Post

Darwin, Huxley And The Truth About Fossils

In 1859, when Darwin produced his famous book, "The Origin of Species", very few fossils had been found.  In chapter 10 of his book, Darwin predicted that evidence for evolution would eventually be found in the fossils buried in the earth's strata.

Darwin's supporters knew that a lot depended upon what the fossils would show.  If evolutionary theory was true, the fossil record would show more complex species in the top strata and more simple and primitive species in the bottom strata.  It would show how the species living in our world today had earlier prototypes in ages past.  

If evolution has taken place, there will its marks be found; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation.  T.A. Huxley

 Since the middle of the nineteenth century, millions of fossils have been found.  And what they tell us about the earth's history is problematic for evolutionists.  

The earliest fossils have no ancestors.  Complex fossils appear "suddenly", fully formed, in the "earliest" strata, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.  The trilobite, for example, which has been found in the first animal fossil layer, is a well formed, complex organism, with no evolutionary ancestors.



The "later" fossils have no evolutionary links.  Each plant and animal type appears abruptly, as an already complete, functional unit.  They would have to be in order to eat, breathe and reproduce.  Some 90% of fossils found are of species familiar to us.  The rest are of species now extinct.



"Older" and "younger" are mixed in any sequence.  Fossils are found in the "wrong" order - thus destroying the evolutionary progression sequence.



There is no time lapse between the different strata.  There is no evidence of erosion between the layers.  No dividing line demarks the rocks between the presumed "ages".



Individual fossils penetrate several different strata.  This destroys the "long ages" theory for the formation of strata.

 



The evolution "ages" chart is supported nowhere on Earth.  No geological site on earth shows the expected complete evolution sequence.  

"Extinct" early forms "leap" ages - and live today.  Animals thought to be extinct for aeons and which were used to date the strata in which they were found, have since been discovered still alive.

 

Living descendants have survived unchanged.  Those plant and animal varieties that survive today are basically unchanged from their first fossil ancestors.  

Mutation produces no new genes.  Mutation selects what already exists in the gene pool.  

The fossil record has proven to be a massive embarrassment and disappointment to the evolutionists.

You must never contradict them though their premises are flawed.

If you do you must expect to be howled down with one accord,

For evolution theorists proclaim infallibility

And this you can't contest without disturbing their tranquillity.

 

It is said of two hypotheses the simpler we should choose,

But evolution theory demands that we refuse.

Did a group of beasts with itchy feet transfer their range and then,

Abroad, mutate or anyway change and then mutate again,

 

Migrating, homesick, back again to their range in years gone by

To wipe out all their old root stock that Darwinists should cry,

Creating a deep mystery because the rocks are bare

Of fossils that the Darwinists expected to be there?

 

The pilgrim beasts, so Dawkins says, found the other side of the hill

Or mountain (if the hill was small), and they stayed until

It was time to travel back to the home of their ancestral beast,

Relentlessly competing till the ancestors deceased.

 

One wonders how a species could be utterly ungrateful

And leave behind a record which the Darwinists find hateful.

But modern evolutionists want this to be believed

And if you do you're welcomed and into their ranks received.

 

They like to dance the haka as a substitue for reason,

Always chanting loud, indignant sounds that float the breeze on.

They have an inclination to deny they ever erred -

A little bit more honesty and this you might have heard:

 

Chant:

 

We're a breed of funny paleonts without the missing link,

Who just pretend it's really there for that's the way we think.

We believe in evolution 'cause we won't believe in God -

To abandon that belief would show us up as very odd.

 

A 'controversial' article condemned our fond belief

Without the author's name - unfair, and greatly to our grief.

If we do not know who wrote it, then we cannot make him cease,

Frustrating our appointment as the science thought police.

 

Some of us protested, and as soon as we are able

We'll write a definition for a 'controversial' label.

All we've thought of so far is it disagrees with us,

But we can't have that adopted or there's nothing to discuss.

 

We delved into geology, in hope of great rewards,

But finds acclaimed with great applause oft turned out to be frauds.

The missing links, connected, would suffice to make a chain,

So we dug and dug and turned up rocks, but laboured all in vain.

 

A chain with missing links could not our fixed idea sustain-

It takes a lot of fantasy their absence to explain.

Since we need a few discoveries from the scientific fountain,

We would set the past behind us on the other side o' the mountain.

 

We try to work in terrain new to keep up flagging hopes -

Who knows what fossils may turn up upon the other slopes?

As to why there's nothing yet to show there's simply no accountin'

Unless it be we cannot find the other side o' the mountain.

 

Rejoinder:

 

You and I are not aware when they'll admit defeat

Or how they will announce it, but it's bound to be a treat.

At least we'll know which way to look, and, ready with a thumb,

We shall see that they'll be coming round the mountain when they come.

 

G.D. Lyons

References


Jonathan Gray, "What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?" www.surprisingdiscoveries.com

G.D. Lyons, "The Other Side of the Mountain"

perseverer perseverer 51-55, F 13 Responses Dec 20, 2011

Your Response

Cancel

The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
Creationist method of using old scientific beliefs to prove that current scientific facts are wrong, is simply silly. The scientific method demands the updating old beliefs. There is only on agenda to reach a provable truth.
Example of beliefs that the old scientific community has fully proven as false: (they now seem silly even to creationist)
*Hans Hörbiger, an Austrian engineer and inventor received a vision in 1894 which told him that ice was the substance of all basic substances and had created the ice moons, ice planets, and a “global ether”.
*alchemy in which men would try to turn metals into gold, to conjure up genies, and perform all manner of bizarre not-so-science-like activities.
*From the 16th century, European experts in geography were convinced that California was an island separate from the North American mainland.
*Geocentricity is the concept which states that the earth is the center of the Universe and that all other objects move around it.

More than 150 years after Charles Darwin published his theory, evolution it remains controversial. The Scientific method continuously updates the findings, always seeking variables, and reasons for those variables.

creationists: In order to square the existence of dinosaurs with the Book of Genesis--Creationists insist that dinosaurs were created ex nihilo (out of nothing), by god, along with all the other animals.

Evolutionists: On the side of science are such techniques as radioactive dating and sediment analysis, which conclusively prove that dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million to 230 million years old. These same studies prove that the earth itself coalesced from debris orbiting the sun about four billion years ago.

According to Creationists, all the dinosaurs could have fit on Noah's Ark

Creationist point of view, all the creatures that ever existed lived sometime over the past few thousand years. Therefore, all these animals had to have been led, two by two, onto Noah's Ark--even Brachiosaurus, Pteranodon, and Tyrannosaurus Rex. That must have been one pretty big boat, even if some fundamentalists dance around the issue by insisting that Noah collected baby dinosaurs.

Evolutionists point out that, by the Bible's own word, Noah's Ark was only about 450 feet long and 75 feet wide. Even with baby dinosaurs representing the hundreds of species discovered so far (and we won't even get into giraffes, elephants, and Woolly Mammoths), it's clear that Noah's Ark was exactly what it sounds like--a myth.

Your basic premise is flawed ie you assume that creationists are not scientists, but biblical fundamentalists. In this you are very much mistaken and I refer you to my story, "Scientists Who Believe The Earth Is Young".

your assumption is flawed ie .... I never stated that 'creationists are not scientists, but biblical fundamentalists' ..... unfortunately this is the technique that creationists use to arrive at their "facts". Unfortunately it can never be a fact filled discussion.

No, you did not specifically state it, but you certainly implied it.

Obviously you have no interest in a factual discussion. You are determined to believe that 'what you think' is exactly what I mean.

Actually I am a Christian who has lived his life as such. I believe as many of us do that “God's kingdom is not of this earth” or as Jesus told the Samaritan woman, “a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth ” not in a temple nor the mountain.

As you undoubtedly know, The book of Genesis was originally written in Ancient Hebrew

The Genesis account is ordered on the basis of what God did on each "day" (the Hebrew word yom2). Although Yom is usually translated in our English dictionaries as "day," its meanings are much more broad than what we (English speakers) tend to associate with the word "day." Yom actually has three main meanings; daylight portion of a solar day (i.e., sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour solar day, or a long period of time. Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew definitions list definitions referring to long periods of time such as "year," "lifetime," and "time, period (general)."2

It's important to keep in mind that while Genesis speaks of six creative periods and says that they were "called the first/second/etc day," it does not state that any of these "days" were 24 hours in length, or even that they all took as long as each other. Eliminate those two preconceptions and a lot of the apparent conflicts vanish.

While there exists severe problems with a literal interpretation, this does not mean the Bible is not worth studying. There are severe problems of the literal interpretation but none these exists in a spiritual and/or symbolic translation.
Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of his day for taking a strictly literal, conservative view of the Hebrew Bible. They created an entire system of man-made rules and regulations around their literal interpretation of scriptures. Because they rejected Jesus' liberal interpretation of scripture, their theology was in question, so they had Jesus killed. Today, there are a large number of religious leaders and followers who are making the same mistake.

1 More Response

This is so true! Why indeed is theory taught as fact? It is indoctrination at its worst. Children are trusting of adults and believe the things they say. ALL the evidence is for a young earth full of intelligent design.

found this story facinating....i used to believe in evolution and its hard to stop believing when its what your taught in school...now i'm trying to reverse the damage done on my children. I still don't understand why they teach it when it's just a theory. Children don't understand theorys are just one man's idea and not a fact.

Glad you found it so!

Interesting post

Thank you for reading this and offering your words of caution about the alleged archaeological discoveries of Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray.<br />
<br />
Please note that this story is not about any archaeological discoveries of either gentleman. <br />
<br />
I have, over many years, read a great deal of argumentation against Darwinian evolution and Jonathan Gray's presentation is as good a synopsis as one can find anywhere. I could have succumbed to the temptation of pride and listed several other works. But that would have been intellectually dishonest. This particular line of thought is credited to Jonathan Gray and credit should be given where credit is due.<br />
<br />
I am well aware of the controversy surrounding Gray and Wyatt's alleged discoveries. As a Roman Catholic, I have an attitude of caution about such things. Anyone worth their salt in Christendom might expect the sort of treatment Jonathan Gray is getting. Yes, some of the criticisms are very plausible, and from eminently qualified scientists. Likewise, some of the rebuttals are equally plausible and from similarly qualified scientists. For example, Dr. Mehmet Salih Bayraktutan PhD who accompanied Wyatt and Gray on the Noah's Ark expedition, is claimed by Creation Magazine to have retracted his support, yet he is recently listed on the internet advertising a lecture in favour. <br />
These conflicting claims are confusing, to say the least.<br />
<br />
I have Jonathan Gray's DVDs and find the stories very interesting indeed. But I do not write about them here on EP because they are still the subject of so much controversy. Jonathan Gray strikes me as being a humble man of prayer, who lives in an outback country town in Victoria, Australia. Hardly the lifestyle of someone rigging a hoax for financial gain. So, I am prepared, for now, to continue to reserve my judgment about the alleged discoveries, some of which are very impressive indeed, but certainly not necessary as a source of credibility for one's Christian faith.<br />
<br />
And in the meantime, the argument presented about how the fossil record disproves Darwinian evolution, stands.

Ron Wyatt and Daly are given a fair comment in the following.<br />
19 April 2002<br />
<br />
It is with great sadness that, from time to time, we need to make our supporters aware of disreputable claims ‘doing the rounds’ in Christian circles. Recently the dubious claims of Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray surfaced once again in Australia.<br />
<br />
At great expense (and no doubt funded by the donations of sincere people), an eight-page newspaper insert recently appeared in the major newspapers in Australia—the Gold Coast Mail and the Melbourne Herald Sun.<br />
<br />
Between them Gray and Wyatt (the latter now deceased) have claimed to have discovered Noah’s Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ark of the Covenant, and the grain pits of Joseph. Other sensational claims include the discovery of Christ’s actual blood cells and the Ten Commandments on stone tablets—held together by gold chains no less.<br />
<br />
We would be excited, along with all Christians, if these claims were true. Unfortunately, when asked to produce the artifacts, the discovers give only excuses. Checks on some of their claims have produced a trail of falsehood after falsehood. (See ‘Has the Ark of the Covenant been found?’)<br />
<br />
An old article in Creation magazine (September-November 1992), ‘Could this be Noah’s Ark’, laid to rest the Wyatt rumors about discovery of Noah’s Ark.<br />
<br />
The rest of this article can be read at: http://creation.com/ark-discovered-again

Thank you for reading and commenting, Dex.<br />
<br />
I must observe that your ob<x>jection consists largely of argumentum ad hominem. There is no logical or empirical refutation of the known fossil facts.<br />
<br />
When the known truth is resisted - as refutations of Darwinian evolution are resisted by journals such as "Scientific American" - there are two possible explanations. a) The argument lacks merit. b) The argument is unwelcome. In the case of the latter, the standard weapons are censorship and non communication. <br />
<br />
The validity of an argument is inherent within itself. If there is fault in the argument, show it.<br />
<br />
When I looked up Wikipedia on estimated weights of the largest known dinosaur I found Gregory Bell's estimate of 100 tonnes for Argentinosaurus. Given that many animals consume more than their own body weight, why is it inconceivable that a large herbivorous dinosaur would consume more than its own body weight in order to sustain its enormous mass? And what, exactly, does that have to do with the fossil record and evolutionary ages?<br />
<br />
You mention that Jonathan Gray quotes the Bible. I also quote the Bible. Does that mean I lack credibility when I teach Maths? Or Science? <br />
<br />
You did not mention that Jonathan Gray also quotes research from the University of Montana in relation to the study of dinosaur blood - which if it is as old as evolutionists claim, should not even be in existence.<br />
<br />
Or the comment made by the curator of New York's National History Museum, Miles Eldridge in the New York Times, Nov 4, 1980: "The Fossil record we were told to find in the past 120 years does not exist."<br />
<br />
Or Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology (Emeritus) at San Francisco State University, who was one of the leading chemical evolution theorists in the world and co-authored, "Biochemical Predestination", which claimed that the evolution of life was inevitable. Professor Kenyon is one who retracted his views upon the discovery of DNA and is very outspoken in his refutations of Darwinism.<br />
<br />
So, if you are still finding it hard to find a reputable scientific source of refutation for Darwinism, I suggest you start by googling Dean Kenyon.

I must add a further note about your claim that dinosaur and human footprints co- existing is only an historical anecdote. On the DVD the sites are shown and the remarkable sets of footprints clearly seen.

And furthermore, one shot is of a human footprint, wearing a shoe, and a trilobite is embedded in the shoe.

I am not at all convinced by the source You mention, perseverer.<br />
<br />
On the first page of the PDF I downloaded, I discovered these startling 'facts' presented by Jonathon Gray:<br />
<br />
* Dinosaurs could weigh up to 100 tons.<br />
* Dinosaurs could eat up to 400 tons of food per day.<br />
<br />
This is hardly scrupulous science; firstly over-estimating the size of the largest dinosaur by at least 50 per cent, and then saying that it could eat four times its own bodyweight in a single day!<br />
<br />
Jonathon Gray himself quotes only The Bible and such bastions of truth as The Australian and The Melbourne Sun newspapers, none of which are noted for their scientific veracity. The many instances of supposed coexistence of humans with dinosaurs he cites are historical anecdotes, with no documentary evidence to support them.<br />
<br />
His work is not a valid reference to cite in opposition to the scientific theory of evolution, in my opinion, whereas hundreds of properly-presented, peer-reviewed and fully-referenced papers are published each year which do support evolution theory.<br />
<br />
I am aware of no single paper published by a reputable journal that has ever seriously threatened Darwin's brilliant insight.

So true. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

If there's one thing my 70 odd years have taught me, no matter how the evidence screams of a "creator", there are those among us who simply cannot abide the concept.

I appreciate you reading this. Many thanks'

Great story! Thanks for sharing.