Direct fossil evidence against evolution (scriptures, comparison, dinosaur, genesis)

[Calypsis4]

Yet more evidence against biological evolution:



Then there is this:



Evolution is such a lie. I can literally take the next week and post many dozens more photos of the fact that there is no evolutionary change in living organisms and never has been.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

YHenry Gee of course is telling us, all the fossils that would make those evolutionary connections are lost to deep time.

Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true.

"Darwinian evolution by natural selection is a theory in the formal sense that it is a hypothesis that has been tested, repeatedly, and found to be consistent with all the evidence that we can throw at it. Much of this evidence, from the fossil record and from genetics, did not exist in Darwin’s time, and it is a testament to Darwin’s prescience and the elegance of his theory of evolution by natural selection that it has proved so robust, so all-encompassing, so right."

Seasonal Notes for the Hard-Of-Thinking - I, Editor - Henry Gee's blog on Nature Network

[MontanaGuy]

Calypsis4 wrote:

Evolution is such a lie. I can literally take the next week and post many dozens more photos of the fact that there is no evolutionary change in living organisms and never has been.

Could you post a photo of a modern German Shepherd with a dinosaur era German Shepherd fossil? That would be interesting to see.

[Kele]

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

Yet more evidence against biological evolution:

Evolution is such a lie. I can literally take the next week and post many dozens more photos of the fact that there is no evolutionary change in living organisms and never has been.

Here's the thing....

Those photos of yours do more to confirm evolution rather than deny it.

But you just keep on doing what you're doing. The rest of us are highly amused at the pathetic nature of this latest attempt to undermine the truth of evolution.

As AxisMundi so eloquently stated in the condensed version of Evolution for Dummies a few pages back:

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

Wow, you people really are reaching now-a-days.

Evolution is the process by which a species adapts to new environmental niches in the never ending search for food and protection from predators.

When a species finds said niche, they stop evolving as they have developed into the best possible adaptation FOR that niche.

Members of said species might split off to fill new environmental niches as that niche becomes overcrowded, hence the evolution of new species.

Hope that was simple enough and explained Evolution in a nutshell for you.

But please, feel free to keep on spewing your kernels of creationist nonsense whilst continuing to prove that which you are so dead-set on disproving.

As a Ph.D. friend of mine is so fond of saying, "Ignorance is timeless."

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

What Moses said in the chronologies in Genesis is accurate and dates of long ages for the earth are wrong. They are guessing. The dating methods are all wrought with assumptions.

Ah! The dating methods are not accurate!!

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

"Nuclear isotopic decay aging, and other forms of highly accurate dating......,

...but wait! Now, the dating methods are 'highly accurate'.

No, it is not highly accurate.

Ah! Now they are not accurate!

Dear oh dear!!

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Oh, but that bat is not that old....Carbon dating is flawed ya know...The bat cannot be older than 4,200 years...You know when Noah saved the only two bats on the ark....Geez, maybe that is one of those two

Oh my, I'm a prophet!

[NightBazaar]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Well, I believe the earth to be closer to 13,000 or 14,000 years of age. And your belief from the speed of light, to the formation of coal may not be locked into the time frame you believe. Dr. David Whitehouse conducted an astonishing experiment at the NEC Research Institute at Princeton that produced a light beam that traveled 300 times faster than the theoretical speed of light. And coal which many believe requires millions of years to form, was made in a matter of days in modern lab. So again, some of your beliefs are based on old data. Also, much of the coal we see today, we find many fossilized marine animals along with fossilized trees in place. This suggest that the formation of this coal was not a slow process, but a violent one. And would be more in keeping with a global flood. This fossil evidence would not support the timeline presented to us by the believers of evolution.

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Beam smashes light barrier
Coal: Evidence for a Young Earth

Campbell, talking about the speed of light and coalification in terms of lab results vs. natural processes doesn't change the results of natural processes nor have any bearing on the length of time for changes under the conditions of natural processes. How long it takes for something to change varies because of different conditions.

Regarding the speed of light, there's no reason to think the speed is an absolute constant (186,000mps). It refers to the speed of light in a vacuum. In water (for example), which is not a vacuum, photons can slow down. There have been experiments that extremely slowed down the speed of photons in a gas, which after passing through, continued on at the unhampered speed. Photons are interesting because not only can they act as a particle, but they can also act as a wave. The question is whether light speed is the top limit that anything can travel. The answer is yes and no, because the question doesn't just have to do with photons. It also involves space, time and the universe itself.

Just as light can slow down under certain conditions, it can also appear to "speed up" under certain conditions. For example, the expansion of the universe itself probably greatly exceeded the speed of light at the beginning of the Big Bang. Even now, at the outermost limits, the expansion is still faster than light speed. The expansion of the universe is not to be confused with the actual space and contents "inside" the universe.

The more distant objects are from us, the faster they appear to be traveling, some at or faster than light speed. It means that the objects were formed closer to the Big Bang. That doesn't mean the photons are traveling faster than light speed, but rather it's the expansion of the universe itself that makes those objects increasingly more distant. As the universe continues to expand, the distance between everything in it (on a cosmological scale) becomes greater. That doesn't apply to objects on a local scale because those objects are still more strongly attracted together because of gravitational force. It's when you look beyond local galactic clusters, or even super clusters, that the rate at which objects are drifting apart becomes more apparent.

Another likelihood of the experiment is that it isn't so much that the photons exceeded the speed of light but rather the particular conditions probably enabled the photos to take a "shortcut".

The article clearly stated, "The Universe does have this speed limit but recent experiments would seem to suggest that in certain circumstances something can travel a bit quicker."

Regarding coalification, you mention many fossilized marine animals are found among fossilized trees. I don't see why that would be so unusual. Fallen trees that are buried in dry conditions can become petrified. But coal was formed from trees that fell and were buried in swampy conditions. That standing water would have been present in the first place, it's not strange that marine animal life would've also been present. I'm not exactly certain what you were trying to prove about coalification.

[NightBazaar]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Oh my, I'm a prophet!

Congratulations! Would you mind giving me the winning numbers for the next Powerball Jackpot? I'll give you a 10% donation of the winnings.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

...your belief from the speed of light, to the formation of coal may not be locked into the time frame you believe. Dr. David Whitehouse conducted an astonishing experiment at the NEC Research Institute at Princeton that produced a light beam that traveled 300 times faster than the theoretical speed of light.

Of course, as is your now famous style, you purposefully take it out of context. Very predictable, Tom. The rest of the article goes on to say, and I cut & paste it here FYI:

Although the work of Dr Wang's team is remarkable, it is not the first time that this sort of "trick" has been performed - but it is certainly the most dramatic demonstration.

By adjusting the frequency of the laser beams to match those of the energy levels in the atoms, the researchers were able to achieve an effect called "anomalous refractive index." This boosts the pulses' so-called "group velocity" to a speed faster than what we understand to be the speed of light - just short of 300 million metres per second.

The group velocity of a light pulse depends upon the mixture of frequencies within the pulse and the medium through which it travels. It need not be the speed of the pulse itself.

The important thing, however, is that whilst the group velocity can be manipulated to be faster than the speed of light, it is not possible to use this effect to send information faster than the speed of light.

Wang noted: "The effect cannot be used to go back in time, only to reduce the time between cause and effect a little bit.[/SIZE]

"The reason for this," he said, "is because the light pulse has a finite length of time, much longer than any gain obtained by a faster-than-light speed."

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Beam smashes light barrier

And So; the images of far-distant stars have NOT arrived here 300 times faster. Bur even if they did, let's see now: calculator in hand: 300 million light years just reduces to a mere 1 MILLION light years (vs your required 14,0000 years), and BTW, the "trick" result would be quite noticeable if this were THE ONLY WAY that ALL light was tranmitted in space. Hows about those galaxies that are billions of LY away, Tom? What does their light tranmission time reduce to in your Fantasy Recalculations for God?

This result, as is explained in the article I link below, had to be artificially created for a billionth of a second under very unusual cricumstances.

Do not assume you can get away with lying any more, Tom. We're all on to you.

But you go right ahead and decide that this is THE NEW WAY OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE as regards light behavior.

NEXT:

...coal which many believe requires millions of years to form, was made in a matter of days in modern lab.

That's therefore how all Earthly coal was formed, huh Tom? In a lab?

This is identical to your light-speed prevarications above, your conflation of a unique lab-only condition with the entirety of the Universe. I once watched a girl make an industrial diamond with a vise and a welding torch. So what?

Only you would hope we're stupid enough to buy into such nonsense. Perhaps, though, your friends at The Church of The Eternal Darkness will buy into such illogic with nary a whimper, but not us.

So again, some of your beliefs are based on old data.

"So again"? "Old data"? Wow! You DO like to jump to the most oddball conclusions, don't you? No wonder the Spanish Inquisition worked for a little while...Tom has declared the speed of light to be obsolute now!

Also, much of the coal we see today, we find many fossilized marine animals along with fossilized trees in place. This suggests (it does? How, exactly?) that the formation of this coal was not a slow process, but a violent one. And would be more in keeping with a global flood. This fossil evidence would not support the timeline presented to us by the believers of evolution.

No-one has ever found a single, unitary debris layer, with all the known animals and flooded dead plants laid out in it. Too bad for your completely unsupportable nut-ball idea. That's simply not what we have found. Heee heee. (BTW, try a brief course in the science of results Prediction.)

You DID, however, provide us with a good Sunday morning laugh fest at Christianity's expense. They really oughta fire you, Tom.... you're hurting way more than ever helping them!!

Quite the joke, oh yeah!

[MontanaGuy]

I wonder if our tag team are attending Sunday services at the moment. I'm looking forward to more entertainment when they come back.