Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Link Missing 47 Million Years

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Link Missing 47 Million Years

    Link Missing 47 Million Years

    This is the show from Tuesday May 19th, 2009.

    SUMMARY:

    * Sir David Attenborough: Over the decades, whenever some especially interesting monkey or ape fossil is revealed, the public is told that the missing link is finally found. Now a fossil monkey Ida, erroneously dated 47-million-years too old, is presented by evolutionist Sir David Attenborough with the statement: "Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link.' The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it's no longer missing." Separately, Attenborough's recent BBC special, Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life, had its conclusion exactly wrong. Just days before his latest devotion to Darwin aired, across the Atlantic NewScientist was about to publish a cover story titled, Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life, which they indicated was as important as his theory of natural selection. Of the many thousands of species genetically evaluated so far, more than half are not the product of a biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush for that matter). With terrible timing, Attenborough concluded his BBC special saying, "So now we can trace the ancestry of all animals in the tree of life and demonstrate the truth of Darwin[...]" False.

    Hey! Not So Slow - List of Not So Old Things: Here is BEL's growing list of scientific observations that undermine traditional evidence for million-year ages. As often reported by KGOV.com's Real Science Friday hosts CRS webmaster Fred Williams and Bob Enyart, many atheistic old-earth geologists no longer claim formation over millions of years for features such as:

    * The Heart Mountain Detachment near Yellowstone, didn't take millions of years, but 30 minutes!

    * Scablands in the state of Washington formed rapidly in floods per NOVA's TV show.

    * Yellowstone Petrified Tree Strata: Nat'l Park Service took down the deceptive sign that claimed successive forests since there were no root systems and the trees were transported there. I personally (Bob Enyart) worked with the head ranger at a National Park (had dinner at his home; discussed how this sign could be removed), and he corresponded with his colleagues at Yellowstone and urged them to correct or remove the sign. They removed it. (See also AIG.).

    * Carlsbad Cavern: New Mexico, Nat'l Park Service sign said 260 MYA, then 8MYA, then 2MYA, and then they took down the sign claiming formation took millions of year. On Bob Enyart's family vacation in 2005 the official audio tour states, "rate of formation depends on the amount of available water." See RSF 11-7-08 at KGOV.

    * Lihir Gold Deposit: in Papua New Guinea, which evolutionists assumed took millions of years to form, but which geologists now have evidence could have formed in thousands of years, or far more quickly!

    * Box Canyon, Idaho: Geologists now think Box Canyon in Idaho, USA, was carved by a catastrophic flood and not slowly over millions of years with 1) huge plunge pools formed by waterfalls; 2) the almost complete removal of large basalt boulders from the canyon; 3) an eroded notch on the plateau at the top of the canyon; and 4) water scour marks on the basalt plateau leading to the canyon. Scientists calculate that the flood was so large that it could have eroded the whole canyon in as little as 35 days. Creation Magazine, Sept. - Nov. 2008 page 7 from Science 23 May 2008, pp. 1067-1070

    And Here are More Challenges to Million-Year Ages

    * Soft Tissue T-Rex: Montana State University found soft tissue in a supposedly 65-million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex thighbone that remain supple: see startling photos at the bottom of this post.

    * Rare School of Jellyfish Fossilized: in seven layers deposited supposedly over a million years near Milwaukee! Too cool!

    * Manganese Nodules: formed "around beer cans" disproving million-year requirement (and also, around old WWII ships)!

    * European vs. Asiatic Honeybees: that communicate through dance after a supposed 7-million year separation! See Real Science Friday at KGOV.com, Nov. 7, 2008, from Creation Magazine, Sept. - Nov. 2008 page 8, from creationontheweb.com/speciation, from PLoS ONE (Public Library of Science) 4 June 2008.

    * Mitochondrial Eve: by quantifying the differences in the human genome of mitochondrial DNA and tracking its mutation rate, scientists calculate that there is not millions of years worth of mutations among mankind but only thousands of years.

    * Super Nova Remnants: an explosion appeared in the night sky in 1054 A.D. as a supernova remnant (SNR) in the Crab Nebula. Evolutionary scientists have measured and calculated the expected rate that stars would explode. However, if the universe is billions of years old, the vast majority of SNRs (like the Crab Nebula) that should exist, are missing! Instead, the number of SNRs corresponds well to the expected number if the universe is less than 10,000 years old, especially considering that astronomers have not found a single SNR at Stage 3 (a great diameter)! Of course, if the universe is young, there should be no State 3 SNRs! Listen to this Real Science Friday program at KGOV.com!

    * Fossils with Protein, DNA and Bacteria: As listed in 2008 by Dr. Walt Brown...

    - allegedly 17 million year old magnolia leaf contains DNA (Scientific American 1993)
    - allegedly 100 million year old dinosaur fossil contains protein (Science News 1992)
    - allegedly 120 million year old insect fossil contains DNA (Nature 1993)
    - allegedly 200 million year old fish fossil contains DNA (Science. News 1992)
    - allegedly 30 million year old bee fossil contains LIVING bacteria (Science 1995)
    - allegedly 600 million year old rock contains LIVING bacillus (Nature 2000).

    * Saturn's Rings: do not show the stability predicted by their presumed 50 to 100 million year-old age, but have changed significantly since man's first mappings. See RSF 4-10-06 at KGOV.

    * Earth's Magnetic Field Reversals: Disproving any notion that magnetic reversals must occur over long periods, as documented by Dr. Walt Brown, Evidence Suggesting Extremely Rapid Field Variations During a Geomagnetic Reversal, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 1989; Earth's Field Flipping Fast, New Scientist, 1992; New Evidence for Extraordinarily Rapid Change of the Geomagnetic Field During a Reversal, Nature 1995. "At one time the orientation of the earth's magnetic field changed rapidly-by up to 6 degrees per day for several days," Brown, 2008.

    * Polystrate Fossils: In a thousand locations including the Fossil Cliffs of Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate fossils such as trees span many strata disproving the claim that the layers were deposited slowly over millions of years. See CRSQ June 2006, ICR Impact #316, and RSF 8-11-06 at KGOVArchives.org.

    * Spiral Galaxies: after their alleged billions of years the spiral arms of "pinwheel" galaxies should now be deformed, since as has been known for decades, the speed of the arms does not align with the galaxy centers, so there is "missing billions of years" of deformation in spiral galaxies. Atheistic astronomers have great difficulty even explaining where our own Moon came from, let alone the entire universe, and they admit they can't even figure out which formed first, stars or galaxies, showing that their Big Bang theory does not merit the absolute trust that millions put in it. Thus far from being able to explain how the universe could form apart from God, they are groping in the dark. See RSF 7-25-08 at KGOV

    * Yikes! Millions of Years are MISSING Here: According to evolutionary geologists, there are MORE THAN 100 MILLION YEARS MISSING in the extraordinarily regular and straight layers of the Grand Canyon!

    Supposed geological layers entirely missing from the beautifully formed Grand Canyon strata include the Ordovician and the Silurian. The flat boundaries between strata provide hard evidence proving that millions of years of erosion DID NOT OCCUR, and that therefore, those millions of years DID NOT PASS, neither in the canyon nor anywhere on Earth, for they are an atheistic fiction.

    * Today's Resource: Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out Guillermo Gonzalez' Privileged Planet (clip), Illustra Media's [url=http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=18]Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart's Age of the Earth Debate; Walt Brown's In the Beginning and Bob's interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week; the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI's tremendous Creation magazine!
    WARNING: Graphic video here.

  • #2
    I missed this and the other thread about the new fossil. My bad. Anyway, here is a link to the original source, if anyone is interested.

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0005723

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for the info, both of you. It's an interesting new discovery.

      I've got a question, being ignorant in matters of skeletal structure and evolution: why would the skull and outer appendages of Ida be so drastically different from the lemur, yet the spine, tailbone and upper limb bones (technical terms there) almost exactly the same? Take a look at these closeups of the ruffed lemur skeleton to see what I'm talking about. It just seems really weird to me that the pelvis, and spine would evolve rapidly, but the opposable thumbs and skull would remain similar to a primate's for so long.


      All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. - Galileo

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by always_learning View Post
        Thanks for the info, both of you. It's an interesting new discovery.

        I've got a question, being ignorant in matters of skeletal structure and evolution: why would the skull and outer appendages of Ida be so drastically different from the lemur, yet the spine, tailbone and upper limb bones (technical terms there) almost exactly the same? Take a look at these closeups of the ruffed lemur skeleton to see what I'm talking about. It just seems really weird to me that the pelvis, and spine would evolve rapidly, but the opposable thumbs and skull would remain similar to a primate's for so long.
        Why don't you contact the people who did the work on Ida, perhaps they have an idea. Asking Pastor Bob or his science buddy will be a waste of time.

        And while I am at it, Pastor Bob, don't you think you should not count on the beer can nodules to suggest that they "undermine traditional evidence for millions of years"? See the beer can nodule thread. I only bring this up because I went out of my way a couple of years ago to double check your claims and found them to be, misleading at best. Why would I take your word for any thing scientific if you are not straight on this issue? Don't you think that honesty in all things is the best way to present Christ? Or do the ends justify the means?
        "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

        "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

        "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

        "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by always_learning View Post
          Thanks for the info, both of you. It's an interesting new discovery.

          I've got a question, being ignorant in matters of skeletal structure and evolution: why would the skull and outer appendages of Ida be so drastically different from the lemur, yet the spine, tailbone and upper limb bones (technical terms there) almost exactly the same? Take a look at these closeups of the ruffed lemur skeleton to see what I'm talking about.
          Regarding the vertebrae, see Figure 7 here:

          http://www.plosone.org/article/slide...e.0005723.g007

          In the last paragraph of the section discussing this figure that say

          The length profile of the proximal half of caudal vertebrae is close to that of living Callithrix jacchus, while more distally D. masillae has much longer vertebrae. Altogether, the tail is much longer than that referred to Europolemur koenigswaldi (Fig. 7). In D. masillae, the length profile of Ca8–Ca20 differs from that of the living Avahi laniger, even more so from Eulemur mongoz, and considerably from Ateles geoffroyi. Clearly, Darwinius did not have a prehensile tail. The tail was presumably used primarily for balance, and possibly for steering while leaping. Its soft body contours are incomplete. Therefore, it is impossible to decide whether it was bushy or not.
          It just seems really weird to me that the pelvis, and spine would evolve rapidly, but the opposable thumbs and skull would remain similar to a primate's for so long.
          I'm not sure what you're asking. This seems to contradict your previous observation. Could you clarify?

          Comment


          • #6
            See the Sticky thread on Manganese nodules.
            Someone needs to explain to me why Pastor Bob and his favorite scientists think it necessary to misrepresent science in support of Christ. Thanks.
            "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

            "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

            "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

            "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Metro State Atheists View Post
              Originally posted by always_learning
              It just seems really weird to me that the pelvis, and spine would evolve rapidly, but the opposable thumbs and skull would remain similar to a primate's for so long.
              I'm not sure what you're asking. This seems to contradict your previous observation. Could you clarify?
              Assuming the Darwinius massillae evolved from the ape family, and not the other way around... it struck me as unusual that the core would evolve (lemur-like), but the large, primate-shaped skull and the opposable thumbs would remain the same (primate-like), presumably until a different period.

              As you can tell, I'm not a science major... just questions from my limited understanding.


              All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. - Galileo

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by always_learning View Post
                Assuming the Darwinius massillae evolved from the ape family, and not the other way around... it struck me as unusual that the core would evolve (lemur-like), but the large, primate-shaped skull and the opposable thumbs would remain the same (primate-like), presumably until a different period.

                As you can tell, I'm not a science major... just questions from my limited understanding.
                It seems to me that evolution is simply maintaining some useful traits, while eliminating or altering less useful traits.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Metro State Atheists View Post
                  It seems to me that evolution is simply maintaining some useful traits, while eliminating or altering less useful traits.
                  Right... same here... which is why I'm wondering where the little backbone, big head comes in. I mean, we've got those types here on TOL, but....




                  Sorry, I crack myself up sometimes.

                  Anyway, just wondering how that ties in. It's an interesting find though.


                  All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. - Galileo

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jukia View Post
                    See the Sticky thread on Manganese nodules.
                    Someone needs to explain to me why Pastor Bob and his favorite scientists think it necessary to misrepresent science in support of Christ. Thanks.
                    First, Bob Enyart is a radio show host, not a scientist. That, in itself, should answer some questions... I don't listen to Bob's show, nor do I know Bob. I do know this: radio shows provide people with information that aligns with their worldview. Thus, if Bob finds a scientist who offers information that aligns with his worldview, he's going to promote it.

                    Second, you seem to be implying that Bob and the scientists behind this article/radio show are intentionally misrepresenting science. To the contrary, I'm quite convinced that, whether they're right or wrong, they believe they're right. They're basing their views of science on their view of the Bible, not visa versa. As a result, their opinions on the recent findings will be in favor of their worldview, not yours.

                    And thirdly, I wasn't addressing Bob in my question about the skeletal structure of Darwinius massillae: read in context, I thanked Jefferson and Metro State Atheists for providing the information, and then asked for an explanation to my question. If you have a better answer, let's hear it: mere disagreement doesn't interest me, nor does it stimulate useful conversation.


                    All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. - Galileo

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by always_learning View Post
                      First, Bob Enyart is a radio show host, not a scientist. That, in itself, should answer some questions... I don't listen to Bob's show, nor do I know Bob. I do know this: radio shows provide people with information that aligns with their worldview. Thus, if Bob finds a scientist who offers information that aligns with his worldview, he's going to promote it.

                      Second, you seem to be implying that Bob and the scientists behind this article/radio show are intentionally misrepresenting science. To the contrary, I'm quite convinced that, whether they're right or wrong, they believe they're right. They're basing their views of science on their view of the Bible, not visa versa. As a result, their opinions on the recent findings will be in favor of their worldview, not yours.

                      And thirdly, I wasn't addressing Bob in my question about the skeletal structure of Darwinius massillae: read in context, I thanked Jefferson and Metro State Atheists for providing the information, and then asked for an explanation to my question. If you have a better answer, let's hear it: mere disagreement doesn't interest me, nor does it stimulate useful conversation.
                      Pastor Bob is supposed to be a Christian. Therefore he should speak the truth and not misrepresent.
                      Basing your view of science on the Bible is like basing your view of math on Charles Dickens.
                      If you have specific questions about this fossil why dont you track down the people who did the work. I'll bet they would love to talk about it.
                      "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

                      "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

                      "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

                      "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jukia View Post
                        If you have specific questions about this fossil why dont you track down the people who did the work. I'll bet they would love to talk about it.
                        I'll bet they wouldn't. I'll bet if you invited them to debate the issue on Bob's next Real Science Friday show, they would find some excuse, any excuse not to show up.
                        WARNING: Graphic video here.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jefferson View Post
                          I'll bet they wouldn't. I'll bet if you invited them to debate the issue on Bob's next Real Science Friday show, they would find some excuse, any excuse not to show up.
                          My suggestion was not to have someone debate the issue on Pastor Bob's show. It was a suggestion that a person with a question go to the source that is most likely to provide an appropriate answer. When the good Pastor described how manganese nodules on beer cars were clearly evidence of a young earth, I tracked down one of the people on the PBS video he cited. Bob was wrong.

                          And I am not sure what the debate would be about anyway. If the good Pastor had some specific questions about the fossil find, the best way to get them answered is to go the the horse's mouth. But that is not his style. He is less interested in the truth than he claims.

                          As an aside, it strikes me that the Christian God has left evidence of his work in the Bible as well as the real world. Why is it that Pastor Bob feels it appropriate to take the written word, which is 1000's of years old with little in the way of original documents, over an examination of the real world which can be done today with sophisticated methods???
                          "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

                          "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

                          "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

                          "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jefferson View Post
                            I'll bet they wouldn't. I'll bet if you invited them to debate the issue on Bob's next Real Science Friday show, they would find some excuse, any excuse not to show up.
                            Didn't that already happen?

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X