The Plesiosaur Site

I love science.

The evidence from this site suggest that this is not the case, but I'll let it go and assume that you believe this statement to be true.

TRUE

The further it advances, the more it disproves "Darwinian" evolution.

This is simply untrue.

FALSE

In fact, science has advanced to the point that almost all secular scientists have completely abandoned "Darwinian" evolution ...

Complete and utter nonsense!

FALSE

...in favor of "rapid mutation", "radial symmetry", "punctuated equilibrium", or variations of this far-out theory.

This is making false distinctions. None of the other processes listed are anything other than different ways of looking at the evolutionary process, and none of them abandon Darwinism - i.e. the role of natural selection in driving evolution. I'm puzzled by the reference to "radial symmetry"; this is a property of some organisms, not an evolutionary model. Starfish have radial symmetry.

Misleading

It is the only explanation (in their minds) ...

Untrue - it is the best explanation of the evidence (and here I refer to the modern synthesis). Other theories simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

FALSE

...for the complete lack of fossil evidence (despite literally millions of discovered fossils) of any species changing into another.

Untrue - there is a vast amount of fossil evidence. The fossil record is full of what a creationist would call 'transitional forms'.

FALSE

There is no such thing as macro-evolution.

Untrue - there is a vast amount of evidence to show that large-scale evolution has occurred. In any case, this is drawing a false distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. Where can one draw the line? How much accumulated change constitutes macro- as opposed to micro-evolution?

FALSE

Micro-evolution, however, is very possible

The distinction between macro- and micro-evolution is in any case meaningless. So, although the statement is true -= and in fact micro-evolution is essential to evolution - it is deliberately misleading in that it is setting up a false dichotomy.

Misleading

...and is in fact explained in the Bible. "...all their "kinds" and all their variations."

This is an unsupported assertion. Unless a biologically valid definition of "kind" can be made, the statement can be twisted to suit any interpretation.

Unsupported assertion

In other words, species adapt, sometimes quite quickly.

True!

TRUE

However, a finch is still a finch (irony intended) after adapting. A lizard is still a lizard and a monkey is still a monkey !

This is misleading - drawing distinctions which do not exist in nature. Nobody would expect a finch suddenly to turn into 'something else'. To do so would require several speciation events, and take a long time.

Misleading

Charles Darwin himself summed it up best in his "book."

Why the quotes around book? Is the author implying that �The Origin of the Species� is not a book? Or a sort of pseudo-book?

ad hominem attack

Noting the abundance of fossils, numerous transitionals must be found to prove my theory.

I can�t find this quotation in the 6th edition of the Origin. What I can find is this: �If then there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find, in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which, on our theory, have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life. We ought only to look for a few links, and such assuredly we do find--some more distantly, some more closely, related to each other; and these links, let them be ever so close, if found in different stages of the same formation, would, by many palaeontologists, be ranked as distinct species. But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.� So this is misrepresentation, misquotation, and taken out of context to mislead

Misleading

Enough said !

Enough said!

Science, real science�the work that ferrets out empirical facts about the nature that surrounds us�has been co-opted by an ancient philosophical/religious doctrine the origins of which can be traced back to at least 400-700 years before Christ. Known today variously as scientism, evolutionism, metaphysical naturalism, and Darwinism, this doctrine has been so effectively interlaced with science that it is often difficult for the scientist, much less the layperson, to separate the two.

This assertion is made without any supporting evidence. All I can say is that, as a scientist, I am not a part of any �ancient philosophical/religious� sect who are telling me what I can and can�t say or do.

Unsupported assertion

The research dealing with mans "evolution" from the apes (or to be specious, ape-like ancestors) begins with the assumption that man did in fact evolve from the apes.

No it doesn't. It hypothesizes descent from an ape-like ancestor because apes are closer to humans in their anatomy than any other animals. The research investigates this hypothesis, which is well-supported by evidence from anatomy, genetics and studies of behaviour as well as evidence from the fossil record.

FALSE

No observations or interpretations are allowed to question this a priori assumption.

Utter nonsense. It is not an a priori assumption.

FALSE

What has been sought in paleo-anthropology then are the transitional stages from ape-like animals to man.

True, though it rather begs the question 'what is a man?'

TRUE

Transitional forms have proven as elusive here, however, as between any other plants or animals.

Simply untrue. There are many fossils of human ancestors.

FALSE

In short, the missing link remains missing.

If by 'missing link' you mean ancestral forms, it doesn't. See above.

FALSE

Eanthropus dawsoni or "dawn man." Discovered in 1912 by Charles Dawson, a medical doctor and amateur paleontologist who discovered a mandible and a small piece of a skull in a gravel pit near Piltdown England. The jaw-bone was ape-like but the teeth had human characteristics. The skull piece was very human-like. These 2 specimens were combined to form dawn man, which was supposedly 500,000 years old. However, the whole thing turned out to be an elaborate hoax. The skull was indeed human (about 500 years old) but the jaw was that of a modern ape whose teeth had been filed to look like human wear.

A reasonable account of the events, and copied verbatim from here http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/piltdown.html, or here http://www.wasdarwinright.com/Earlyman.html

TRUE

The success of this hoax for 50 years, despite the scrutiny of the best authorities in the world, ...

Untrue - the specimens were kept under lock and key in the British Museum, and access was very limited. Experts outside the Museum were not allowed to study the material. There are several books and web sites available that give a full account of the story.

FALSE

... led Solly Zuckerman to say, "It is doubtful if there is any science at all in the search for mans fossil ancestry."

Possibly true - though I suspect that it is a quote taken out of context. I'd like to know where and when this was said.

uncertain

Had the original bones been available for study, then this hoax would not have continued for as long as it did.

It is precisely because the bones were not made available for study that the hoax was not exposed. This flatly contradicts statement (20) above in any case.

misleading

It was not until 38 years after the bones had been "found" that the hoax was exposed. In 1953 Kenneth Oakley, Joseph Weiner and Wilfred Le Gros Clark realized that Piltdown man was a hoax.

Quite true! A triumph of science. Here's the original paper:

TRUE

Why is Piltdown Man not being taught as a fraud in our schools when it is a known hoax?

I'm not clear on the distinction between a fraud and a hoax. In any case, Piltdown Man is taught as a hoax, certainly in British Schools. If schools in the USA don't, that's their business. In any case this is completely irrelevant to the argument.

FALSE

Discovered in 1922 in the Pliocene deposits of Nebraska by a mysterious "Mister Cook" and made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History.

The press picked up on this find and blew it's significance out of all proportion. Henry Osbourne was at best tentative in his support for the 'human ancestor' hypothesis. Steven Jay Gould's essay on the subject is well worth reading.

FALSE

This tooth was being heavily promoted by the press at the Scopes "monkey" trial in 1925 as irrefutable evidence of the animal ancestry of man.

What have the actions of the press to do with science?

irrelevant

A "picture" of Nebraska Man and his wife were published in the London Daily News.

So what?

irrelevant

All from a tooth ! When other parts of the skeleton were found in 1927, it quickly became clear that it was nothing more than the tooth of an extinct pig

So scientists discovered the truth and published a correction. A good example of science in action.

TRUE

From this colossal screw-up, evolution is being taught as fact in public schools.

Simply untrue. This incident is not used to teach evolution as fact. How could it be? It might be used as a good example of how science works - i.e. mistakes are corrected by the process of sceptical scrutiny.

FALSE

This animal was long believed to be the 1st branch from that line of apes which evolved into man about 14 million years ago.

True, but this is no longer the case.

TRUE

Noted scientist Dr. Elwyn Simons stated confidently, "The pathway can now be traced with little fear of contradiction from generalized hominids -- to the genus HOMO." The crucial importance of Ramapithicus as an early ancestor of hominids is evident in this comment by Simons in Time magazine (Nov. 7, 1977)

Note 1977 - a long time ago, and in a popular magazine rather than a scientific journal. Science does not claim to be infallible.

irrelevant

Ramapithicus is ideally structured to be an ancestor of hominids. If he isn't, we don't have anything else that is. How true a statement ! From what evidence are these conclusions drawn in the 1st place ? Once again a few teeth and a jaw bone. From this many drawings have been made of Ramapithicus walking upright. Ridiculous!

Again, so what? It was a reasonable assumption in the context of out knowledge of human ancestry at the time. We now know a lot more!

irrelevant

Renowned secular anthropologist Richard Leaky (American Scientist 64:174, 1976): "The case for Ramapithicus as a hominid is not substantial, and the fragments of fossil material leave many questions open."

This is an illustration of science in action!

irrelevant

Zilman and Lowenstein went even further: "Ramapithicus walking upright has been reconstructed from only jaws and teeth. In 1961 an ancestral human was badly wanted. The prince's ape latched onto position by his teeth and has been hanging on ever since, his legitimacy sanctified by millions of textbooks and Time-Life volumes on human evolution.

This is, once again, an illustration of science in action!

irrelevant

Harvard University paleontologist David Pilbeam, a hugely secular scientist summed up what all know is true (Science 82, April 6-7): "A group of creatures once thought to be our oldest ancestors may have been firmly bumped out of the human family tree. Many paleontologists have maintained that Ramamorphs are our oldest known ancestors. These conclusions were drawn from little more than a few jaw bones and some teeth. Truthfully, it appears to be nothing more than an orangutan ancestor." This from a top secular scientist !

This is, once again, an illustration of science in action! I'm very unclear as to what point the author is making in this section. It seems to be nothing more or less than a description of how different scientists draw different conclusions from limited evidence, and how those theories change as more evidence is uncovered. To repeat: Science does not claim to be infallible.

irrelevant

Donald Johanson in his book "Lucy" refers to the "australopithecine mess" - and it definitely is that. The very word Australopithecus means "southern ape" because the first fossils were found in South Africa. The discoverer was Dr. Raymond Dart, professor of anatomy at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg.

So what?

irrelevant

Dart was convinced that some teeth were man-like and thus concluded it represented a transitional between apes and man. His opinions on the matter were largely scorned by the scientists of his time (1924) who considered it nothing more than a chimpanzee. The skull was soon known derisively as "Dart's baby".

So what?

irrelevant

Perhaps no one has studied the australopithecenes more than Sir Solly Zuckerman who wrote: "Evolution as a Process" in 1954: "There is indeed no question which the australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of humans and living ape skulls. It is the ape-so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any difference between modern ape and Australopithecus."

Untrue - this was written in 1954. There have been many more discoveries of Australopithecines since then, and many people have studied them more than Solly Zuckerman! Once again, I am at a loss to understand why this should be offered as a reason not to believe in evolution.

FALSE

Discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson was a half complete skeleton he named after the Beetle's song "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds". A year later 13 more similar skeletons were found. Remarkably the skull was even more ape-like than other australopithecenes.

irrelevant

In his book "Lucy, The beginnings of Human Kind," Johanson said: I had no problem with Lucy. She was so odd that there was no question about her not being human. She simply wasn't. She was too little. Her brain was way too small and her jaw was the wrong shape. Her teeth pointed away from the human condition and back in the direction of apes. The jaws had the same primitive features."

irrelevant

On the basis of a hip and knee joint found later, however, Johanson "decided" that Lucy did walk in an upright bipedal fashion. He thus deduced Lucy was an ancestor of man, as well as an ancestor of A. africanus (the original Australopithecus).

A reasonable deduction?

irrelevant

Great science at work here.

Possibly true - though the whole field of research in early human ancestry is so politicised that on occasion science loses out. Once again, I am at a loss to understand why this should be offered as a reason not to believe in evolution

irrelevant

The taxon Homo habilis had an illegitimate birth when Mary Leakey discovered some badly shattered skull fragments in 1959. Her husband Louis made the comment that it was nothing more than a "damned australopithecine". His attitude soon changed however when he found stone tools near the site of Homo habilis. Jumping into the fire, he quickly named it Homo and publicized the find widely. He was soon discredited when other australopithecenes were found in Africa, also with stone tools. Homo habilis was "demoted" to australopithecine.

See my remarks about the politicisation of research into early human ancestry

irrelevant

I didn't mean to exhaust so much space on Homo habilis, but I just can't stop. Let's talk about the dating of 1470. In 1969 samples of KBS tuft from just above the layer in which 1470 was found was sent to Cambridge University for potassium argon dating. Three different test gave an age of 220 million years old +or- 7 million years ! This was considered unacceptable for for this strata given its fossil content, so the errors were blamed on "extraneous" argon. Several more tests were done, and the best, most acceptable date was placed at 2.61 million years old. In National Geographic of June 1973 Richard Leakey stated," Either we toss out the 1470 skull or we toss out all our theories of early man. It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings. 1470 leaves in ruin the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary changes." AGREED !!

Again this is science in action.

irrelevant

What was the problem? The problem, given the age of 2.61 myo, made 1470 contemporaneous with Australopithecus, if not older--yet looked identical to modern man.

It was not identical to modern man.

FALSE

(Aren't you glad I kept going?)

No

This absolutely unseated Australopithecus as ancestor of modern man !

No it didn't. It showed that that modern man did not evolve from Australopithecus through a single lineage, but that several closely related taxa of early hominid lived at the same time.

FALSE

This specimen �

False - there are many specimens of Homo erectus...

FALSE

is undoubtedly the weakest link in the human evolution scenario.

...and they provide good evidence for human evolution.

FALSE

Shortly after Darwin published his Origin of the Species, a Dutch physician named Eugene Dubois, who burned with the desire to find the missing link,went in search of Pithecanthropus in Sumatra. Dubois had been a student of Ernst Haeckel, famous for his "biogenetic Law" that stated a human embryo went through a sequential evolutionary stage of its ancestors. It is now well known through medical science that this is far from true.

True

TRUE

What else is well known is that Haeckel falsified most of his data.

Dubious - he idealised some of his data, and made false assumptions based on a particular theory of ontogenetic development. To state that he falsified most of his data is simply untrue. It should also be noted that Haeckel's 'biogenetic law' has not been a part of mainstream evolutionary theory for a long time.

Dubious

Having failed to get financial assistance from the Dutch government, Dubois enlisted in the French Foreign Legion to gain his goal. While in Sumatra, he heard about a skull found on the nearby island of Java. He was able to secure the skull and even found another like it at the same location. However, these skulls were too human looking to be of any use to someone looking for an ape-man. In 1891, he found a molar tooth along the Solo river. Later the same year, he found another molar and an ape-like skull cap. The following year he found a human femur 46 feet from where he found the skull cap. Although at first he thought it was a chimpanzee skull, after consulting with Haeckel, he declared the whole collection to belong to one and the same creature, stating it was "admirably suited to the role of missing link".

True but irrelevant

irrelevant

This missing link arrived just in time to salvage Darwin's theory as it was under fire because of the total lack of transitional forms found or not found as the case was.

False - Darwin's theory was not in need of "salvaging".

FALSE

By joining an ape skull with a human femur he had truly created an ape-man. He originally claimed that the strata he was working in was pliocene but after discovering his ape-man, he decided it was really tertiary. We now know both to be false.

Possibly true, but irrelevant: Nobody is denying that scientists can make mistakes and falsify data. It science, however that uncovers the falsified data

irrelevant

When taking his specimen on tour, he could not find a single legitimate scientist to chair any of his meetings. Nonetheless, newspapers and magazines embraced him wholeheartedly, even drawing many pictures of complete ape-men. As Dubois came under increasing attack, he became very secretive about his fossil finds - to the point of hiding them under his dining room floor and refusing to let them be examined. A few years before his death in 1940, Dubois finally admitted the skulls were in his opinion those of a large Gibbon. Evolutionists however refused to accept this and to this day it is still being taught as a transitional, though all modern scientists have debunked it.

So what? He was wrong!

irrelevant

The other fossil in the Homo erectus taxon is Peking man.

False - it is not the only other fossil in the taxon. Many other specimens of Homo erectus have been found in other parts of the world. To quote:

FALSE

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoerectus.htm

Homo Erectus

An almost complete skull cap was discovered in 1929 in an infilled limestone cave near Peking, China (now Bejing). This ape-like skull cap was similar to Java man. The cave continued to be investigated until the beginning of World War II. Fragments of 14 skulls, 12 lower jaws and 147 teeth were found. Also, several skeletons of modern man were found slightly higher. Once again, bone fragments were assembled from various places to form a skull. For example, the jaw bone came from a level 85 feet higher than the skull and face bones. After hiring a sculptor to model a woman's face from the made-up skull, the result was named "Nellie". Nellie has appeared in almost all textbooks.

So what? I don�t see any argument.

irrelevant

As usual, at the site where "she" was found was found also numerous stone tools and evidence of butchery and fires. Recently, Chinese scientists have found over a 1,000 stone tools, the skulls of over 100 modern day animals, as well as 6 modern human skulls. The skulls and all fragments showed evidence of being shattered or broken in. In addition, a layer of ashes nearly 4 feet thick was found. The Chinese assume Homo erectus made these tools, despite the fact that the brain capacity of the put-together skulls is only that of a small chimp. They completely discredit the whole and complete modern human skulls they found.

So what? I don�t see any argument.

irrelevant

Considered last, yet the first ape-man found in Darwin's day.

Neanderthal man is not an 'ape-man' (a term with no meaning in anthropology).

FALSE

Of the cases stated above, all tried to make men out of apes.

A disingenuous blurring of the taxonomic relationships between men and other apes. By the some recent taxonomic analyses (based on genetic material as well as morphology), homo sapiens is classed as 'The Third Chimpanzee". It seems that we are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas and other apes. It has been seriously suggested that chimps should be included in the genus Homo.

misleading

Now we will see how they make apes out of men.

Meaningless rhetoric

irrelevant

In 1856, in the Neander Valley of Germany, a school-teacher discovered a skull cap, 2 femurs, 2 humeri and other fragments. A careful examination and description by Professor Schaafhausen reported them to be human and normal. Two years later, 2 similar skulls were found in Belgium. Subsequently over 60 parts of skeletons were found in 11 different countries. (Indeed, they are still being found-but more on that later)

A reasonable account

TRUE

In 1908, Professor Boule of The Institute of Human Paleontology in Paris declared Neanderthal an ape-man because of his low eye brow ridges and the stooped over posture of some of the specimens. This was to shape opinion and teaching for most of the 20th century. However, in 1950, things began to change. An embarrassing fact came out. Neanderthal man's brain capacity was larger than modern man's!!! By over 200 cc's!!!

So what? Why was this embarrassing? Which scientists were embarrassed?

irrelevant

One wonders if this fact would have been hidden if it had been 200 cc's less??? Modern tests, including electron microscope scanning have proved that Neanderthal man, at least the stooped over ones, suffered from acute osteo-arthritis.

It wouldn't have been. Why should it have been?

misleading

Now lets talk about modern excavations. So many Neanderthal skeletons have been found now that all evolutionists cringe from the name.

How can that statement be true if so much work is being carried out on the remains?

FALSE

Not only skeletons either. Stone tools and iron tools have been found in quantity.

I'm not aware of any iron tools being found with Neanderthal man. Plenty of stone tools, though. If anyone can offer any real evidence for this, I'd be very interested.

FALSE

Not only that but the iron in the "London Artifact", which was found in the same age layer of rocks, shows a pureness that we can't duplicate today. Also, it was forged using chlorine in the process somehow as 2% of the iron content is chlorine. Chlorine wasn't "invented" by modern man until well into the 1900's!!

A very dubious claim, unsupported by any scientific evidence.

Dubious

Evolutionists have finally come up with a ready answer for their problems with Neanderthal man. They have decided he was an evolutionary dead-end.

Not quite true, but even if true, so what?

irrelevant

On what basis ? The fact that his brain cavity was 200 cc's larger than modern man's!

The brain capacity is irrelevant to the arguments over taxonomic relationships. It should be noted that although the brain was larger, the folding of the cortex was less complex than in homo sapiens sapiens.

FALSE

Evolutionists couldn't have Neanderthal be a true man. After all, he had a larger brain size. That would mean evolution didn't work.

Evolution has no problem at all with a reduction in brain size.

FALSE

If everything is a constant upward progression, Neanderthal just wouldn't do. Hence.... evolutionary dead-end. How weak!

This shows a complete lack of understanding or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not 'a constant upward progression'.

FALSE

In conclusion, it seems there is no end to the speculation over the bestial ancestry of man and it would appear that all scientific caution has been thrown to the wind.

Complete and utter nonsense and empty rhetoric.

FALSE

However, with today's scientific advantages and advances we will see evolution falling farther by the wayside scientifically and advanced as fact philosophically to our children.

Complete and utter nonsense and empty rhetoric.

FALSE

There is more than ample evidence for mans sudden and abrupt appearance-creation if you will-and absolutely none for a long gradient process or evolution.

Complete and utter nonsense and empty rhetoric.

FALSE

It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation.

Complete and utter nonsense and empty rhetoric.

FALSE

One is easily proven and apparent while the other is frauds and tricks.

True - evolution is easily proven, and creationism is frauds and tricks

TRUE

The geologic table shows that rocks are in a sequential layer from pre-cambrian upward to the earth's crust.

True

TRUE

However, no place on earth has this sequential pattern from "oldest" to "youngest".

Sequences containing deposits from all the geological periods from the pre-Cambrian to recent are preserved in many places. 25 such locations are listed here:

FALSE

In fact, there is a rock in Arizona that no evolutionist will discuss without resorting to outright lying.

There is a rock in Montana that fits in perfectly with our current theories of plate tectonics. It is called the Lewis Thrust Fault. There are several accounts of it in the geological literature. To substantiate your claim of 'lying', you need to identify the lies. Otherwise it is simply character defamation.

FALSE

This cambrian rock is 35 miles long by 5 mile wide by 7 miles deep. (This statement has been revised on http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/, and now reads correctly as ' This pre-cambrian rock is 350 miles long by 15 miles wide by 7 miles deep. ')

False - it is uppermost Pre-Cambrian (corrected in http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/)

FALSE ( corrected in http://evolutionlie.fait

How did it get to the top if it's one of the oldest. Any scientist will tell you it's impossible to move something of this mass through the earth.

Not according to plate tectonics, the most widely (I'm inclined to say universally) accepted theory to account for many and diverse geological phenomena

FALSE

Also, there are no "up-thrust" marks anywhere on this rock.

Simply untrue. The web site I list immediately above shows photographs of such marks!

FALSE

In conclusion, there is no geologic table-just a tool for "duping" innocents.

This is quite simply a lie.

FALSE

This describes rock layers that are missing. Gaps in the geologic table where one layer of rock is on top of the other with one missing in between - sometimes 100's of millions of years without any of the gullying or weathering generally used as an excuse for this behavior.

A poor description, and the use of the word 'excuse' shows that the intent is to mislead

Misleading

At several places in the Baltic region, clays of Pleistocene age rest directly on clays of cambrian age fossils - a gap of over 400 million years.

So what?

Irrelevant

Yet, in the same region, layers can hardly be located, so similar are the two clays

So what?

Irrelevant

When the carbon-14 test was young they used to date all sorts of things.

Carbon-14 dating has (to my knowledge) mainly been used to date archeological material. The method is inherently incapable of dating anything more than about 40,000 years old.

FALSE

The main 2 were oil and coal.

This is quite simply untrue! I can find no references to C-14 dating being used on oil and coal outside the creationist literature.

FALSE

Tests of these 2 substances using the carbon-14 method reveal them to be just several thousand (10-14) years old, instead of the millions they were thought to be by evolutionists.

The dating method is inherently incapable of dating anything as millions of years old!

Irrelevant

After these early dates were found, scientists stopped using it to date these substances as it threw everything out of kilter.

Completely untrue - see my remarks on the limitations of the dating method above.

FALSE

The production rate of C-14 in the atmosphere exceeds the decay rate by about 30%

Untrue - the production rate varies

FALSE

When this non equilibrium data is used instead of the unwarranted evolutionary assumption of equilibrium, computed dates of all the organic materials fall within 10,000 years.

False, as it is based on a false premise.

FALSE

If the atmosphere really were old, by now, these two rates would be in equilibrium.

False, as it is based on a false premise.

FALSE

Thus, the disparity in the two rates confirms a young atmosphere.

As the basic assumption is false, the conclusion is false.

FALSE

Oil, coal, natural gas, and other items evolutionists suppose are very old have been dated by C-14.

I can find no reference to this outside the creationist literature.

FALSE

But, this should not be possible because this dating method is no good past about 50,000 years.

Which is why it isn't used to date such deposits.

Irrelevant

So, the ability to date coal, oil, etc., shows these materials are recent.

Why should the age of the deposits depend on out ability to date them? This is a very strange remark.

False logic

This field of observation studies the fact that most animals have remained the same, despite millions of years of time to evolve.

Stasis is a phenomenon, not a field of study. The statement is in any case untrue.

FALSE

Many fossils from older rocks, when compared to their modern counterparts, are often identical in form.

A few fossils are similar to forms in ancient rocks. Most are not (when did you last see a trilobite, an ammonite or a mosasaur?)

FALSE

Not one type of change into another has ever been recorded, ...

Untrue. There are many examples in the fossil record

FALSE

...yet evolution is regarded in most circles as fact.

True, but somewhat at odds with your statement at the beginning of this article.

TRUE

If life has always been in a state of continual transmutation from one species to another, as evolutionists insist, ...

Untrue - evolutionary biologists don't insist on 'a state of continual transmutation'

FALSE

...then we would expect to find many fossil intermediates between all the species.

In spite of the untrue premise, the fact remains that we do find many 'transitional forms'. The suggestion that we don't is false.

FALSE

However evolutionists must explain the following gaps:

Why? I am treating each of these cases as a statement that these gaps can't be explained.

Irrelevant

non-living matter to protozoan,

This is a big step! Various theories on biogenesis exist.

FALSE

protozoan to metazoan,

There are several theories. However, we are dealing with organisms which by their nature leave little fossil evidence.

FALSE

metazoan to invertebrates,

Invertebrates are Metazoans!

Irrelevant

invertebrates to fish,

Conodonts, Pikea and many others

FALSE

fish to amphibians,

Pederpes, Eusthenopteron, Cheirolepis, Osteolepis , Panderichthys etc., etc. etc.

FALSE

amphibians to reptiles,

Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris

FALSE

reptiles to birds,

Archaeopteryx!

FALSE

reptiles to fur-bearing quadrupeds,

This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, etc. etc. etc. Do a bit of reading!

FALSE

quadrupeds to apes

Apes are quadrupeds - or they were last time I went to the zoo.

Irrelevant

and apes to man.

Numerous transitional forms as well as genetic and other forms of evidence, all covered on previous pages.

FALSE

This represents an enormous enigma to evolutionists

Untrue - it doesn't. Perfectly good explanations have been around for 200 years

FALSE

They speak of a different kind of burial than is going on today.

No they don't. What about peat bogs?

FALSE

They also point to a catastrophic event, rather than slow burial.

Not necessarily, but even if that were to be the case, so what?

FALSE

Their bark remains intact, indicating a very different method of deposition than we now currently know.

Trees in peat bog retain their bark.

FALSE

This speaks of an event of enormous power.

It doesn't, and even if it did, so what?

irrelevant

These are fossilized plants or trees that extend through several layers of rock, oftentimes through as many as 20 feet of rock, representing many, many years of deposition according to evolutionists.

Polystratic is a term used only in creationist literature to describe fossils extending through several sedimentary layers. They present no problems for geologists, and have not done so since the middle of the 19th century. This is a straw man argument.

Irrelevant

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils

However, there is 1 even more amazing specimen. It is a club moss extending 120 feet through several different rock layers, representing 300-400 million years in the evolution model.

I can find no reference to this specimen. Even so, the assertion that it represents 300-400 million years in the 'evolution model' is untrue.

FALSE

Evolutionists have often passed this of as a reburial event

This is not passed off by geologists as a reburial event - this is in fact the creationist 'flood geologist' explanation.

FALSE

but this can hardly be the case if the rock comes right up against the trunk of the tree.

The fact that rock 'comes right up to the tree' supports the standard geological explanation

FALSE

There is another example of this at Spirit Lake in Washington state. Check it out.

So what?

irrelevant

Evolutionists will point to the coal and peat deposits in Nova Scotia. These examples are no more than 5 feet tall and are in a moderately young layer of rock.

So what? The reference above gives a geological explanation of these deposits written in 1868!

irrelevant

Ask them to explain the club moss in Texas over 120 feet tall!

See my comments above. I know of no evidence for this assertion.

I don't know

These are marks such as ripple-marks, rain imprints,worm trails and animal tracks. In fact one of the most amazing specimens was found by Dr. Carl Baugh at Glen Rose, Tx. A whole worm fossilized half in and half out of the rock. When you put water on it, it even turns pink.

So what if the Baugh worm turns pink? Is the suggestion that because it turns pink when wet it is living skin? I have an ammonite on my mantelpiece that turns pink when you wet it. Is the implication that this is living skin?

Irrelevant

This hard evidence flies in the face of what evolutionists would have you believe about deposition and soft skin!!

It does nothing of the sort, and reveals the almost complete lack of knowledge of the author on the subject. Even an elementary geological text will show that this is a false assertion.

FALSE

It should be totally impossible to find such a fossil, let alone the thousands of animal tracks, rain drop patterns,etc.

See my comment above.

FALSE

This is another huge area of concern for evolutionists...

No it isn't.

FALSE

... - the lack of extensive soil layers in the fossil record.

Untrue - there are numerous examples of palaeosols. It should be noted however that the circumstances in which soils are formed give a relatively low chance of fossilisation. There is an extensive literature on the subject.

FALSE

With all these layers exposed for millions of years, you would expect to find numerous soil layers.

We do.

Even in extreme desert environments these should build up.

They do - we have many aeolian sand deposits built up in desert conditions.

Yet in the fossil record there is very scant evidence of any build-up.

Do you mean the geological record? And there is a plenty of evidence. Any basic geology text will enumerate instances.

FALSE

Selected areas of soil layers is exactly what you would expect for the geology of a world-wide flood.

It isn't. You'd expect to find evidence for a world-wide large-scale flood deposit - something conspicuously lacking in the geological record.

FALSE

The sun acts as a giant vacuum sweeping up about 100,000 tons of inflow per day. The sun's radiation pressure serves to push small interplanetary dust particles outward into space. If the solar system is really billions of years old, the solar system should have been swept clean by now - yet there are billions of particles in our solar system.

As far as I can judge (and I'm not an astronomer or planetary scientist) another irrelevant red herring.

No Comment

Over the past 150 years, careful measurement by scientists have shown that the earth's magnetic field decreases by half every 1400 years.

Untrue - they show that it fluctuates. This is shown by the changes in magnetic field direction 'frozen' in the ocean floor on either side of the mid-ocean ridges: good supporting evidence for plate tectonics.

FALSE

Extrapolating backwards, ...

irrelevant in that the premise is flawed.

irrelevant

...it is shown that the earth only 10-12,000 years ago would have been a magnetic star, ...

This is incomprehensible - a magnetic star? What's that?

incomprehensible

...totally incapable of supporting any life - even the most simple.

Incomprehensible again - why?

incomprehensible

When stars run out of gas they explode. During the course of the life of the galaxy there should be a number of super nova remnants visible from earth. Accordingly, for galaxies this size, there should be 7,250 super nova remnants visible using the evolution model. In reality, there are only 205 - very much in line with the creation model.

What creation model? As I understand it, this is based on a poor scientific method. However, I am not an astronomer, so I have to rely on other sources.

No comment

Darwin said that the human eye made him shudder in terms of the evolutionary process - and rightly so.

Which is why he addressed a portion of his book to addressing the problem.

misleading

In his day almost nothing was known about the complexity and sophistication of this organ. In fact, we still don't know everything. It is able to do 100,000 separate functions each and every day, then while you sleep, do its own maintenance work.

So what?

irrelevant

Truly one of the wonders of GOD.

Unsupported statement.

irrelevant

Considering the amount of complex structures that went into the eye, as well as the highly integrated synchronization, it is difficult to understand how the evolutionists can believe the eye came from a natural trial and error process.

I suggest you read some of the literature. The eye is an excellent example of an evolutionary succession in which each small steps confers adaptive advantage, and is illustrated by a wide range of eyes in extant species.

FALSE

The eye is well known to be useless unless fully developed.

Simply untrue. Many intermediate forms exist in nature which provide adaptive benefit to their owner.

FALSE

It is ridiculous to think that any organism could live, let alone develop, during the thousands of years evolutionists say it would take to develop an eye.

An unsupported assertion.

irrelevant

That's not all, however. The eye did not develop once. There are five different types of eyes (that we know of) - man's, squids, vertebrates, arthropods, and trilobite eyes.

Which supports the evolutionary model, especially as the squid eye is superior to the tetrapod eye.

inverted logic

The sea slug is an truly impressive design that can be used to show evolution false. Sea slugs feed on the sea anemone. What makes this so impressive is that the anemones have poison harpoons that stick out and would paralyze anything that came in contact with it. The sea slug however, is able to put these darts inside its own stomach to store and use for its own defense. You would have to have all of these abilities from the start or the organism would die the 1st time it came in contact with the dart. A slow evolutionary process would have been deadly!

A complete red herring. Evolutionary explanations have no problem with this or other instances of a similar nature.

irrelevant

Insects are the only invertebrates with the ability to fly.

So what?

Irrelevant

Their flight is different from other fliers in that it involves a sculling motion similar to rowing a boat, where other fliers use straight flapping (one exception is the hummingbird).

Untrue - they use a variety of methods. They certainly don't scull like rowing a boat! Flight in many insects is possible from the way they control the formation of vortices along the edge of a flexible wing. Butterflies flap their wings.

FALSE

What makes flight so interesting for creationists is that flight did not "evolve" just one time as evolutionists would have you believe.

False - they most certainly wouldn't have you believe that. It arose independently in at least four groups.

FALSE

There are 4 different fliers in the fossil record. The odds of parallel evolution is a statistically impossible number.

A completely meaningless statement - the underlying premise is false. 'Parallel evolution' has little to do with statistics.

misleading

The different groups are: reptiles, as represented by pterodactyls, modern birds, mammals, as represented by the bat and flying insects. There are too many different characteristics for all of these to come from a common ancestor.

Nobody is suggesting a common ancestor, other than at a relatively early stage of tetrapod evolution. If you want to fly, you need wings. What is interesting is that each of these groups developed wings using different anatomical components, a clear example of parallel evolution.

FALSE

These footprints were found in the same strata as the "Lucy" bones. Johanson and other evolutionists have claimed these were made by lucy-like animals, yet when studied by foot doctors, both secular and non-secular, they found them to be completely human and modern.

This is disingenuous. 'Lucy' was a human ancestor with an upright gait, as shown by the form of the pelvic girdle. It is perfectly reasonable to associate the human-like footprints with 'Lucy'.

misleading

This is still taught to our children today as proof of evolution.

No it's not - it's shown as a demonstration of an evolutionary series.

FALSE

However there are a number of problems with this series.

True, and evolutionary biologists will readily admit to it. Science isn't perfect or infallible.

TRUE

(a) A complete series of horses has never been found in any rock anywhere in the world.

Why should we expect to find such a series?

misleading

(b) The sequence of small toes to big toed horses does not exist anywhere in the fossil record.

I'm not sure what is meant by this. There are many examples of each type.

incomprehensible

(c) All of the teeth found are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional teeth.

Untrue.

FALSE

(d) Two modern horses have been found at the same level as that of the very earliest types.

I'm not aware of this. Perhaps something could be offered to substantiate the claim.

unsupported assertion

None of this proves evolution! Just the opposite!

The premise and form of argument are false.

FALSE

These are organs that were formerly thought by evolutionists to be remnants of our past evolution and not needed any more.

Incorrect. The term "vestigial" is used in the sense of an organ no longer or not being used as it is in most other animals. It may still have a function.

FALSE

In fact, at one time, it was believed we had over 200 vestigial organs.

So what?

irrelevant

In actuality, all the organs have been found to have important bodily functions.

All the organs? See the link above!

FALSE

This is true for the appendix also. Doctors have quit removing it willy-nilly-, as it has been proven to be a great aid in digestion.

So what?

irrelevant

None of this proves evolution

Neither does it prove creation. However, it provides good supporting evidence for evolution.

irrelevant

This lame argument has long been used to prove evolution.

It has never been used to 'prove evolution', but does demonstrate natural selection at work.

FALSE

It does describe a form of evolution, just not the way evolutionists would have you think. This study simply shows micro-evolution, or change within a kind, not a new kind coming into existence.

This is setting up the straw man argument of micro- against macro-evolution. There is no distinction in the real world.

misleading

It boils down to: when the trees are white, there are more white moths - conversely, when the trees are dark, such as from pollution, more of the dark moths survive to pass this trait along.

A nice demonstration of natural selection at work

TRUE

The moths are still moths. They don't become a whole new creature.

No evolutionary biologist would claim that they did!

irrelevant

This was originally thought of as a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

It still is by many palaeontologists.

TRUE

It is now considered by most evolutionists as a true bird.

No it isn't. They argue about it constantly.

FALSE

Furthermore, true birds have been found much lower in the fossil record, making them older even than Archaeopteryx.

No they haven't. This assertion is made on the basis of preliminary dating of the Chinese fauna, now shown to be later than Archaeopteryx.

FALSE

This is another evolutionary fraud.

What fraud? Scientists may interpret data differently; they may change their view as new data come to light. How does this constitute fraud?

Ad hominem attack

Statements made elsewhere that scales are somehow associated with Archaeopteryx is a complete falsehood.

I've never heard this statement made. However, it is hardly unlikely - after all modern birds have scales on their legs.

irrelevant

Every fossil found shows evidence of feathers, not scales.

Not true. Not all fossils show feathers.

FALSE

The only time evolutionists have seen scales is in artist's renditions.

Bearing in mind that modern birds have scaly legs, isn't this a reasonable assumption?

Irrelevant

This is an ongoing "ploy" to dupe the uninformed.

Utter nonsense.

FALSE

Artist's renditions have been used in this way since the first false transitional.

Utter nonsense.

FALSE

Evolution is dead with the advance of DNA technology.

The opposite is true. DNA evidence has provided very strong support for evolution, and has become a powerful tool in testing hypotheses of evolutionary relationships. There is a vast amount of information available on-line to support this assertion: the following links took five minutes to assemble.

FALSE

Information is always made by some intelligent personal being. First, the person must purpose, that is, originate in his mind, the concept of the final product, goal, or outcome. Then, the person must, by reason, determine the materials, tools, and specific sequence of steps needed to achieve the goal. So, clearly, information always comes from intelligent process, from an intelligent mind.

An unsupported assertion.

unsupported assertion

In the case of the genetic information system it is very clear that this must be a mind of supreme intelligence and a person of awesome power.

An unsupported assertion.

unsupported assertion

Science News, Vol. 164 #24, December 10,1994, "Does nonsense DNA speak it's own dialect?" reported extremely significant results of genetic research. It cited the December 5, 1994 issue of Physical Review Letters containing research by molecular biologists at Harvard Medical School and physicists at Boston University strongly indicating that so-called "junk" DNA, is not "junk" after all. Their study of 37 DNA sequences containing 50,000 base pairs from a variety of organisms showed that the "junk" DNA, amounting to 90% of the human genome, is actually written in a special language. Their tests showed "language like properties" in the "junk" DNA indicating it to be distinctly different from the "code" of the genes.

If the 'language-like properties' of junk DNA are different from the code of the genes, doesn't this support the view that it is junk?

inverted logic

Plainly, this development effectively removes the "junk" which evolutionists have supposed is left over from eons of evolutionary trial and error, and enormously strengthens the argument that God just plain made the genetic code to begin with.

See my answer above.

false inference

It has been wondered just where in the genome are the instructions that tell the genes when to "express" and when not to -- so you get fingernails on your fingers and not on your elbows, for example. It would seem the "junk" DNA, now discovered to have its own programmed language, will turn out to be the place.

Confusing - is the reference to hox genes? If this is the case, it is nothing to do with junk DNA.

incomprehensible

Our atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. (The decay of radioactive materials is the only natural source of Helium). There is no known way for large amounts of helium to escape our atmosphere.

This statement is quite simply false. Polar wind accounts for the escape of helium from our atmosphere.

FALSE

Our atmosphere must therefore be young.

A conclusion based on a false premise and therefore wrong.

FALSE

In recent times is about 2% per year.

So what?

irrelevant

Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number.

Unsupported assertion

unsupported assertion

Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years.

So what?

irrelevant

Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10 to the89th. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

As the argument is based on unsupported assertion, it is irrelevant. Has the author never heard of Malthus? This section is frankly a fatuous argument, based on making unsupported assumptions calculated to create a problem which simply doesn't exist.

irrelevant

Current oil field are under too much pressure to be very old. Current scientific estimates say that the longest maximum time a rock layer could keep oil under pressure is 100,000 years. Even using this time table, the oil we now have is only 10,000 years old - not the millions evolutionists claim.

I can find no reference to support this assertion, other than on creationist web sites which I treat with scepticism.

no comment

No verifiable record of human civilization goes back more than 6,000 years. Civilization like everything else appears suddenly in the historical record.

So what? Evidence of human activity in the archaeological record goes back a lot further, and has been reliably dated. In any case, what is civilisation? I'm reminded of Mahatma Ghandi's apocryphal response when asked what he thought of western civilisation; "I think it would be a good idea".

irrelevant

Darwin realized that living fossils are not what evolutionists expect to find in nature.

He did? Where is the reference?

unsupported assertion

Indeed, to supporters of the evolution paradigm, the idea of living fossils, so ancient and unchanged, is definitely a problem.

No it isn't.

FALSE

As Niles Eldredge remarked, "In the context of Darwin�s own founding conceptions, and certainly from the perspective of the modern synthesis, living fossils are something of an enigma, if not an embarrassment" (Living Fossils p. 272). And Peter Ward terms living fossils "evolutionary curiosities, more embarrassments to the theory of evolution than anything else" (Living Fossils and Extinction p. 13).

Quotes taken out of context.

misleading

The rotation of these galaxies, over the course of billions of years would lose their spiral shape. Since they obviously retain this shape, they must only be thousands of years old.

I'm not an astronomer, but this view does not appear to have any foundation in science.

unsupported assertion

The Bible describes several dinosaurs in such detail that there can be no doubt they were around in antediluvian times and for a short time afterwards.

An utterly preposterous assertion.

unsupported assertion

If dinosaurs co-existed with man, then evolution is dead in the water.

No it isn't. In fact, many 'evolutionists' argue that as birds are dinosaurs, they are still around!

FALSE

Self-assembled life arising in a primordial soup or on a mineral sub-strate would be expected to leave behind some inorganic kerogen tars marked by certain carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio.

This is not my field, so I won't comment.

no comment

No such kerogen is found anywhere in the geologic column.

no comment

The simplest chemical step for the origin of life, the gathering of amino acids that are all left-handed and nucleotide sugars that are all right-handed, cannot be achieved under inorganic conditions.

This is a problem of biogenesis, not evolution. I won't comment on this, but there is a large body of literature dealing with the subject. I suspect that the following links can throw more light on the subject.

no comment

The various nucleotides essential for building RNA and DNA molecules require radically different environmental conditions for their assembly. Cytosine and uracil need near boiling water temperatures, while adenine and guanine need freezing water temperatures. Thus, it seems highly unlikely that under natural conditions all four building blocks would come together under adequate concentrations at the same site.

This is a problem of biogenesis, not evolution. I won't comment on this, but no doubt there is a large body of literature dealing with the subject. Try a google search. To be frank, it's not a subject that interests me.

no comment

Human fossilized remains have been found lower in the geographic table than dinosaurs. Not once, but 28 times so far.

An utterly preposterous assertion, not backed by any real evidence. There is widespread evidence of fraud in this field.

unsupported assertion

Researchers for the first time are measuring the far reaches of the cosmos. They have uncovered a growing list of "designed-for-life" indicators. They found a number of physical characteristics that had to be very narrowly defined for any kind of life to possibly exist. These discoveries are what spawned the anthropic principle, the observation that all physical features of the universe, including the characteristics of the solar system, are "just right" to suit the needs of life, specifically human life.

The anthropic principle is an untestable metaphysical assertion, and offers nothing to this debate.

irrelevant

This theory �

It's not a theory, it's an investigative discipline.

FALSE

...states that like features inside two different creatures means that they are distant cousins on the evolutionary tree.

As it's not a theory, it doesn't state anything. However, the interpretation of homologies is that they come from a shared ancestor.

Misleading

The problem with this is that many features that the scientists use to prove like ancestry usually come from different areas on the DNA strand. They are not then ancestors.

Not many, some. It should be added that our knowledge of how genetic expression is related to morphology is a science in it's infancy.

Irrelevant

Scientists know with a fair degree of accuracy how much of each of the elements are being put into the ocean every year by rivers. They also know how many of each of these elements are in the ocean currently. By simple division they can find out how long it took to get to the present levels, even accounting for sedimentation and dissipation.

When plate tectonics is taken into account, there is no problem - another support for the ancient earth hypothesis.

FALSE

None of these elements give an age of earth even coming close to billions of years required by evolution.

Only if you ignore any mechanisms which can remove elements from the ocean.

FALSE

In 1961, noted American physicist Robert Dicke noticed that life in the universe is possible only because of the special relationship among certain cosmological parameters (relationships researched by British physicist Paul Dirac 24 years earlier). Dirac noted that the number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) in the universe is the square of the gravitational constant as well as the square of the age of the universe (both expressed as dimensionless numbers). Dicke discerned that a slight change in either of these relationships and life could not exist. Stars of the right type for sustaining life supportable planets only can occur during a certain range of ages for the universe. Similarly, stars of the right type only can form for a narrow range of values of the gravitational constant.

This is a variation on the Anthropic principle, which as I have stated above is an untestable metaphysical assertion, and offers nothing to this debate.

irrelevant

Our universe has a high degree of uniformity. Such uniformity is considered to arise from a brief period of inflationary pressure expansion near the time of the origin of the universe. If the inflation (or some other mechanism) had not smoothed the universe to the degree we see, the universe would have developed into a plethora of black holes separated by virtually empty space. On the other hand, if the universe were smoothed beyond this degree, stars, star clusters, and galaxies may never have formed at all. Either way, the resultant universe would be incapable of supporting life.

Recent findings (i.e. within the past ten years) have shown that the background radiation is not uniform. The investigation of breaking symmetries in the fabric of space-time is a hot topic in cosmology and physics.

Out of date information

This affects the quantity of matter in the universe and also the radiation level as it pertains to higher life forms. Each proton contains 3 quarks. Through the agency of other particles (called bosons) quarks decay into antiquarks, pions, and positive electrons. Currently in our universe this decay process occurs on the average of only once per proton per 10 to 32nd power years. If that rate were greater, the biological consequences for large animals would be catastrophic, for the proton decays would deliver lethal doses of radiation. If the proton were more stable, less matter would have emerged from events occurring in the first split second of the universe's existence. There would be insufficient matter in the universe for life to be possible.

This is a variation on the Anthropic principle, which as I have stated above is an untestable metaphysical assertion, and offers nothing to this debate.

irrelevant

This can be expressed in a variety of ways as a function of any one of the fundamental forces of physics or as a function of one of the fine structure constants. Hence, in the case of this constant, too, the slightest change , up or down, would negate any possibility for life in the universe.

This is a variation on the Anthropic principle, which as I have stated above is an untestable metaphysical assertion, and offers nothing to this debate.

irrelevant

The universe contains no more than 10 to the 80th power baryons and has been in existence for no more than 10 to the 18th power seconds. The bottom line is that the universe is at least 10 billion orders of magnitude too small or too young for life to have assembled itself by a natural process. These kinds of calculations have been done by researchers, both non-theists and theists, in a variety of disciplines.

This assumes that unconsolidated chance alone led to the origin of life. It doesn't. Furthermore, even if life originated from a chance event, the fact that it exists shows that this event, no matter how improbable, did occur. It does not imply an higher order of intelligence at work. I don't understand the argument that because something is very unlikely, it proves that an intelligent designer created it.

False logic

You remember them from school, right? Stone Age, Copper, Brass, Bronze, Iron, etc. Evolutionists would have you believe man developed in this sequential order.

What on earth has this to do with evolution? This is archaeology!

Irrelevant

No way! A quick look at middle-east history and archaeology show that the Israelites possessed iron when neighbors all around had brass.

Nobody has ever claimed that the rate of cultural development is uniform throughout the world!

Irrelevant

You remember the National Geographic specials...The natives in Africa in the 50's and 60's were still using wood and stone tools. Are they true man, or some throwback, or "missing link" ? How about the American Indians of the 1800's? They used wood and stone tools. Were they true man ? There are still tribes in South America that use wood and stone tools exclusively. Are they living missing links ?

What on earth has this to do with evolution?

Irrelevant

This mentality is what caused thousands of Australian Aborigines to be killed and their heads cut off and shipped to museums in America. Scientists thought they were the living "missing link". Their skulls were displayed to the public using this argument of stone age technology. How sad.

I agree - it's very sad, and regret it deeply as a human being. It was bad science, and no modern scientist would dream of doing anything so appalling. In any case, it has nothing to do with the argument.

Irrelevant

Some trilobites had eye lenses made of calcite (thousands found). Because they are made of "rock", paleontologists have been able to study the lenses and have found several interesting things. Unlike human eyes, which are composed of a single lens, the trilobite eye is composed of a double lens design with up to 15,000 separate lens surfaces in each eye. Billions and billions of years could not "evolve" something this complex.

Completely false. There are many more and less complex ancestral forms of eye in the trilobites. Their evolution poses no problems for theorists.

FALSE

It had to be created, with complete knowledge of Abbe's sine law and Fermat's principle.

A stupendously stupid remark! Those laws refer to the properties of nature! A functioning eye has to conform, otherwise it wouldn't function. It doesn't require knowledge of a law formulated by human beings.

Fatuous

Anywhere on earth where granite is found, no matter what depth (remember the geologic column is a lie-granite is found at varying levels), it contains mica. Mica is composed of 3 different isotopes - polonium-210, polonium-218 and polonium-214, without any p-238 halos. The shortest lived of these isotopes has a half-life of .00162 seconds. The longest half-life is 3 minutes. This means that the granite was fully formed and "recording" in a maximum of 21 minutes and a minimum of less than 1/2 second.

An ill-informed assertion based on "use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style"

FALSE

Granite did not take 300 million years to form as evolutionists would have you believe.

Simply untrue

FALSE

Science disproves this ridiculous notion.

The opposite of the truth. Science disproves the ridiculous notion that granite did not take a long time to form.

FALSE