Evidence for Creation & Against Evolution.

[bob b]

Evidence for Creation & Against Evolution.

Here "creation" is to be understood as a straightforward acceptance of the Genesis account, and "evolution" is to be understood as the belief that life arose "naturally" and all life has descended "naturally" from some kind of original primitive "replicating molecule".

I have recently been studying in depth Walt Brown's website where he has presented a multitude of scientific evidences which are best understood in terms of the general framework established in the Genesis accounts.

Walt has presented these evidences in several hundred page or even chapter sized chunks.

Since he has given permission for this material to be freely copied (in their entirety and with accreditation) I will cover some of the most startling pieces of such evidences in this thread.

I start with the recent findings regarding preservation of life and life evidences in the fossil record. This material tends to support the idea that fossils are of recent origin.

-------------

68. Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?

DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing.a Before 1990, almost no one believed DNA could last 10,000 years.b This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leavesc and 11–425-million-year-old salt crystals.d Dozens of plants and animals have left their DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000-years-old.e DNA fragments are also said to be in alleged 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed f and in the scales of a 200-million-year-old fossilized fish.g DNA is frequently reported in insects and plants encased in amber, both assumed to be 25–120 million years old.h

These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit.i They now claim DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this.j

Bacteria. Even living bacterial spores have been recovered, cultured, and identified in intestines of bees preserved in supposedly 25–40-million-year-old amber.k The same bacteria, Bacillus, are found alive in rocks allegedly 250 million and 650 million years old.l Italian scientists have recovered 78 different types of dormant, but living, bacteria in two meteorites that are presumed to be 4.5 billion years old.m If one accepts these old ages for rocks, then they must also accept that some bacteria are practically immortal—an obviously absurd conclusion. (Because these “old” bacteria and the various DNA specimens closely match those of today, little evolution has occurred.)

Proteins. Evolutionists face similar contradictions with proteins, n soft tissue,o and blood compounds p preserved in dinosaur bones. As with DNA, these remains should not last 70–150 million years, as is claimed for those bones. All this should discredit these old ages.

References:

a. This natural process is driven by the continual thermal vibrations of atoms in DNA. Just as marbles in a vibrating container always try to find lower positions, vibrating atoms tend to reorganize into arrangements with lower energies. Thus, DNA tends to form less energetic compounds such as water and carbon dioxide.

b. Bryan Sykes, “The Past Comes Alive,” Nature, Vol. 352, 1 August 1991, pp. 381–382.

 “Many scientists still consider this idea [that DNA could last longer than 10,000 years] far fetched, but Poinar points out that not long ago few people believed any ancient DNA could be sequenced. ‘When we started, we were told that we were crazy,’ he says.” Kathryn Hoppe, “Brushing the Dust off Ancient DNA,” Science News, Vol. 142, 24 October 1992, p. 281.

c. Edward M. Golenberg et al., “Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species,” Nature, Vol. 344, 12 April 1990, pp. 656–658.

 DNA disintegrates more rapidly when it is in contact with water. In commenting on the remarkably old DNA in a supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leaf, Svante Pääbo remarked, “The clay [in which the leaf was found] was wet, however, and one wonders how DNA could have survived the damaging influence of water for so long.” [See Svante Pääbo, “Ancient DNA,” Scientific American, Vol. 269, November 1993, p. 92.] Maybe those magnolia leaves are not 17 million years old. W.B.

 “That DNA could survive for such a staggering length of time was totally unexpected—almost unbelievable.” Jeremy Cherfas, “Ancient DNA: Still Busy after Death,” Science, Vol. 253, 20 September 1991, p. 1354.

d. “Fragments of 16S ribosomal RNA genes were detected by polymerase chain reaction amplification of DNA extracted from halite [salt, NaCl] samples ranging in age from 11 to 425 Myr (millions of years).” Steven A. Fish et al., “Recovery of 16S Ribosomal RNA Gene Fragments from Ancient Halite,” Nature, Vol. 417, 23 May 2002, p. 432.

e. Eske Willerslev et al., “Diverse Plant and Animal Genetic Records from Holocene and Pleistocene Sediments,” Science, Vol. 300, 2 May 2003, pp. 791–795.

f. “Under physiological conditions, it would be extremely rare to find preserved DNA that was tens of thousands of years old.” Scott R. Woodward et al., “DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments,” Science, Vol. 266, 18 November 1994, p. 1229.

Some have charged that the DNA Woodward recovered from a large Cretaceous bone in Utah was contaminated with human, or perhaps mammal, DNA. Several of their arguments are based on evolutionary presuppositions. Woodward rebuts those claims in “Detecting Dinosaur DNA,” Science, Vol. 268, 26 May 1995, pp. 1191–1194.

g. Hoppe, p. 281.

 Virginia Morell, “30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field,” Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, p. 1862.

h. Hendrick N. Poinar et al., “DNA from an Extinct Plant,” Nature, Vol. 363, 24 June 1993, p. 677.

 Rob DeSalle et al., “DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications,” Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, pp. 1933–1936.

 Raúl J. Cano et al., “Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120–135-Million-Year-Old Weevil,” Nature, Vol. 363, 10 June 1993, pp. 536–538.

i. Tomas Lindahl is a recognized expert on DNA and its rapid disintegration. He tried to solve this problem of “old” DNA by claiming that all such discoveries resulted from contamination and poor measurement techniques. He wrote, “The apparent observation that fully hydrated plant DNA might be retained in high-molecular mass form for 20 million years is incompatible with the known properties of the chemical structure of DNA.” [See Tomas Lindahl, “Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA,” Nature, Vol. 362, 22 April 1993, p. 714.] His claims of contamination are effectively rebutted in many of the papers listed above and by:

 George O. Poinar Jr., in “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA,” Nature, Vol. 365, 21 October 1993, p. 700. (The work of George Poinar and others was a major inspiration for the book and film, Jurassic Park.)

 Edward M. Golenberg, “Antediluvian DNA Research,” Nature, Vol. 367, 24 February 1994, p. 692.

The measurement procedures of Poinar and others were far better controlled than Lindahl realized. That is, modern DNA did not contaminate the fossil. However, Lindahl is probably correct in saying that DNA cannot last much longer than 10,000 years. All points of view are consistent when one concludes that these old ages are wrong.

j. “We know from chemical experiments that it [DNA] degrades and how fast it degrades. After 25 million years, there shouldn’t be any DNA left at all.” Rebecca L. Cann, as quoted by Morell, p. 1862.

k. Raúl J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki, “Revival and Identification of Bacterial Spores in 25- to 40-Million-Year-Old Dominican Amber,” Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, pp. 1060–1064.

Many tests were preformed to rule out contamination. [See also, F. G. Priest, Andrew T. Beckenbach, and Raúl J. Cano, “Age of Bacteria from Amber,” Science, Vol. 270, 22 December 1995, pp. 2015–2017.]

 “When you look at them they don’t look any different from the modern ones, but these bacteria are ancient [supposedly 25–40 million years ancient] and they’re alive!” Joshua Fischman, “Have 25-Million-Year-Old Bacteria Returned to Life?” Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, p. 977.

l. “There is also the question of how bacterial biopolymers can remain intact over millions of years in dormant bacteria; or, conversely, if bacteria are metabolically active enough to repair biopolymers, this raises the question of what energy source could last over such a long period.” R. John Parkes, “A Case of Bacterial Immortality?” Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 844–845.

 Russell H. Vreeland et al., “Isolation of a 250 Million-Year-Old Halotolerant Bacterium from a Primary Salt Crystal,” Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 897–900.

m. See Endnote 62 on page 255.

n. Richard Monastersky, “Protein Identified in Dinosaur Fossils,” Science News, Vol. 142, 3 October 1992, p. 213.

 Gerard Muyzer et al., “Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs,” Geology, Vol. 20, October 1992, pp. 871–874.

o. “Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels ...” Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex,” Science, Vol. 307, 25 March 2005, p. 1952.

 “ ‘I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren’t supposed to be there, but there they are,’ said Schweitzer, lead author of the paper. ‘I was pretty shocked.’ ” Evelyn Boswell, “Montana T. Rex Yields Next Big Discovery in Dinosaur Paleontology,” Montana State University News Service, 24 March 2005.

p. Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Heme Compounds in Dinosaur Trabecular Bone,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 94, June 1997, pp. 6291–6296.

 

[noneoftheabove]

I am neither an evolutinist nor creationist. I kneel before the Lord, thought Origin of Species was boring and misunderstood, enjoyed Stephen Jay Gould's writing more than most I read in college, and think Creationism versus Evolution is a less fun but equally worthless pass-time compared to video games. Also, since I love my fellow Sapien I find it easy to call a gorilla my brother. I wish, in fact, I could speak to him and know in conversation what he has seen.

..to be brief.

 

[Johnny]

The beginning of young-DNA argument seems to be that since no scientist expected that DNA should be preserved so long, finding preserved DNA means the sample must be young. The fallacy in this line of thinking is immediately evident. History is wrought with examples of scientists thinking this or that should or shouldn’t be found, and then nature correcting them.

Brown begins,

Before 1990, almost no one believed DNA could last 10,000 years.

His reference for this statement is a paper from 1991 and a quote from 1992 which indicated that “many scientists” thought the idea of DNA being older than 10,000 years was crazy (notice that “many scientists” became “almost no one”). Incidentally one of the papers is actually describing 30-million year old DNA. I do not deny that many scientists felt this improbable at the time. I mention this because the date is important, as we shall see in a moment.

After giving several examples of million plus year old DNA, Brown continues,

“ These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit.i They now claim DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this.j”

Brown is saying that now that we have found old DNA, scientists claim that DNA can be preserved longer under ideal conditions. It’s important to note that the examples of old DNA Brown cites are from 1992, 2002 and 2003. He then states that the measured disintegration rates of DNA under these more ideal conditions do not support this. The problem is that Brown reaches all the way back to a quote of a quote from 1992 (yes, 1992) to support a claim that these “more ideal conditions--that were suggested after the findings of old DNA (found in 1992, 2002, 2003 as cited)--are insufficient. How could these “ideal conditions” have been measured if they weren’t even researched or published yet? Remember, in 1992 “many scientists still” didn’t believe (and “almost no one believed” to Brown) that DNA could be preserved longer than 10,000 years. Around that time they were still arguing over the contamination of the specimens. Even more, the quote provided from 1992 doesn’t even support his claim that “more ideal conditions” were tested! Do you see what kind of “scientist” we’re dealing with here? This is blatant distortion of the story.

Incidentally, in 1991 (right around the time of Brown’s support for the notion that “almost no one” believed that DNA could be preserved) a paper was published in Curr. Biology titled, “Miocene DNA sequences — a dream come true?” In this paper the authors demonstrate that under physiological conditions (not ideal conditions) at a neutral pH, and a temperature of 15’C, it would take 100,000 years for hydrolytic damage to destroy DNA. There were also other publishings in 1993 and 1994 which Brown even cites which examined the possibility of extended preservation.

Brown’s DNA argument seems to be two-fold.
(1) No scientist expected old DNA and therefore the DNA samples must be young (Brown must believe that scientist’s expectations are always met). This claim does not need addressing. It is a fallacious argument.
(2) Research does not support the “ideal conditions” posited after the finds. Brown claims that research on ideal conditions shows that they do not support the claim that DNA can be preserved much longer than expected. Yet his provided support does not support his claim in any way. Furthermore, Brown’s source was a quote of a quote published in 1992 long before the serious “ideal condition” hypothesis were put forth.

 

[Johnny]

As to the bacteria, bacillus form spores, and so I am rather unsurprised.

Italian scientists have recovered 78 different types of dormant, but living, bacteria in two meteorites that are presumed to be 4.5 billion years old. If one accepts these old ages for rocks, then they must also accept that some bacteria are practically immortal—an obviously absurd conclusion. (Because these “old” bacteria and the various DNA specimens closely match those of today, little evolution has occurred.)

I notice that Walt has "see endnote" for this claim (oh boy, he has direct away to an endnote). I'd like to see a source for this if possible.

 

[Johnny]

I should also point out that none of those are evidence for YEC.

 

[bob b]

15. Codes, Programs, and Information In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease.a It seems most reasonable that the genetic code, the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence.b

Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.c

Life contains matter, energy, and information d. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly.e Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

• Macroevolution cannot occur.f
• Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.g
• Life could not result from a “big bang.”h

References:

a. “Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation.” Anne-Claude Gavin et al., “Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery,” Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.

b. The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were generated by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today. [See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst, “Evolution Encoded,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84–91.]

 “This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution.” [emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch as quoted by David Bradley, “The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care,” Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.

c. “No matter how many ‘bits’ of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it ‘information’ if it doesn’t at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a ‘program.’ Another name for computer software is an ‘algorithm.’ No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organisms with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?” Abel and Trevors, p. 8.

 “No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms.” Jack T. Trevors and David L. Abel, “Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life,” Cell Biology International, Vol. 28, 2004, p. 730.

d. For example, a computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. That information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u” that directly follows a “q”. After compression, the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or widget.

Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log2[4] = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.

Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.

While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.

 Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3 x 10e24 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]

e. “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Ibid., p. 107.

f. Because macroevolution requires increasing complexity through natural processes, the organism’s information content must spontaneously increase many times. However, natural processes cannot significantly increase the information content of an isolated system, such as a reproductive cell. Therefore, macroevolution cannot occur.

 “The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.” Gitt, p. 124.

g. Based on modern advances in the field of information theory, the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. [See, for example, Charles H. Bennett, “Demons, Engines and the Second Law,” Scientific American, Vol. 257, November 1987, pp. 108–116.] Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being. [See also “Second Law of Thermodynamics” on page 27.]

h. If the “big bang” occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science. Random, chaotic movements of gas molecules contain virtually no useful information. Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang” could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.

 

[Sweet Goodness]

Yay! Go Creationism Go!

 

[hatsoff]

It's not us you need to convince. I really don't care a whip what you say, because you have no credibility. You see, I'm not an evolution expert, nor do I presume to be. I believe what scientists tell me--and not by faith, but by precedent.

So, go on exploring the science of evolution. Maybe you're right. Almost certainly not, though. When you finally get that proof you've been searching for, contact another scientist, not some silly message board.

 

[bob b]

7. Fruit Flies
A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.a

References:

a. “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

 “A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory ...” N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1186.
 “In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 94.

 “It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.” Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

 “Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 61.

 “The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.” Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 130.

 

[BillyBob]

Here is the ultimate proof of Creation....

 

[Real Sorceror]

Here is the ultimate proof of Creation....

The banana? You know, plants will often evolve to suite certian animals in order to spread seeds or pollen. Guess which animals the banana might have evovled for? Monkeys and apes! Who, by sheer coincidence (sarcasm) have hands very similiar to our hands. I'd also like to point out that the domesticated banana we all know and love was engineered by humans to be larger and have fewer seeds than its wild cousin, making it perfect for human consumption.

Can I say "bump"?

 

[ItIsWritten]

bob,

Thank you for the research.

Keep up the good work. I'll continue to look forward to your posts.

 

[avatar382]

bob, I don't mean to be a pest but I feel I must point out yet again that your understanding of evolution is incorrect.

If you want to be taken seriously by people that aren't already YEC's, you really should crack a biology text and get your facts straight.

 

[Yorzhik]

A382... Could you at least mention the facts which are incorrect?

 

[Nineveh]

Thanks for pointing these out Mr. B Mr. Brown is awsome

 

[zenboy81]

A good scientist looks at the totallity of the data. Mr. Brown has chosen to pick the references that support his ideas.

My first year of grad school I was given a research paper funded by the NIH that analyzed the diets of two select groups. One that ate a vegetarian diet of fresh fruits and vegetables, the other group consumed a diet of refined carbohydrates and saturated fat. The data concluded conclusively that the vegetarians had a statistically significant icrease in the risk of developing cancer. The researchers could not find any loop holes in this study (nor could my class).

So do dietitians use this study to convince their clients/patients to stay away from fresh fruits and vegetables? NO, because there are thousands and thousands of studies that state the opposite.

As a research scientist it would be nice to pick and choose references to support my work. But once I'd get to that "peer reviewed" part, I wouldn't be very successful if I wasn't takeing into consideration all the research involved with my topic.

So if Walt Brown is so knowledgeable on this subject, with his references and all, where is his peer reviewed work?

 

[bob b]

21. Rapid Burial
Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish,a show by the details of their soft, fleshy portionsb that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas.c These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.d

References:

a. Thousands of jellyfish, many bigger than a dinner plate, are found in at least seven different horizons of coarse-grained, abrasive sandstone in Wisconsin. [See James W. Hagadorn et al., “Stranded on a Late Cambrian Shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin,” Geology, Vol. 30, No. 2, February 2002, pp. 147–150.]

Coarse grains slowly covering a jellyfish would allow atmospheric oxygen to migrate in and produce rapid decay. Burial in clay or mud would better shield an organism from decay. If coarse-grain sand buried these jellyfish in a storm, turbulence and abrasion by the sand grains would tear and destroy the jellyfish. To understand how thousands of jellyfish were gently collected and preserved in coarse-grained sand, see pages 158–168.

Charles Darwin recognized the problem of finding fossilized soft-bodied organisms such as jellyfish. He wrote:

No organism wholly soft can be preserved. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 330.

Once again, a prediction of evolution is seen to be wrong.

 Preston Cloud and Martin F. Glaessner, “The Ediacarian Period and System: Metazoa Inherit the Earth,” Science, Vol. 217, 27 August 1982, pp. 783–792. [See also the cover of that issue.]

 Martin F. Glaessner, “Pre-Cambrian Animals,” Scientific American, Vol. 204, March 1961, pp. 72–78.

b. Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.

 “... preconditions for the preservation of soft-bodied faunas: rapid burial of fossils in undisturbed sediment; deposition in an environment free from the usual agents of immediate destruction—primarily oxygen and other promoters of decay, and the full range of organisms, from bacteria to large scavengers, that quickly reduce most carcasses to oblivion in nearly all earthly environments; and minimal disruption by the later ravages of heat, pressure, fracturing, and erosion. ... But the very conditions that promote preservation also decree that few organisms, if any, make their natural homes in such places.” Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1989), pp 61–62.

c. Presse Grayloise, “Very Like a Whale,” The Illustrated London News, 1856, p. 116.

 Sunderland, pp. 111–114.

 David Starr Jordan, “A Miocene Catastrophe,” Natural History, Vol. 20, January–February 1920, pp. 18–22.

 Hugh Miller, The Old Red Sandstone, or New Walks in an Old Field (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1858), pp. 221–225.

d. Harold G. Coffin, Origin By Design (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1983), pp. 30–40.

Figure 7: Fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. The fossilization process must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found.

Figure 8: Fish-in-Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.

Figure 9: Fish-in-Curved Fish. The curved back shows this fish died under stress.

Figure 10: Dragonfly Wing. This delicate, 1 1/2-foot-long wing must have been buried rapidly and evenly to preserve its details. (Imagine the size of the entire dragonfly!)

 

[robycop3]

Actually, the evidence is quite simple. According to evolution, animal life began with amoebas, which "just happened". The amoeba eventually evolved into the paramecium, a one-cell animal with specific body parts. The paramecium evolved into the volvox, a multi-cell animal, etc.etc.

If evolution was correct, WHY ARE THERE STILL AMOEBAE? Seems as if they woulda all been evolved into 'superior' creatures by now, or all overcome by these 'superior' creatures.

And for ANYTHING to exist, there must have been a Being with creative power who has ALWAYS EXISTED. No one but GOD can make something from nothing. Everything that exists calls for a CREATOR. There HAD to have been someone who could make something from nothing who has ALWAYS existed.

This doesn't seem so mind-boggling if one sits down & thinks about it. If I, an ordinary steel worker, can think this out, surely the more erudite of the readers can also do it.

 

[Johnny]

Actually, the evidence is quite simple. According to evolution, animal life began with amoebas, which "just happened".

Can you find me a source in which evolution claims that amoebas just happened? If not, If not, I hope you will not make this assertion again.

If evolution was correct, WHY ARE THERE STILL AMOEBAE?

Perhaps you should learn a little more about the process of evolution before you come in making all-caps statements thinking you've caught onto something.

If I, an ordinary steel worker, can think this out, surely the more erudite of the readers can also do it.

And if I, an ordinary graduate student, came and tried to tell you how to work steel, then surely you'd correct me and tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about. Likewise, I am so inclinced to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. The difference between you and I seems to lie in our willingness to make assertions about something we are largely ignorant of. There is a wealth of information on the internet with which you can learn more about evolution.

 

[fool]

WHY ARE THERE STILL AMOEBAE?

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?
Anyway.
From Answers in Genisis ;

‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?’ In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this ‘pussyfooting’, as he called it. He said, ‘In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.’

However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying ‘If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?’

So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (‘races’) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of ‘letters’ of new information.

Wear your hard hat.
fool