Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu
Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many
fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish (a), show by the details of
their soft, fleshy portions (b) that they were buried rapidly, before
they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly
decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals,
buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions,
suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas (c). These
observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and
fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are
strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were
deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore,
almost all sediments that formed today’s rocks were sorted by water.
The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and
burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood.
The fossil record is not evidence of slow change (d).
a. Thousands of jellyfish, many bigger than a dinner plate, are found
in at least seven different horizons of coarse-grained, abrasive
sandstone in Wisconsin. [See James W. Hagadorn et al., “Stranded on a
Late Cambrian Shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin,” Geology,
Vol. 30, No. 2, February 2002, pp. 147–150.]
Coarse grains slowly covering a jellyfish would allow atmospheric
oxygen to migrate in and produce rapid decay. Burial in clay or mud
would better shield an organism from decay. If coarse-grain sand
buried these jellyfish in a storm, turbulence and abrasion by the sand
grains would tear and destroy the jellyfish.
Charles Darwin recognized the problem of finding fossilized soft-
bodied organisms such as jellyfish. He wrote:
“No organism wholly soft can be preserved.” Charles Darwin, The Origin
of Species, p. 330.
Once again, a prediction of evolution is seen to be wrong.
Preston Cloud and Martin F. Glaessner, “The Ediacarian Period and
System: Metazoa Inherit the Earth,” Science, Vol. 217, 27 August 1982,
pp. 783–792. [See also the cover of that issue.]
Martin F. Glaessner, “Pre-Cambrian Animals,” Scientific American, Vol.
204, March 1961, pp. 72–78.
b. Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science,
Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.
“... preconditions for the preservation of soft-bodied faunas: rapid
burial of fossils in undisturbed sediment; deposition in an
environment free from the usual agents of immediate destruction—
primarily oxygen and other promoters of decay, and the full range of
organisms, from bacteria to large scavengers, that quickly reduce most
carcasses to oblivion in nearly all earthly environments; and minimal
disruption by the later ravages of heat, pressure, fracturing, and
erosion....But the very conditions that promote preservation also
decree that few organisms, if any, make their natural homes in such
places.” Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (New York: W. W. Norton &
Co., 1989), pp. 61–62.
c. Presse Grayloise, “Very Like a Whale,” The Illustrated London News,
1856, p. 116.
Sunderland, pp. 111–114.
David Starr Jordan, “A Miocene Catastrophe,” Natural History, Vol. 20,
January–February 1920, pp. 18–22.
Hugh Miller, The Old Red Sandstone, or New Walks in an Old Field
(Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1858), pp. 221–225.
d. Harold G. Coffin, Origin By Design (Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Assn., 1983), pp. 30–40.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes21.html#wp1012558
Jürgen Exner
>Rapid Burial
>
>Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many
>fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish (a),
What? You are using fossilized jellyfish as optical filters for you
camera? I have heard about gel filters, but I am pretty sure they have
nothing to do with jellyfish.
How are the jellifish supposed to work?
jue
DanP
too many words.
do you have some photos?
Paul Heslop
> too many words.
> do you have some photos?
hope he has some photos which are more interesting than the crap he's
posting.
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Twibil
Recent revelations straight from God have proven once and for all that
evolution is not only real, but was and is God's favorite tool;
designed by Him to eventually produce what He had in mind from the
beginning.
"It's taking a little longer than I'd intended", said He, "but
eventually I'm sure I'll come up with human beings who will all
understand the difference between superstition and hard scientific
evidence."
"After all; it's not like I gave them logic so that they could
continue to ignore reality for the rest of creation!"
Bob Haar
>
> Recent revelations straight from God have proven once and for all that
> evolution is not only real, but was and is God's favorite tool;
> designed by Him to eventually produce what He had in mind from the
> beginning.
>
> "It's taking a little longer than I'd intended", said He, "but
> eventually I'm sure I'll come up with human beings who will all
> understand the difference between superstition and hard scientific
> evidence."
Are you sure that humans are the end point? As a race, we seem determined to
select ourselves out of the evolutionary contest.
Dave Cohen
> Religion disproves Creationism!
>
> Recent revelations straight from God have proven once and for all that
> evolution is not only real, but was and is God's favorite tool;
> designed by Him to eventually produce what He had in mind from the
> beginning.
>
> "It's taking a little longer than I'd intended", said He, "but
> eventually I'm sure I'll come up with human beings who will all
> understand the difference between superstition and hard scientific
> evidence."
Yes, but when.
Dave Cohen
measekite
Don't gel filters work better underwater?
measekite
> DanP wrote:
>
>> too many words.
>> do you have some photos?
>
> hope he has some photos which are more interesting than the crap he's
> posting.
>
I do not think you know what he is saying in his posts. He is staking a
claim to the fact that he does not understand what he is talking about.
measekite
> Religion disproves Creationism!
>
> Recent revelations straight from God have proven once and for all that
> evolution is not only real, but was and is God's favorite tool;
> designed by Him to eventually produce what He had in mind from the
> beginning.
What lenses did God use? Were they Nikon, Canon or what.
SMS
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:25:02 -0800, Twibil wrote:
>
>> Religion disproves Creationism!
>>
>> Recent revelations straight from God have proven once and for all that
>> evolution is not only real, but was and is God's favorite tool;
>> designed by Him to eventually produce what He had in mind from the
>> beginning.
>
> What lenses did God use? Were they Nikon, Canon or what.
Pretty sure Jesus used Nikon, Buddha uses Canon, Joseph Smith used
Pentax, Mohammed used Minolta, Ishvara uses Olympus. The devil uses Sigma.
Twibil
Oh, at the rate we're going I strongly suspect that *our* end point
will also be the end point for most -if not quite all- lifeforms on
Earth.
Indeed, He moves in mysterious ways.
~Pete
Twibil
> What lenses did God use? Were they Nikon, Canon or what.
Galactic.
Twibil
> > "It's taking a little longer than I'd intended", said He, "but
> > eventually I'm sure I'll come up with human beings who will all
> > understand the difference between superstition and hard scientific
> > evidence."
>
> Yes, but when.
On the evidence, just after it's too late.
Paul Heslop
I didn't actually see his original post, but someone else had it in
their message. Way too much crap in their for me to read, if they're
going to give me propaganda then they need to do it in bitesize chunks
measekite
And the devil wears Pravda
Marvin
know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
actually bad science. It is part of an effort to sneak a
particular religious viewpoint into the American public
school system, in violation of the American Constitution.
Ray Fischer
>Your reference to creationscience.com tells all we need to
>know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
>actually bad science.
What you refer to as "bad science" I refer to as bad religion, because
as best I can tell, creationism is devoid of any science.
> It is part of an effort to sneak a
>particular religious viewpoint into the American public
>school system, in violation of the American Constitution.
Can't argue with that.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J. Clarke
> Marvin <phys...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Your reference to creationscience.com tells all we need to
>> know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
>> actually bad science.
>
> What you refer to as "bad science" I refer to as bad religion,
> because
> as best I can tell, creationism is devoid of any science.
>
>> It is part of an effort to sneak a
>> particular religious viewpoint into the American public
>> school system, in violation of the American Constitution.
Actually, the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law regarding
an establishment of religion", with the intent being that the Federal
government would not interfere with the state religions in Connecticut
and several other states.
The founders would have been fine with, say, Utah establishing
Mormonism as a state religion. It wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme
Court decided to interpret that wording as a limitation on the powers
of state and local government. I suspect that if the authors of the
Fourteenth Amendment had been able to anticipate the manner in which
it would be interpreted by the Supreme Court they would have worded it
differently.
> Can't argue with that.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Neil Ellwood
> And the devil wears Pravda
That would be hazardous for him - newspaper is very inflammable.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
measekite
> Marvin <phys...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Your reference to creationscience.com tells all we need to
>>know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
>>actually bad science.
There are actually two kinds of religion. The first is actual belief.
There is nothing wrong with that as long as it is not extreme and the
belief is something close to rational.
The second is organized religion. That usually is corrupt by power and
money hungry evil doers and has historically been responsible for most of
the killing and thieving in the world.
Marvin
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Marvin <phys...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Your reference to creationscience.com tells all we need to
>>> know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
>>> actually bad science.
>> What you refer to as "bad science" I refer to as bad religion,
>> because
>> as best I can tell, creationism is devoid of any science.
>>
>>> It is part of an effort to sneak a
>>> particular religious viewpoint into the American public
>>> school system, in violation of the American Constitution.
>
> Actually, the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law regarding
> an establishment of religion", with the intent being that the Federal
> government would not interfere with the state religions in Connecticut
> and several other states.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution
carries more weight than mine or yours. It has ruled that
the teaching of creationism is unconstitutional. Creation
science is quite obviously an attempt to teach creationism
in another way. And so is "intelligent design".
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Marvin <phys...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Your reference to creationscience.com tells all we need to
>>> know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
>>> actually bad science.
>>
>> What you refer to as "bad science" I refer to as bad religion,
>> because
>> as best I can tell, creationism is devoid of any science.
>>
>>> It is part of an effort to sneak a
>>> particular religious viewpoint into the American public
>>> school system, in violation of the American Constitution.
>
>Actually, the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law regarding
>an establishment of religion", with the intent being that the Federal
>government would not interfere with the state religions in Connecticut
>and several other states.
I don't trust people who claim to know the "intent" while ignoring
half of the amendment.
>The founders would have been fine with
I don't believe you. Religious freedom is a fundamental right of
people and state religion is in opposition to that right.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J. Clarke
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Marvin <phys...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Your reference to creationscience.com tells all we need to
>>>> know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
>>>> actually bad science.
>>> What you refer to as "bad science" I refer to as bad religion,
>>> because
>>> as best I can tell, creationism is devoid of any science.
>>>
>>>> It is part of an effort to sneak a
>>>> particular religious viewpoint into the American public
>>>> school system, in violation of the American Constitution.
>>
>> Actually, the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law
>> regarding
>> an establishment of religion", with the intent being that the
>> Federal
>> government would not interfere with the state religions in
>> Connecticut and several other states.
>
> The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution
> carries more weight than mine or yours.
However that does not alter the founders' intent.
> It has ruled that
> the teaching of creationism is unconstitutional.
In what case did they rule this? They have ruled that laws requiring
the teaching of creationism violate the Constitution and that a
teacher has no right to teach creationism in a science class if such
teaching violates school board policy or the orders of his/her
superiors, but I do not believe that you will find any case which
states that the teaching of creationism in and of itself is a
violation of the Constitution.
> Creation
> science is quite obviously an attempt to teach creationism
> in another way. And so is "intelligent design".
Which is beside the point.
>> The founders would have been fine with, say, Utah establishing
>> Mormonism as a state religion. It wasn't until 1947 that the
>> Supreme
>> Court decided to interpret that wording as a limitation on the
>> powers
>> of state and local government. I suspect that if the authors of
>> the
>> Fourteenth Amendment had been able to anticipate the manner in
>> which
>> it would be interpreted by the Supreme Court they would have worded
>> it differently.
>>
>>> Can't argue with that.
--
tony cooper
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>> It has ruled that
>> the teaching of creationism is unconstitutional.
>
>In what case did they rule this? They have ruled that laws requiring
>the teaching of creationism violate the Constitution and that a
>teacher has no right to teach creationism in a science class if such
>teaching violates school board policy or the orders of his/her
>superiors, but I do not believe that you will find any case which
>states that the teaching of creationism in and of itself is a
>violation of the Constitution.
You will find that if you read Edwards vs Aguillard (1987). That's
the Supreme Court decision involved. Creationism is specifically
labeled as religious teaching by the justices.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Ray Fischer
>Marvin wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Marvin <phys...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Your reference to creationscience.com tells all we need to
>>>>> know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
>>>>> actually bad science.
>>>> What you refer to as "bad science" I refer to as bad religion,
>>>> because
>>>> as best I can tell, creationism is devoid of any science.
>>>>
>>>>> It is part of an effort to sneak a
>>>>> particular religious viewpoint into the American public
>>>>> school system, in violation of the American Constitution.
>>>
>>> Actually, the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law
>>> regarding
>>> an establishment of religion", with the intent being that the
>>> Federal
>>> government would not interfere with the state religions in
>>> Connecticut and several other states.
>>
>> The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution
>> carries more weight than mine or yours.
>
>However that does not alter the founders' intent.
The whinings of a crackpot do not reflect the intent of the founders,
nor do they reflect the current law.
>> It has ruled that
>> the teaching of creationism is unconstitutional.
>
>In what case did they rule this? They have ruled that laws requiring
>the teaching of creationism violate the Constitution and that a
>teacher has no right to teach creationism in a science class if such
>teaching violates school board policy or the orders of his/her
>superiors, but I do not believe that you will find any case which
>states that the teaching of creationism in and of itself is a
>violation of the Constitution.
Quibbling.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net