinosaurs and Humans coexisted. I wrote that there is a 65 million year separation in the fossil record. You never answer specific questions. You just throw out bullshit web sites. How hard is that?
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm
Now put up or shutup.
I visited the site and found that the objections had already been answered. The complaint was about two of Gentry's samples. The rest of the analysis is just filler and obfuscation. Gentry's response was to the effect that, "If you can come up with better samples, let's have 'em!" Talk about bullshit! Can't you do any better than 1988?
I've been having an ongoing dialogue with a dungeater and trying to convince him that dungeating is bad for his health and will have negative eternal metaphysical repercussions if he persists in his dungeating behavior. However, he refuses to take any information seriously unless it is promoted by a certified, approved, registered habitual dungeater in some publication such as the Journal of Applied Dungeating, The Dungeaters' Cookbook, Dungeater's Journal, or The Journal of the American Association of Certified Dungeaters. I think he may be a hopeless case.
If you look at the information about Mt. St. Helens, you will find that the 65 million year "gap" is total bullshit. But if you didn't "get" that after looking at the info about the "boneyards", perhaps you couldn't find a bowling ball in a bathtub.
"I've been having an ongoing dialogue with a dungeater and trying to convince him that dungeating is bad for his health and will have negative eternal metaphysical repercussions"
That knowledge was, no doubt, gained from a life of personal shiteating. That's probably why you're so clever.
"If you look at the information about Mt. St. Helens, you will find that the 65 million year "gap" is total bullshit. But if you didn't "get" that after looking at the info about the "boneyards", perhaps you couldn't find a bowling ball in a bathtub."
I've heard all about that crap. More creationist pseudoscience.
Obviously you're way too smart for me, but I have a challenge for you. Go to this site and join. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/ If they'll let you.
This will give you the opportunity to debate the best dungeaters I know. Just don't quote scripture or you'll get the boot. Be sure to let me know what your user name will be there. All of the kinds of things you are promoting would be great subject matter and they love it when a creationist spouts that crap so they can debunk it. What do you say genius? Are you up for a little fun? I dare you.
Dungeaters make a habit of quoting their own material as fact. An atheist is not on a quest for truth, but on a quest for intellectual identity. They draw self-identity and self-worth from their claims of intellectualism. That is why evidence against evolution is always called religious. Evolution is a religion with no evidence to back it up... they just hate any OTHER religion. If they classify it as non-science, then they can justify in not answering the evidence. When debating, you will recognize a few key methods almost all evolutionists use. They begin by intimidating critics; avoiding hard questions by machinegun fire questions to smoke screen the issue they are attempting to avoid; and establishing themselves as authoritative by declaring their position to be evolutionary. Once they have declared themselves to be ‘inside the box’ of evolution, they can then use their own quotes as facts. The reasoning is if evolution is the only authoritative position and they stand inside that box, others can then assume their opinions are fact because of that authority.
We often see the claims of evidence without having to provide the evidence. While an evolutionist requires irrefutable proof from creationists, they avoid having to prove evolution by bombarding critics with accusations and attempting to create rabbit trails for others to chase. When a creationist calls a bluff, he is either ignored or accused of misquoting evolutionists. To avoid answering opposition or explaining how evolution's leaders contradict themselves and the facts, they accuse others of dishonesty and ignorance. I don't have time for their sophomoric crap.
"I don't have time for their sophomoric crap."
Right. Lack of time. More like a total lack of any ability other than posting lunacy from lunatic web sites. I don't have time for any more of your crap.
Aw-w-w-w... poor Curtis is getting emotionally distraught over irrefutable facts. " In the five months following the eruption (of Mount St. Helens) two canyons were formed by mud and pyroclastic flows, establishing drainages for the 1.5 x 2.0 mile crater. The primary drainage, Step Canyon, is up to 700’ deep. To its east is Loowit Canyon. Both canyons cut through 100’ of solid rock. Creeks flow through each canyon. The typical evolutionary explanation is that a creek slowly forms a canyon over vast ages. In this case we know that the canyons were formed quickly; then a stream began to run through them. Textbooks say the most spectacular canyon in the world, the Grand Canyon, was formed by stream erosion over a hundred million years. Now scientists who specialize in geological erosion believe it was formed rapidly just like these canyons at MSH."
The landslide of May 18 had buried the river and highway to Spirit Lake to an average 150’. It also buried most other drainages in the 23 square miles of the Upper Toutle Valley and plugged the valley’s mouth. For twenty-two months no established path for water to the Pacific Ocean existed.
Then, on March 19, 1982, an eruption melted a large snow pack that had accumulated in the crater over the winter. The waters mixed with loose material on the slopes of the mountain creating an enormous mudflow. In nine hours while no eye watched, the mudflow carved an integrated system of drainages over much of the valley and reopened the way to the Pacific Ocean. The drainages included at least three canyons 100’ deep. One was nicknamed “The Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle” because it is a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon. Much water (or mud) accomplishes rapidly what a little water (or mud) takes an eternity to accomplish.
Evolutionary geologists assigned long periods of time to the formation of the 16,000 square mile Channeled Scablands of Eastern Washington. In the ‘70’s they finally acknowledged that this vast geologic formation which includes the Grand Coulee was formed mostly in two days as a result of a catastrophic event. Catastrophic events best explain the great erosionary formations on the earth’s surface. The histories of nearly 300 people groups speak of an event adequate to the job--the Global Flood.
There it is again. CHOKE on it. Just one tiny volcano created a 1/40 scale model of the Grand Canyon in 5 months.
5 months is the time span from the eruption of the volcano to the completion of the carving of the canyons. The mud flow took only 9 hours to carve the canyons, including "The Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle". Geologists now recognize that the "millions of years" theory is BLABBERFACKY, and talk.origins is whipping a dead horse. Tragically, they'll probably continue until Revelation 20:15.
Post a Comment