Our Websites

Fossils don’t talk!

Generally, the process of how fossils form is not in dispute. The questions of when they formed and how long it takes to fossilize are what is debated. Here are some basic points to remember.

  1. The earth has trillions of fossils
  2. Most animals alive today have been found as fossils
  3. The fossils are nearly identical to today’s plants and animals, except many are bigger!
  4. If there has been any evolution, the fossils don’t show it—unless it is backwards.
  5. Fossils are not seen forming today in any significant numbers.
  6. Fossils are often extremely well preserved—even internal organs of insects have been preserved. This indicates a very rapid burial—before they could rot.
  7. Many fossils show obvious signs of great stress and nearly instantaneous burial. Some still have their last meal halfway in their mouth!
  8. Fossils occasionally are found intruding into several different rock layers of rock that have been given different ages, by millions of years.
  9. All known types of fossils can form quickly. The Flood of Noah provides exactly the right conditions to form fossils by the trillions.
  10. The fossils are not normally found in the order pictured in the textbooks or predicted by evolution.
  11. There are hundreds of examples showing rapid fossilization. We have a fossilized pickle, found still in the jar. The jar was made between 1930 and 1960. Ripley’s Museum in St. Augustine, Florida has a cluster of fossilized peanuts. There are pictures and references on Seminar Part 6 of several dozen examples, like a fossilized teddy bear.
  12. There is no “fossil record.”

There are trillions of fossils, but they don’t talk. People put their own interpretation on the fossils and then assume that their interpretation is now a “record.” That makes no sense! There seems to be good evidence from fossils that some plants and animals have gone extinct, but that is the opposite of evolution.

Further Study

Help! I'm Being Taught Evolution

Help! I’m Being Taught Evolution In My Earth Science Class!
A resource with practical steps for confronting evolution in the classroom.
Book or Download

,

Leave36 Responses to testFossils don’t talk!

  1. John Bebbington December 8, 2010 at 11:16 am #

    “1. The earth has trillions of fossils”

    A fact which is a huge embarrassment to YECs since the biosphere could not possibly contain so much flora and fauna at one time. We only have to estimate roughy the vast quantity of biomass contained within all the oilfields, tar sands and coal fields of the world to see how impossible it would have been for the organisms which now make up such fuels to have existed all at the same time. And we have not even had to consider the limestones. The back of a used envelope and a biro nearly out of ink is all that is needed to show the fatuity of YECism.

    “2. Most animals alive today have been found as fossils”

    I very much doubt the claim but am willing to look at the evidence. Andrew should be able to supply some examples.

    “3. The fossils are nearly identical to today’s plants and animals, except many are bigger!”

    So they are not identical. Thought so. And, of course, most are smaller.

    “4. If there has been any evolution, the fossils don’t show it unless it is backwards.”

    There is no such thing as “backwards evolution”.

    “5. Fossils are not seen forming today in any significant numbers.”

    There never was a time when fossils could be seen forming in any significant numbers.

    “6. Fossils are often extremely well preserved even internal organs of insects have been preserved. This indicates a very rapid burial before they could rot.”

    So? Fossils could not form if they were not in some sort of anaerobic conditions such as silt or amber. And fossils are never “well preserved” except in the sense that the actual fossil has not been eroded or otherwise damaged. The original organism not longer exists and therefore is in as bad a state of preservation as is possible.

    “7. Many fossils show obvious signs of great stress and nearly instantaneous burial. Some still have their last meal halfway in their mouth!”

    But the vast, overwhelming majority do not show stress or their last meal which, considering how much time organisms spend feeding, is a little surprising. But see 12 below.

    “8. Fossils occasionally are found intruding into several different rock (sic) layers of rock that have been given different ages, by millions of years.”

    Andrew, you’ve watched all of Kent’s seminars so will be able to direct us to the proof for this claim which I believe to be without any foundation whatsoever.

    “9. All known types of fossils can form quickly. The Flood of Noah provides exactly the right conditions to form fossils by the trillions.”

    The problem for YECs is that there are very large deposits where fossil is piled upon fossil to enormous depths. A short, chaotic, turbulent flood could not possibly account for such order whereas a slow deposition over long periods of time can. Furthermore, we know that all the creationist flood models release huge amounts of energy which would quickly destroy any organic structures before fossilisation could take commence. Truth_Seeker, try fossilising a casserole of coq au vin and prove me wrong.

    “10. The fossils are not normally found in the order pictured in the textbooks or predicted by evolution.”

    What a woolly allegation. Andrew, you’ll know. Which textbooks and which predictions?

    “11. There are hundreds of examples showing rapid fossilization. We have a fossilized pickle, found still in the jar. The jar was made between 1930 and 1960. Ripley’s Museum in St. Augustine, Florida has a cluster of fossilized peanuts. There are pictures and references on Seminar Part 6 of several dozen examples, like a fossilized teddy bear.”

    Is Kent joking – sometimes it’s difficult to tell? The pickle was not fossilised but permineralised. The “fossilised teddy bear” is not fossilised or permineralised because all elements of the original bear bar the eyes which have both fallen out still remain as do its interstices. It even has an unfossilised plastic button attached to it. Perhaps Kent does not understand that fossilisation is the replacement of organic matter by minerals. All that has happened to the bear is that it has been impregnated with a mineral solution which has subsequently dried out. Nothing has been replaced.

    If Kent wants to prove rapid fossilisation I suggest he buries a poodle (dead or alive) in some suitable fossilising material and instructs his great grandchildren to dig it up again in a hundred years time.

    “12. There is no “fossil record.” There are trillions of fossils, but they don’t talk.”

    Kent is right; they shout. Please note that in 7 above Kent claimed that the fossils do tell a story.

    “There seems to be good evidence from fossils that some plants and animals have gone extinct, but that is the opposite of evolution.”

    No, there is no opposite to “evolution” other than stasis in the sense of an absence of evolution. Extinction is the opposite of existence.

  2. Alfred Russell Wallace December 8, 2010 at 11:27 am #

    >>>>The questions of when they formed and how long it takes to fossilize are what is debated.

    Not in the scientific community.

    Fossils are dated using Rubidium-Strontium, Potassium-Argon, and Uranium-Lead methods.

  3. Corey December 8, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    Books do not talk either, but that does not stop people from saying the Bible is fact.

  4. Andrew Gibs December 8, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    What?! No arguments? Guess its hard to argue with real facts.

  5. Don Carr December 8, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    The world must have been a very different place prior to the flood. Certainly there would have been no food shortage, save being attacked trying to get food.

    People must have lived in walled cities to keep the animals out. Later the walls were to keep people out.

    2001: A Space Odyssey shows monkeys in a desert competing for food. Something to do with justifying a quest for science and a search for the godhead. What were they thinking?

    What a weird world…

  6. Eric Hanley December 8, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    Admitting that fossil evidence points to a terrible flood would mean admitting God judges sin.Keep the Faith Brother.

  7. Carl M December 8, 2010 at 6:50 pm #


    2. Most animals alive today have been found as fossils

    3. The fossils are nearly identical to today’s plants and animals, except many are bigger!

    8. Fossils occasionally are found intruding into several different rock layers of rock that have been given different ages, by millions of years.

    10. The fossils are not normally found in the order pictured in the textbooks or predicted by evolution.

    Just for the record, these four statements are false.

  8. Truth_Seeker H December 9, 2010 at 6:52 am #

    I agree Kent, seems some people hear fossil voices!! hehe

  9. Jeff Brace December 9, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    One way to determine how good the fossil record is at preserving species is simply to count how many living species are also known as fossils, regardless of whether the fossils were made before, during, or after the Flood. At least two studies have done that. In one study Burn Kurton determined that 88% of the mammal species living in Europe today are also present in the fossil record in Europe, and 99% are present in the fossil record somewhere on earth.

    In another study, James W. Valentine, in his PhD dissertation, found that 76.8% of the marine mollusk species currently living along the southern California and Baja California coast are also found in the fossil record.

    These studies suggest that the fossil record is good at preserving past species much closer to the expectations of young-age creationists than the expectations of those who believe that the earth is old.

  10. John Bebbington December 9, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    “Truth”_Seeker,

    It was Young Earth Creationists who first noted the significance of the fossil layers and realised that their presence in differing strata indicated an ancient world.

    And it was the 17c scientist-turned-priest Nicholas Steno (now declared a saint of the creationist Roman Catholic church) who first discovered that the magical stones known as glossopetrae and which were found all over the island of Malta did not fall from the sky as was commonly believed but were fossilised shark’s teeth. This led him to realise that the geology which made up the land of Malta was once under the sea and that the fossil record was a chronology of different creatures living in different eras. Because of his study of stratification he knew that a literal reading of Genesis was not scientifically sustainable.

    As a truth-seeker doubtless you will wish to rush to your account with Amazon Books to order “The Seashell on the Mountaintop” by Alan Cutler; it’s a fascinating biography.

  11. John Bebbington December 9, 2010 at 10:43 am #

    “Fossils are dated using Rubidium-Strontium, Potassium-Argon, and Uranium-Lead methods.”

    Alfred, I should just point out that it is the igneus rock strata which lies adjacent to the sedimentary stratum in which the fossils are found which is dated by radio-dating. Both the fossils themselves and the sedimentary stratum in which they are found are non-radioactive.

  12. Alfred Russell Wallace December 9, 2010 at 10:51 am #

    >>>>I agree Kent, seems some people hear fossil voices!! hehe

    Fossils don’t talk, but they do reveal valuable information about the age of the earth, the origins of life, and the past forms of life.

    As a “truth seeker” you should know this, but apparently you have blinders on.

  13. Mr T December 9, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    @ John Bebbington
    Your points in order:

    1. Your answer assumes uniformitarianism. YECs believe the earth was a paradise for life, hence the huge numbers are possible.
    2. See AIG recent article “Completeness of the Fossil Record” 8 Dec 2010.
    3.Giantism supports the paradise earth position. Fossils show an average size of 30% bigger. The biological stasis (no biological change/evolution) from fossilisation to today is correctly stated by Kent.
    4. Evolution is defined as change. There is minimal evidence for upward changes, plenty of horizontal changes, plenty of downward changes. Sounds like you need to define your terms.
    5. Agree
    6. Kent means there was no degradation before Fossilation processes started.
    7. Example – many land animals are fossilized in a death throws position commonly assigned to that of drowning.
    8. Example – fossilized trees. Try Googling “Polystrate fossils”.
    9. The fossil graveyards tend to support catastrophism, not uniformitarianism.

  14. Jennifer Preston December 9, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    What about fossilized Rabbits, Koalas, Kiwis (the bird not the fruit), Guinea Pigs? Clearly Kent has never been fossil hunting in Newfoundland’s Mistaken Point or even just on the outskirts of Leicester in the UK. Otherwise he would know that 3. is completely false.

  15. Michael Fisher December 9, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    Let’s take the first three lines of nonsense:

    Most animals alive today have been found as fossils

    The fossils are nearly identical to today’s plants and animals, except many are bigger!

    If there has been any evolution, the fossils don’t show it unless it is backwards.

    =============

    There are NO marsupial mammal fossils in the northern hemisphere. Why, if evolution is not true?

    There are NO fossils of placental mammals in Australia/New Guinea. Why, if evolution is not true?

    The mammalian fossils on Hawaii are a few species of extinct bat. NO land mammals of any kind. NO dinosaurs. NO reptiles. NO amphibians. WHY – if evolution is not true.

    I await a cogent response.

  16. John Bebbington December 10, 2010 at 2:44 am #

    Jeff,

    Both Burn Kuron & James Valentine are evolutionists therefore I suspect that the two papers you refer to do not say what you claim. I assume that you have read neither.

    Please supply the references for these papers so we can read them.

    In a previous thread you challenged me to provide evidence for my position. I gave it to you but you have not responded. Please would you do so.

  17. Jennifer Preston December 10, 2010 at 7:25 am #

    Okay, Let’s go over what a Scientific Theory is. A Scientific Theory must do the following things:
    1. Explain all the observations that we currently have
    2. Be able to make predictions
    3. Be able to test those predictions
    4. Be able to be proved false

    All the majr major (Evolution, Space-Time Expansion (Big Bang), Geological Record etc) Scientific Theories do follow these rules whether you accept them or do not believe in them. But let’s not go there.

    What I want to know is how does creation/intelligent design (which has the same definition as creation in ‘Of Pandas and People’) follow all these rules. You can’t make predictions with it. For anything that goes against your predictions you could just say ‘Intelligent Designer’ did it. It can’t be proved false either.

    Therefore Creation Science/Intelligent Design cannot be considered to be Science.

    The Scientific Method also involves a fantastic amount of peer reviews. Very very few papers make it past these stages to be published. When they do they are ridiculed and tested to the brink.

    I’ll leave you with Richard Feynman’s iconic statement:
    “In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compare the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”

  18. Ted Griffith December 10, 2010 at 7:57 am #

    Here we go. Fossilization is a rare event. Not everything that dies is going to be fossilized. I would dare say less than a single percent of things that die normally are fossilized. Exception – floods.

    Now those of you that are hip to the beat – know where I am headed with this. The Flood (of 2348BC) formed the lions share of all of your fossils, all or most of your coal, oil, and even buried some perfectly frozen but totally flat trees way up north in Alaska under about 1800 feet of soil.

    Now the Flood of Noah was not JUST a raining incident. Great amount of planetary crust was torn back from the mantle when the fountains of the great deep were opened (as Gen 7:11 states)

    11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

    Now the great deep is – great. But that opening caused the bulk of your flooding because the atmosphere could not support the amount of water needed to flood out a planet. It simply would render the stars and the moon above you blurry and unreadable unless they were directly overhead- thereby ruining the effect of having said lights.

    This “bursting forth” ripped the crust and slid the continents to where they are now. Hydroplate theory.

    This also provides the mud to bury trees in Alaska. Caused comets. Asteroids. Also caused the mammoths to die where they stood only then to be buried in mud a short time later.

    Also it has been known to induce side splitting laughter in secularlists who hate God. Gotya.

    All the plant matter is buried, some forms coal, others oil. Many animals die and rot, some are buried and rot, few are fossilized and are preserved.

    Fossilization is not based on time. Not so much as condition. We have found this aslo to be true when making oil products – it is more based on conditions than time elapsed.

    Humans have been fossilized in solid stone. Look it up. I cannot link the whole of the internet.

    So as to why there are no marsupial fossils in the northern hemisphere?

    They lived in the southern and if the died in the northern they just rotted and were not fossilized.

    No fossils in Australia/New Guinea of placental mammals? They were not fossilized there by the flood.

    Hawaii is entirely a post flood creation. The breaking of the world (aka The Flood) smacked the mantle a good licking. Crust all eroding, mantle buckling, continents a sliding around. This caused cracks in the mantle and let that gooey center out. Magma formed the Hawaiian island – post flood.

    So 4300 years is how old Hawaii is. Which is why anything you do find there is a post flood fossil.

    You must understand that the flood had widely varying effects on critters based on how far away they were from a crack where the great deep came gushing forth. Far away might just result in drop in air pressure and later impacted by sub orbital mud and water.

    This is also why the ark had a cover built onto it.

    Close to the crack and a mile high wall of water grinds you to bits and you are not fossilized. You are blended and deposited wherever the water stops.

    The Ark site – in Turkey they say. Was not near a crack.

    The cracks can be seen on the ocean floors.
    (there is a youtube video related to this)

    It is much easier to see it.

    No I am not joking.

    The misunderstanding of the Flood has caused evolution theory to reside in the idea gap.

  19. Mr T December 10, 2010 at 8:27 am #

    @Michael Fisher
    You think the first 3 lines are nonsense because you are probably considering classification at the species level. Given most animal fossils are merely bone with no flesh, the classification level needs to be higher than that. See Jeff Brace’s blog.

    The marsupial/placental mammal point has nothing to do with Fossils. The best explanation is post-flood adaptation. Most marsupials have an identical placental other than the reproductive bits. So post flood genetic adaptation of mammals is one of the best solutions. I guess you would call it micro-evolution and natural selection.

    How could you tell if a fossilised mammal is placental or marsupial from just the bones?

    Hawaii could be a post flood volcanic island which suffered a tsunami early in its history. Hence the only land animals fossilised would be ones that also flew or swam there.

  20. Michael Fisher December 10, 2010 at 9:39 am #

    “Now the great deep is great. But that opening caused the bulk of your flooding because the atmosphere could not support the amount of water needed to flood out a planet.”

    When you creationists can get your d-mned stories straight these little monologes might be more interesting.

    CSE says vapor canopy.

    Ted says no.

    The two of you need to get together and make up your minds.

    Then maybe people with rational brains might begin to believe that either of you has anything to say worth listening to.

    I have to start teaching in 10 minutes so that’s all for now.

    mike

  21. Michael Fisher December 10, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    To tell a Marsupial from a Mammal:

    –” In the absence of soft tissues, such as the pouch and reproductive system, fossil marsupials can be distinguished from placentals by the form of their teeth; primitive marsupials possess four pairs of molar teeth in each jaw, whereas placental mammals never have more than three pairs.[7] Using this criterion, the earliest known marsupial is Sinodelphys szalayi, which lived in China around 125 million years ago (mya).[8][9][10] This makes it almost contemporary to the earliest placental fossils, which have been found in the same area.[11][10]”

    7 Benton, Michael J. (1997). Vertebrate Palaeontology. London: Chapman & Hall. p. 306. ISBN 0-412-73810-4.

    8 Rincon, Paul (2003-12-12). “Rincon, P., Oldest Marsupial Ancestor Found, BBC, Dec 2003″. BBC News. Retrieved 2010-03-16.

    9 “Pickrell, J., Oldest Marsupial Fossil Found in China, National Geographic, December 2003″. News.nationalgeographic.com. Retrieved 2010-03-16.

    10 a b “Vertebrate Paleontology: Sinodelphys szalayi”. Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Retrieved 2010-10-21.
    11Nature. “Ji, Q., et al., The Earliest Known Eutherian Mammal, Nature, 416, Pages 816-822, Apr 2002″. Nature.com. Retrieved 2010-03-16.

    ———–
    Above from Wikipedia article “Marsupial”

  22. John Bebbington December 10, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    Ted,

    Thanks for your folksy contribution. Unfortunately, your “hydroplate theory” is falsified by reality. It is such a poor hypothesis that even Kent realises it is nonsense. A few objections:

    1. Water is to all practical intents and purposes incompressible. Therefore, there would be no mighty jets when the crust allegedly cracked. Indeed, any release would have been in the form of super-heated steam rather than water.

    2. There is no possible mechanism by which a rock crust could float on water in a stable fashion. Remember, Ted, God saw his creation and found that it was good. It can’t have been that good if it was in an imminent state of collapse. A single mountain would have unbalanced the whole tottering affair and we know there were mountains pre-flood because they are mentioned in Genesis.

    3. The mantle is the mantle because it is heavier than the crust. Therefore, being lighter, the crust could not sink below the mantle.

    4. Even Walt Brown admits that the energy release would be enormous. I have calculated that it would have been equivalent to an Hiroshima-sized bomb exploding every fortnight on every football-pitch-sized plot over the entire surface area of the globe – billions of A-bombs.

    Poor old Noah, narcoleptic, poisoned, boiled and now blown to atoms every fortnight for a year. And he was one of the good guys.

    Apart from such problems it is an excellent theory. So good, in fact, that Walt refuses to defend it and, if he won’t, why should you make a fool of yourself trying to do so?

    We know you are not joking. That’s what makes it all so very sad.

  23. Carl M December 11, 2010 at 12:51 am #

    Jeff Brace December said ….

    Actually he copy/pasted from AIG but to be fair, the blog has rules against links but a recognition of the source would have been nice.

    I decided to look up the sources cited but Burn Kurt©n is from a book (too hard to find) and the time period studied was the Pleistocene (which will become important in a minute)

    In another study, James W. Valentine, in his PhD dissertation, found that 76.8% of the marine mollusk species currently living along the southern California and Baja California coast are also found in the fossil record.

    Again, this study was done of the Pleistocene. Like Kurten, Valentine was studying the upper layer to the “fossil record” and found modern creatures. This is not unexpected because the Pleistocene dates from about 2,500,000 years ago to almost the present. In other words, we are talking about the outer skin of the fossil record.

    Why is this outer skin different to other time periods (or layers if you wish)? Were these mollusks particularly fast at running up hills?

  24. Julie Collins December 11, 2010 at 11:20 am #

    “Okay, Let’s go over what a Scientific Theory is. A Scientific Theory must do the following things:
    1. Explain all the observations that we currently have
    2. Be able to make predictions
    3. Be able to test those predictions
    4. Be able to be proved false”

    i agree, and lets go through this… does evolution explain the observations? according to the observations if evolution were to happen it would have to happen in a few thousand years, according to tightly bent rock strata, and carbon 14 dating in rocks “billions of year old” all date the earth to be in the thousands of years. not millions of billions. the lack of any evidence for any way evolution can take place, meaning that there is absolutely no way that a mutation can increase the genetic information and all a mutation does is a mutual mutation of a form of information loss. and wait theres more, a new form of life has been found that uses arsenic instead of phosphorous, and guess how long it took for it to “evolve?” millions of years? no, less than 50. if it only takes less than 50 years for a new strain of life to emerge, than would it be too harsh to say that over six thousand years would be plenty for different kinds of animals to emerge?

    be able to make predictions? theres a difference between “this is where man should be in 50 years” and “the new strain of human like beings made from evolution should arise in a few million years.” the first one the science, the other one is fortune telling.

    be able to test those predictions? you cannot “test” or “observe” long term evolution taking place. you can test speciation and breeding taking place, you cannot see even a single cell gaining information in order to change into a new type of cell.

    be able to be proven false, HA!!!! i do not know how many times during a debate i hear the words “evolution is so much a fact that it cannot even be debated”, a few messages before i prove them wrong on all accounts. they might have a fighting chance if they stopped using talkorigins and start using REAL websites for once.

    now lets go to the scientific method…

    1. ask a question: did evolution happen…?
    2. do background research… according to so-so, it did
    3. construct hypothosis, if so-so says it, than it must be true!
    4. test with a experiment… wait… what? i cannot do that!
    5. analyze results! i have no results because you cannot test if something happened in the past scientifically! you can only guess!
    6. hypothosis is true or false? false, i cannot get data! back to square one!
    7. write down data!

    i have been told by evolutionist galore that you cannot “observe” evolution, but you also cannot “test” it if it happened a alleged “billions of years ago”.

    so evolution is not a theory, its a flunk!

  25. Jeff Brace December 13, 2010 at 6:50 am #

    John Bebbington

    So you would call me a liar without even reading their findings yourself? You do not have google but you have access here is that right? Typical attitude to evidence of a young earth and no matter what is presented you would deny it. Show a man an orange and they will argue till they are blue in the face that it is an apple.

  26. Mr T December 13, 2010 at 10:06 am #

    @Michael Fisher

    “There are NO marsupial mammal fossils in the northern hemisphere.”

    “earliest known marsupial is Sinodelphys szalayi, which lived in China around 125 million years ago”

    Sorry Michael but you appear to have contradicted yourself, as China is in the northern hemisphere.

    “fossil marsupials can be distinguished from placentals by the form of their teeth” – not exactly a water-tight argument.

    “This makes it almost contemporary to the earliest placental fossils” – this supports the YEC explanation I put in my email earlier.

  27. John Bebbington December 13, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    @Michael Fisher

    “There are NO marsupial mammal fossils in the northern hemisphere.”

    Michael, I rather think that there are marsupial fossils on all continents. Not that this helps YECists as their ages are vastly in excess of 6,000 years.

    @Jeff,

    I didn’t call you a liar but, from long experience, I know that it is always necessary to check all claims by YECists and so I asked you for the reference. Rather than provide it you chose to go off into a paddy. Now I find that I was absolutely right in alleging that you had not read either paper as you have simply cut and pasted your post directly from the AIG website without attribution.

    So, contrary to your claim, you haven’t shown me an orange but just pretended to own one when all you actually owned is knowledge of someone else who told you about one. Rather deceitful of you, don’t you think?

    In any event, neither you nor I have the original passages from which AIG has derived its claims. Also, such claims relate only to morphological forms. Because of genetic drift no-one is claiming that the original 2.5 million year old organism represented by the fossil could inter-breed with the modern animal if, by some miracle, they could date.

    Carl M is right. Kent claims that the fossil record indicates that bigger animals are in the higher strata because they could run up the hills faster to escape the rising flood waters (yes, I know it’s laughable). So how come the molluscs managed to run up the hills despite the fact that they each have only one (at the most) leg?

    And, sorry to nag, but you still have not responded to my comments concerning the Lost Squadron.

  28. Jennifer Preston December 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    @Julie Collins
    I didn’t ask you to go through that with evolution. I wanted to know how Intelligent design/creation followed the scientific method, which it doesn’t as I explained that it could not make predictions.

    Evolution does explain observations. It explains why plants are green, it explains why platypus and koala are only found in Australia, why Kiwis are only found in New Zealand and why Pandas are only found in China, to name very very few (my area is physics, not biology)

    I am not talking about predicting the future. I’m talking about predicting observations. A beautiful example is as follows. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimps have 24. Therefore you would expect that one of the pairs of chromosomes in chimps have fused together somewhere in the past, giving humans 23 pairs of chromosomes. We have made a prediction. If we don’t find this, evolution is wrong. But we have found this. The fusion is on chromosome number 2. We have actually found exactly where is fused to amazing accuracy.

    But that’s what I mean by predictions and testing. Not “I predict what will happen in the future, does it happen?”. It’s more like “if the theory is true, this is what it would imply and this is what we would find here and now. Do we see it?”

    In that one example evolution has made a prediction and we have been able to test it.

    For this reason too, evolution can also be proven false. You can make a prediction with it and not find it.

    Another beautiful scientific theory which does all these things is the standard model of particle physics. A guy called Peter Higgs at the University of Edinburgh worked out the mathematical equation that explains the interaction of all the particles in atoms, and their electrons. The equation is brilliantly beautiful. It can essentially tell you almost anything naturally – it can tell you why the sky is blue! But there is a bit in his equation that includes a particle called H which we don’t know about. The equation has made a prediction about what we should find in nature – the Higgs-Boson particle! This is what the LHC is looking for. But there is a chance other particle accelerators could find it first. It’s all fascinating stuff.

    I’m sorry Julie, but your whole post shows you have absolutley no idea what exactly the scientific method is or how it’s carried out. If you think predictions mean waiting to observe something that you think will happen in the future, you’re wrong. Science is like nature’s Crime Scene Investigator. You don’t know what happened in the past, but the past leaves traces behind and you can go out and look for those traces and piece together a story that explains all the current observations.

    The fact is people have been doing precisely this with evolution for 150 years and so far all they’ve had to do is make a few tweaks here and there. I said scientific theories were tested to the brink and it’s been the same for evolution.

    But Theories are not just “theories – this is what I think happened”. The reason they are called theories is because when you test them they can be proved wrong. The more you test a theory by the method I’ve outlined above, and the more experiments agree with prediction, the stronger the theory is. You can tweak theories, but just because you change one thing doesn’t mean the whole basic idea is completley wrong. It just needs a bit more accuracy. Science is not arrogant. It has changed stuff in the past. It has admitted it was wrong. It realised it was wrong about the steady state theory.

    But what I wanted to know was how does Intelligent Design/Creation follow the scientific method (Not how evolution goes against it)?

  29. Jennifer Preston December 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm #

    One last point. Just because something seems irreducibly complex today does not mean we won’t understand it tomorrow. Therefore there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. It basically says, give up when you don’t understand something, God/Intelligent Designer did it! If we’d done that we wouldn’t have the modern world.

  30. Jeff Brace December 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    Carl M – The rules here don’t allow links to sources. I assume as Christians we would be honorable in what we post here. If I did something wrong please let me know so in the future I follow the correct way to do things. Thanks:)

    John Bebbington – Links are not allowed here so you will have to do research on your own. It should not have been too difficult to google the two individuals posted. Also, under the rules, the threads are dead after 5 days and you can no longer post in them. I check every day for responses and I had not seen any.

    Also, opinions are usually based on your world view. As a Christian my world view begins and ends with the Bible. I start with the Bible and my opinion ends with the Bible as I believe it is the Word of God. So it is likely my opinions will not sooth your thoughts at all. :) In the end, whether you believe in God or not, we will all stand at the judgement. It is always my fevent hope and prayers that those I interact with here will be on the side of God.

  31. Jack Napper December 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    @Michael Fisher

    “There are NO marsupial mammal fossils in the northern hemisphere.”

    “earliest known marsupial is Sinodelphys szalayi, which lived in China around 125 million years ago”

    Sorry Michael but you appear to have contradicted yourself, as China is in the northern hemisphere.

    Congrats Mr T. on you fine example of quote mining. In fact I think you have completely forgotten the entire context of the discussion.

    “fossil marsupials can be distinguished from placentals by the form of their teeth” not exactly a water-tight argument.

    Just one not all. So I’ll be nice and leave it at simply FACEPALM. What’s next? “We’re you there!?!?!”

    “This makes it almost contemporary to the earliest placental fossils” this supports the YEC explanation I put in my email earlier.

    Cherry picking can support any argument along with a heaping helping of flat out ignorance.

  32. Jennifer Preston December 13, 2010 at 2:31 pm #

    When I said “story” above, it’s the wrong word. Story does not have to be fiction. I mean a factual story.

  33. John Bebbington December 14, 2010 at 10:31 am #

    Jeff wrote: “In the end, whether you believe in God or not, we will all stand at the judgement.”

    No, Jeff, just because you believe something will happen doesn’t mean it will. Human history is filled with failed prophecies and extinct religions. The many christianities and their moral viewpoints of the 1st century are mostly, if not entirely, extinct as doubtless, in due passage of time, will be the fundamentalist protestant christianity of the 21st century.

    In the meantime, I’m sure Eric will not mind you responding to my request for your further comments on the Lost Squadron even in another thread.

  34. Jack Napper December 14, 2010 at 1:40 pm #

    Also, opinions are usually based on your world view. As a Christian my world view begins and ends with the Bible. I start with the Bible and my opinion ends with the Bible as I believe it is the Word of God. So it is likely my opinions will not sooth your thoughts at all. :) In the end, whether you believe in God or not, we will all stand at the judgement. It is always my fevent hope and prayers that those I interact with here will be on the side of God.

    Apparently this horse isn’t quite dead yet. I love this argument. If I was provide evidence for say, God I would examine it. Creationists LOVE to rail on about the scientific method but apparently we’re not allowed to use it in this case. It the evidence panned out and no other explanation could be found, I would be forced to re-evaluate my beliefs.

    I would like to thank you for your honesty. It’s likely you didn’t realize you made such a slip and revealed you intellectual dishonesty but thanks anyways.

    You say you start and end with the bible. What you are basically saying is that in the face of evidence when reality contradicts the bible then reality is wrong.

  35. Jeff Brace December 14, 2010 at 7:11 pm #

    John Bebbington – Your statement defies your own words. Are you not trying to do the same thing. I have plenty of solid evidence that the Bible is truth. Why would you care if I did not believe as you do?

  36. Geno Castagnoli December 14, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    John Bebbington wrote:
    4. Even Walt Brown admits that the energy release would be enormous. I have calculated that it would have been equivalent to an Hiroshima-sized bomb exploding every fortnight on every football-pitch-sized plot over the entire surface area of the globe billions of A-bombs.

    ***************
    Geno points out:
    John grossly underestimates the amount of energy Brown says was released. According to Brown, his model would release the energy of 1,500 TRILLION hydrogen bombs. (Note: In order to ignite the fusion reaction of a hydrogen bomb, we use an A-bomb as a “match.”) Putting it another way, a Hiroshima bomb is about 10,000 tons of TNT while a typical hydrogen bomb is 1,000,000 tons.

    This amounts to a hydrogen bomb for every 2 foot square on the planet or the equivalent of 36 hydrogen bombs in a 12 foot by 12 foot room… over a period of just a few weeks.

    Now, Brown does say most of that energy would be kinetic but if 99.99995% goes anywhere else and only 0.00005% enters the atmosphere as heat there is still enough heat to increase atmospheric temperatures by 100C….. roughly to the boiling point of water.

    A flood would have been the least of Noah’s problems.