Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

More "non-existent" supportive evidence ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More "non-existent" supportive evidence ...

    Of course, there is no evidence - in quantity or quality - that will convince the Evo-Faithful that their "billions of years" are maintained at all costs to make their ideology possible. In other words, eliminate those billions of years and Evolution goes out the door.

    For that goal the Evo-Faithful will forever deny any evidence for a "young" creation. They will yell until blue in the face that "no evidence exists supporting a young creation". This is in spite of the scores of published articles detailing such evidences - articles that I have provided over the years.

    Here is yet another "non-existent evidence" that was published recently. What the Evo-Faithful usually do is come up with something - anything! - that dismisses the evidence so that they can hold on to their sacred beliefs. Oh well, there is nothing that can be done about that -- fanatical willful ignorance is unconquerable.

    https://creation.com/surprising-lizards-in-amber

    From the article:

    "Unfortunately, however, the recent reporting of a research study on 38 fossil lizards in amber found on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola has not regarded this. Instead, coming from an evolutionary perspective that posits these amber fossils as being 20 million years old, the researchers were amazed and surprised to find exquisitely preserved anole lizards, which showed no evolution. For these reptilian specimens in amber are “identical to their modern cousins” and show “phenomenal detail—including the colour of the lizard … and whether its eyes were open or shut.” In the words of lead researcher Dr Emma Sherratt, of the University of New England, Australia:

    “These fossils were really surprising because of how much detail they contained, allowing us to see how these lizards would have looked in real life. Most of ours had full skeletons, and details of the skin were impressed on the amber, providing very detailed images of tiny scales on the body and on the sticky toe pads. You could have taken a lizard today, embedded it in resin and it would have looked like one of these creatures. That’s how realistic and modern they look.”

    Sherratt describes such stasis (i.e. that these lizards haven’t changed evolutionarily in the mooted 20 million years “over which all the main animal types evolved”) as “very striking” and “quite surprising”."

    "amazed" ... "surprised" ... "very striking" ... "quite surprising"? Really? NOT TO ME! The rather obvious possibility that "Hmmm ... perhaps these fossils are NOT 20 million years old" doesn't even cross their poor, pathetic, brainwashed minds. They have become blinded by a fanatical adherence to "the only possibility" - millions and billions of years.

    "No evidence" here, folks ... move along.

    See ya'll next year. Information theory coming along fine.


    Jorge


  • #2
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Of course, there is no evidence - in quantity or quality - that will convince the Evo-Faithful that their "billions of years" are maintained at all costs to make their ideology possible. In other words, eliminate those billions of years and Evolution goes out the door.

    For that goal the Evo-Faithful will forever deny any evidence for a "young" creation. They will yell until blue in the face that "no evidence exists supporting a young creation". This is in spite of the scores of published articles detailing such evidences - articles that I have provided over the years.

    Here is yet another "non-existent evidence" that was published recently. What the Evo-Faithful usually do is come up with something - anything! - that dismisses the evidence so that they can hold on to their sacred beliefs. Oh well, there is nothing that can be done about that -- fanatical willful ignorance is unconquerable.

    https://creation.com/surprising-lizards-in-amber

    From the article:

    "Unfortunately, however, the recent reporting of a research study on 38 fossil lizards in amber found on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola has not regarded this. Instead, coming from an evolutionary perspective that posits these amber fossils as being 20 million years old, the researchers were amazed and surprised to find exquisitely preserved anole lizards, which showed no evolution. For these reptilian specimens in amber are “identical to their modern cousins” and show “phenomenal detail—including the colour of the lizard … and whether its eyes were open or shut.” In the words of lead researcher Dr Emma Sherratt, of the University of New England, Australia:

    “These fossils were really surprising because of how much detail they contained, allowing us to see how these lizards would have looked in real life. Most of ours had full skeletons, and details of the skin were impressed on the amber, providing very detailed images of tiny scales on the body and on the sticky toe pads. You could have taken a lizard today, embedded it in resin and it would have looked like one of these creatures. That’s how realistic and modern they look.”

    Sherratt describes such stasis (i.e. that these lizards haven’t changed evolutionarily in the mooted 20 million years “over which all the main animal types evolved”) as “very striking” and “quite surprising”."

    "amazed" ... "surprised" ... "very striking" ... "quite surprising"? Really? NOT TO ME! The rather obvious possibility that "Hmmm ... perhaps these fossils are NOT 20 million years old" doesn't even cross their poor, pathetic, brainwashed minds. They have become blinded by a fanatical adherence to "the only possibility" - millions and billions of years.

    "No evidence" here, folks ... move along.

    See ya'll next year. Information theory coming along fine.


    Jorge

    I wonder why Jorge's YEC propaganda source left out the scientific explanation given by Dr. Sherratt?

    Sherratt says it is "very striking" that the lizards don't seem to have changed at all during this long period, during, over which all the main animal types evolved.

    "Evidence of anolis lizards living unchanged in different niches for 20 million years, indicates these niches have been stable for that period of time," she says.

    "That's quite surprising because these lizards have gone to other islands and over to the Florida mainland where they seem to evolve very rapidly. So it's not that they don't have the propensity to change, it's just that the structure of the environment has been stable enough that they haven't needed to change in 20 million years."


    Available evidence suggests that ecological communities change rapidly over the short term, says Sherratt.

    However, she says, the findings are among the first to look at long term stability of ecological communities, and show that niches and the communities they support can remain stable over millions of years.

    link to interview
    Lying by omission is still lying

    Here's the whole paper for those interested

    Amber fossils demonstrate deep-time stability of Caribbean lizard communities
    Sherratt et al
    PNAS, vol. 112 no. 32, 9961–9966, Aug 2015

    Abstract: Whether the structure of ecological communities can exhibit stability over macroevolutionary timescales has long been debated. The similarity of independently evolved Anolis lizard communities on environmentally similar Greater Antillean islands supports the notion that community evolution is deterministic. However, a dearth of Caribbean Anolis fossils—only three have been described to date—has precluded direct investigation of the stability of anole communities through time. Here we report on an additional 17 fossil anoles in Dominican amber dating to 15–20 My before the present. Using data collected primarily by X-ray microcomputed tomography (X-ray micro-CT), we demonstrate that the main elements of Hispaniolan anole ecomorphological diversity were in place in the Miocene. Phylogenetic analysis yields results consistent with the hypothesis that the ecomorphs that evolved in the Miocene are members of the same ecomorph clades extant today. The primary axes of ecomorphological diversity in the Hispaniolan anole fauna appear to have changed little between the Miocene and the present, providing evidence for the stability of ecological communities over macroevolutionary timescales

    Comment


    • #3
      Also considering the fact that Anoles lizards can differ rather dramatically in appearance from species to species it should not be a shock that some of the ancient ones can superficially resembles at least one modern species.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Unsurprisingly, creation.com's claims that the fossils are "identical to their modern cousins" and that "these lizards haven’t changed evolutionarily in the mooted 20 million years" do not match the actual research. The results of the actual paper show that while the lizards have changed little, they have changed. The data show that while most of the fossil lizards have characteristics within the combined ranges of five extant species, some of the fossil characteristics lie outside modern ranges, and only a few of the fossils have characteristics within the ranges found in a single extant species. The lizards have evolved.
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          Unsurprisingly, creation.com's claims that the fossils are "identical to their modern cousins" and that "these lizards haven’t changed evolutionarily in the mooted 20 million years" do not match the actual research.
          Wonder if Jorge will demand a correction.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            Unsurprisingly, creation.com's claims that the fossils are "identical to their modern cousins" and that "these lizards haven’t changed evolutionarily in the mooted 20 million years" do not match the actual research. The results of the actual paper show that while the lizards have changed little, they have changed. The data show that while most of the fossil lizards have characteristics within the combined ranges of five extant species, some of the fossil characteristics lie outside modern ranges, and only a few of the fossils have characteristics within the ranges found in a single extant species. The lizards have evolved.
            This is just a variant of the oft repeated YEC claim that the coelacanths found today are the same as the ones who lived hundreds of millions of years ago and had been thought (including by YECs) to have gone extinct.

            They get all excited when they mention coelacanths not understanding that they are an order of lobe-finned fish. In their ignorance YECs seem to think that they were a species and that the ones living today are the same type that were around millions of years ago.

            The modern coelacanth species, Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis, are not the same species or even the same genus (and IIRC, a different family as well) as any of the coelacanths in the fossil record. In fact over 120 different species have so far been identified in the fossil record – along with something like 10 families and over 20 different genera).

            It should be noted that the two species of coelacanth still remaining are relatively recent, with estimates of the split between the African and Indonesian species being less than 35 million years ago. The genus Latimeria is the ONLY surviving lineage of coelacanth, and the genus Latimeria has only existed since after the dinosaurs. The Order Coelacenthiformes contains at least distinct 22 genera of lobefinned fishes, of which only one is still extant. They are simply a relict lineage of a much older group, which is common in the deep sea (crinoids, brachiopods, etc.).

            Formerly coelacanths were a widespread and diverse group with fossil remains found on every continent except for Antarctica whereas today they are confined to a couple of spots in the Indian Ocean. This means that previously some made their homes in cool waters while others lived in warm tropical waters

            Also, around a third of the extinct species were freshwater, living in lakes and rivers and those that dwelt in the oceans lived in shallow water with very few exceeded 55 cm (a little more than 21½") in length while the modern ones are exclusively deep sea creatures (IIRC, they tend to die from decompression when brought up to the surface) and can reach 2 meters or slightly over 6½'.

            Also, IIRC, modern coelacanths give birth to live young where there is strong evidence that some of the extinct species laid eggs.

            One type of ancient coelacanth that lived in the Early Triassic and known as Rebellatrix divaricerca (the only known member in its Family) had a large, forked as well as symmetrical tail fin and a rather slim body which is highly unusual for coelacanths. This type of tail is found on fast moving predators like tuna and barracuda which is definitely not the lifestyle of modern coelacanths nor other extinct varieties. This novel body shape demonstrates that coelacanths were not essentially morphologically static following the Early Carboniferous as was widely believed.

            Further, some of the ancient coelacanths actually had well developed lungs whereas the modern species do have vestigial lungs: Allometric growth in the extant coelacanth lung during ontogenetic development

            Finally, it should be kept in mind that the two modern species resemble each other superficially (though there are color differences), and it took DNA testing to reveal the significant genetic differences between the two. DNA and color differences aren't preserved in the fossil record, so only the more obvious differences are usually seen (like being a freshwater species for example).


            Here is a short video that willl give you an idea as to the wide variety of coelacanths that there once was and how they evolved




            Or if you prefer here is a picture showing three different types of extinct coelacanth with the top one coming from the Cretaceous and the other two coming from the Carboniferous.


            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              This is just a variant of the oft repeated YEC claim that the coelacanths found today are the same as the ones who lived hundreds of millions of years ago and had been thought (including by YECs) to have gone extinct.
              Usually bolstered by two images of a living coelacanth and a fossil one that have been scaled to be the same size, even though the actual items differ in size by more than an order of magnitude.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                Of course, there is no evidence - in quantity or quality - that will convince the Evo-Faithful that their "billions of years" are maintained at all costs to make their ideology possible. In other words, eliminate those billions of years and Evolution goes out the door.

                For that goal the Evo-Faithful will forever deny any evidence for a "young" creation. They will yell until blue in the face that "no evidence exists supporting a young creation". This is in spite of the scores of published articles detailing such evidences - articles that I have provided over the years.

                Here is yet another "non-existent evidence" that was published recently. What the Evo-Faithful usually do is come up with something - anything! - that dismisses the evidence so that they can hold on to their sacred beliefs. Oh well, there is nothing that can be done about that -- fanatical willful ignorance is unconquerable.

                https://creation.com/surprising-lizards-in-amber

                From the article:

                "Unfortunately, however, the recent reporting of a research study on 38 fossil lizards in amber found on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola has not regarded this. Instead, coming from an evolutionary perspective that posits these amber fossils as being 20 million years old, the researchers were amazed and surprised to find exquisitely preserved anole lizards, which showed no evolution. For these reptilian specimens in amber are “identical to their modern cousins” and show “phenomenal detail—including the colour of the lizard … and whether its eyes were open or shut.” In the words of lead researcher Dr Emma Sherratt, of the University of New England, Australia:

                “These fossils were really surprising because of how much detail they contained, allowing us to see how these lizards would have looked in real life. Most of ours had full skeletons, and details of the skin were impressed on the amber, providing very detailed images of tiny scales on the body and on the sticky toe pads. You could have taken a lizard today, embedded it in resin and it would have looked like one of these creatures. That’s how realistic and modern they look.”

                Sherratt describes such stasis (i.e. that these lizards haven’t changed evolutionarily in the mooted 20 million years “over which all the main animal types evolved”) as “very striking” and “quite surprising”."

                "amazed" ... "surprised" ... "very striking" ... "quite surprising"? Really? NOT TO ME! The rather obvious possibility that "Hmmm ... perhaps these fossils are NOT 20 million years old" doesn't even cross their poor, pathetic, brainwashed minds. They have become blinded by a fanatical adherence to "the only possibility" - millions and billions of years.

                "No evidence" here, folks ... move along.

                See ya'll next year. Information theory coming along fine.


                Jorge


                Just out: ANOTHER "living fossil" that shouldn't be here but is. It "shouldn't be here" because "80 million years have gone by and it hasn't Evolved".

                https://www.yahoo.com/news/prehistor...130946712.html


                Errr ... once again the Evo-Faithful cannot see the obvious possibility, namely that maybe, just maybe, 80 million years did not happen. But that can't be because, well, because Evolution says it happened - so there!

                Oh well, just some more "non-existent evidence" supporting a 'young' Earth.

                Hehe

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  Just out: ANOTHER "living fossil" that shouldn't be here but is. It "shouldn't be here" because "80 million years have gone by and it hasn't Evolved".

                  https://www.yahoo.com/news/prehistor...130946712.html


                  Errr ... once again the Evo-Faithful cannot see the obvious possibility, namely that maybe, just maybe, 80 million years did not happen. But that can't be because, well, because Evolution says it happened - so there!

                  Oh well, just some more "non-existent evidence" supporting a 'young' Earth.

                  Hehe

                  Jorge
                  That article and your analysis are rife with errors.

                  First, frilled sharks are not a recent discovery having been first described in the scientific literature around 1880.

                  Second, the capture of a live specimen is nothing new as well, as this account of the capture of one near Japan a decade ago attests. IIRC, they have been caught off California as well.

                  Third, the statement that it has not changed and "remained the same, both inside and out" in the article you cite is contradicted by every scientific description of the creature. While most note that it has changed little (the extent of which is difficult to tell with fossil evidence since you are almost always only looking at the "hard bits"[1] which is not where most evolutionary change occurs) the fact is even looking at the fossils changes have been observed. One obvious difference is that many of the early ones seen in the fossil record are much larger[2].

                  Fourth, they do not date back to the Cretaceous (although it belongs to one of the oldest still-extant shark lineages which dates that far back and perhaps even as far as the Late Jurassic) in spite of multiple erroneous news accounts saying otherwise but rather are much more recent dating to the early Pleistocene (NMT 2.58 mya) as Stefano Mirsili's 2007 paper Analisi Sistematica, Paleoecologica e Paleobiogeografica della Selaciofauna plio-pleistocenica del Mediterraneo (Systematic, Paleoecological and Paleobiogeographic Analysis of Plio-Pleistocene Selaciofauna in the Mediterranean) reveals.










                  1. And sharks, consisting primarily of cartilage with few hard bits outside their teeth, are obviously notoriously hard to examine in the fossil record.

                  2. As Michael Bright, who has written several books on sharks as well as made documentaries, noted in The Private Life of Sharks: The Truth Behind the Myth:

                  "The largest specimen recorded to date was 6.5 feet (2m), but in ancient times, so fossil records reveal, there was a greater diversity of frilled sharks including much larger species"

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Though coined by Darwin "living fossils" is one of the most inaccurate, misleading and useless terms out there. For instance, the aforementioned coelacanths (see post #6) are often called "living fossils" in spite of the fact that the modern ones don't exactly closely resemble ones that lived tens to hundreds of millions of years ago. Another example are crocodilians. Some ancient species lived in arid environments, some were arboreal, some were bipedal, some had fish-like tails and were completely aquatic, some had boar-like tusks and some were vegetarian or ate grubs[1]. And yet somehow they are still called "living fossils"

                    Two articles debunking the concept of living fossils










                    1 A neat article about five types of extinct crocs discovered in 2009 in Niger with such nick-names as "BoarCroc," "RatCroc," "PancakeCroc," "DuckCrock," and "DogCrock": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...in-Sahara.html
                    Last edited by rogue06; 11-11-2017, 09:53 PM.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Just out: ANOTHER "living fossil" that shouldn't be here but is. It "shouldn't be here" because "80 million years have gone by and it hasn't Evolved".

                      The years come, the years go, never gets any brighter.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                        The years come, the years go, never gets any brighter.
                        His air does get hotter, though.
                        "When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…. The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly…. But the deeper idolatry, of the fashioning of God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers, was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

                        — Alfred North Whitehead

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          Of course, there is no evidence - in quantity or quality - that will convince the Evo-Faithful that their "billions of years" are maintained at all costs to make their ideology possible. In other words, eliminate those billions of years and Evolution goes out the door.

                          For that goal the Evo-Faithful will forever deny any evidence for a "young" creation. They will yell until blue in the face that "no evidence exists supporting a young creation". This is in spite of the scores of published articles detailing such evidences - articles that I have provided over the years.

                          Here is yet another "non-existent evidence" that was published recently. What the Evo-Faithful usually do is come up with something - anything! - that dismisses the evidence so that they can hold on to their sacred beliefs. Oh well, there is nothing that can be done about that -- fanatical willful ignorance is unconquerable.

                          https://creation.com/surprising-lizards-in-amber

                          From the article:

                          "Unfortunately, however, the recent reporting of a research study on 38 fossil lizards in amber found on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola has not regarded this. Instead, coming from an evolutionary perspective that posits these amber fossils as being 20 million years old, the researchers were amazed and surprised to find exquisitely preserved anole lizards, which showed no evolution. For these reptilian specimens in amber are “identical to their modern cousins” and show “phenomenal detail—including the colour of the lizard … and whether its eyes were open or shut.” In the words of lead researcher Dr Emma Sherratt, of the University of New England, Australia:

                          “These fossils were really surprising because of how much detail they contained, allowing us to see how these lizards would have looked in real life. Most of ours had full skeletons, and details of the skin were impressed on the amber, providing very detailed images of tiny scales on the body and on the sticky toe pads. You could have taken a lizard today, embedded it in resin and it would have looked like one of these creatures. That’s how realistic and modern they look.”

                          Sherratt describes such stasis (i.e. that these lizards haven’t changed evolutionarily in the mooted 20 million years “over which all the main animal types evolved”) as “very striking” and “quite surprising”."

                          "amazed" ... "surprised" ... "very striking" ... "quite surprising"? Really? NOT TO ME! The rather obvious possibility that "Hmmm ... perhaps these fossils are NOT 20 million years old" doesn't even cross their poor, pathetic, brainwashed minds. They have become blinded by a fanatical adherence to "the only possibility" - millions and billions of years.

                          "No evidence" here, folks ... move along.

                          See ya'll next year. Information theory coming along fine.


                          Jorge

                          This is exactly what you say it is. Non-existant evidence for a young earth. The scientific method takes into account the known evidence. Lizards preserved in amber that are similar in form to present day lizards is evidence those lizards retained a similar form from the time they were preserved to the present. It doesn't tell us much at all about when that preservation took place. The preservation time needs to be deduced from other information. The best method of deducing that age, however (and as your presentation implies), would not be to look at what a naive interpretation of Evolution might imply about the maxmium time such a form might be preserved. The best way to determine that age of preservation would be to look at the radiometric dating of the amber itself or the surrounding rocks.

                          If the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the Earth 4.5 billion, there will be facts that are consistent with varying ages, as there will be events preserved from random samplings over that entire period preserved in one form or another. But in a universe 10,000 years old, there should be little to no records that imply an age greater than 10,000 years. Indeed, we find almost no evidence on the Earth that the Earth is OLDER than 4.5 billion years. If the Earth was 10,000 years old, that number should be 10,000.

                          The issue here Jorge is not that these lizards present some anomalous condition that can't be explained by current theory or that is in some way significantly inconsistent with current theory. The issue is that you will not admit that simple fact, nor can you (or anyone else for that matter) produce any consistent theory that can accommodate within a 10,000 year time frame according to known physics, chemistry, astronomy etc. the prethora of evidence consistent with an Earth that is 4.5 billions years old, and a Universe that is 13.7 billion years old.


                          Jim
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-16-2017, 08:31 AM.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            Of course, there is no evidence - in quantity or quality - that will convince the Evo-Faithful that their "billions of years" are maintained at all costs to make their ideology possible. In other words, eliminate those billions of years and Evolution goes out the door.

                            For that goal the Evo-Faithful will forever deny any evidence for a "young" creation. They will yell until blue in the face that "no evidence exists supporting a young creation". This is in spite of the scores of published articles detailing such evidences - articles that I have provided over the years.

                            Here is yet another "non-existent evidence" that was published recently. What the Evo-Faithful usually do is come up with something - anything! - that dismisses the evidence so that they can hold on to their sacred beliefs. Oh well, there is nothing that can be done about that -- fanatical willful ignorance is unconquerable.

                            https://creation.com/surprising-lizards-in-amber

                            From the article:

                            "Unfortunately, however, the recent reporting of a research study on 38 fossil lizards in amber found on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola has not regarded this. Instead, coming from an evolutionary perspective that posits these amber fossils as being 20 million years old, the researchers were amazed and surprised to find exquisitely preserved anole lizards, which showed no evolution. For these reptilian specimens in amber are “identical to their modern cousins” and show “phenomenal detail—including the colour of the lizard … and whether its eyes were open or shut.” In the words of lead researcher Dr Emma Sherratt, of the University of New England, Australia:

                            “These fossils were really surprising because of how much detail they contained, allowing us to see how these lizards would have looked in real life. Most of ours had full skeletons, and details of the skin were impressed on the amber, providing very detailed images of tiny scales on the body and on the sticky toe pads. You could have taken a lizard today, embedded it in resin and it would have looked like one of these creatures. That’s how realistic and modern they look.”

                            Sherratt describes such stasis (i.e. that these lizards haven’t changed evolutionarily in the mooted 20 million years “over which all the main animal types evolved”) as “very striking” and “quite surprising”."

                            "amazed" ... "surprised" ... "very striking" ... "quite surprising"? Really? NOT TO ME! The rather obvious possibility that "Hmmm ... perhaps these fossils are NOT 20 million years old" doesn't even cross their poor, pathetic, brainwashed minds. They have become blinded by a fanatical adherence to "the only possibility" - millions and billions of years.

                            "No evidence" here, folks ... move along.

                            See ya'll next year. Information theory coming along fine.


                            Jorge


                            [sigh ...] Yet MORE "non-existent" evidence supporting a young creation.

                            https://crev.info/2017/11/fossil-for...nd-antarctica/


                            What I keep wondering is, will this evidence ever END?
                            It seems like every other day MORE of it pops out of somewhere.

                            Yet the Evo-Faithful continue reciting their mantra
                            "There is no evidence ... there is no evidence ... there is no evidence!"

                            The saying must be right - if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes "true" (at least to you it does).

                            Bwahahahahaha

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              [sigh ...] Yet MORE "non-existent" evidence supporting a young creation.

                              That's right . 280 million year old fossils are great evidence the Earth is only 6000 years old.

                              What would we do without your brilliant shining light of YECkery?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X