Science Disproves Evolution

[Delta9 UK]

Evolution does not break the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that either shows your lack of knowledge of Evolution or of the 2nd law, take your pick.

The Earth is NOT a closed system so evolution and life itself does not break the 2nd Law.

This is a common misconception made by Creationists and tantamount to wilfull ignorance or deception - take your pick.

You might want to read this page:
Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

^^ It has a list of arguments that even Creationists have realised they shouldn't use. That's kind of telling in itself - don't you think?

[gypski]

Why don't those non-believers in evolution look an a chart of the phases of human embryo development into a complete human. The stages are very distinctive as the genetic code unfolds and the body develops. Reptillian and fish are are just two of the phases. :jointsmile:

If you want an religion that mimics evolution, look at Hindu and the transmigration of the soul through the life cycles and animal species. :stoned:

[Pahu78]

Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage.

But where is there any evidence of those species-to-species transitions? The attempt to show them only shows different complete species that share certain similarities, which are claimed to be transitions. Isnâ??t that more an example of imagination?

And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.

Your assumption that eons of time elapsed is based on what? Are you aware all the dating techniques being used have been proven to be unreliable?

If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species.

And yet Darwin noticed: â??why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?â?�

Other recent scientists have observed the same problem:

â??Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.â?� [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), â??Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.â?� Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

â??The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.â?� [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.â?� [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

â??Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.â?� [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

â??At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the â??officialâ?� position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).â?� [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

â??The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and â??fully formed.â??â?� [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

The sudden appearance of fully developed life forms is consistent with creation, isnâ??t it? One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the â??Cambrian Explosionâ?�, which refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

If evolution did not take place, if the natural forces at work today did not create the diversity of life we see on our little blue world, then something supernatural must be responsible. True science seeks to understand, no matter what the philosophical or metaphysical ramifications may be. That is why evolution is not science, but rather a philosophy, for it seeks to explain things within only one possible framework, whether or not this framework is true. The facts are that the scientists' own interpretation of the fossil record clearly demonstrates that every species appeared at once suddenly and then gradually died off with the passage of time. The significance of this great body of evidence against evolutionary theory in the fossil record cannot be stressed enough. It is utterly devastating to evolutionary theory completely by itself. But in the final analysis, it is but one of a plethora of scientific facts that refute the 19th century fable that is evolution.

Show me the evidence to support creationism.

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

â??Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processesâ?� (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, â??Evidence that Demands a Verdictâ?� by Josh McDowell.

[From â??Reincarnation in the Bible?â?� http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/b...0-595-12387-2]

[Pahu78]

Evolution does not break the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that either shows your lack of knowledge of Evolution or of the 2nd law, take your pick.

The Earth is NOT a closed system so evolution and life itself does not break the 2nd Law.

This is a common misconception made by Creationists and tantamount to wilfull ignorance or deception - take your pick.

You might want to read this page:
Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

^^ It has a list of arguments that even Creationists have realised they shouldn't use. That's kind of telling in itself - don't you think?

The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that â??the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.â?�

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend is a scientifically observed phenomenonâ??fact, not theory.

The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an â??exceptionâ?� because we live in an open system: â??The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.â?� This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.

But simply adding energy to a system doesnâ??t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or â??build-upâ?� rather than â??break-downâ?�). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropyâ??in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your carâ??s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

â??...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.â?�
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), [i/Chemical and Engineering News,[/i] vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

So, what is it that makes life possible within the earthâ??s biosphere, appearing to â??violateâ?� the second law of thermodynamics?

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

a â??programâ?� (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

Each living organismâ??s DNA contains all the code (the â??programâ?� or â??informationâ?�) needed to direct the process of building (or â??organizingâ?�) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organismâ??s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential componentâ??their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sunâ??s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to â??violateâ?� the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures â??in spite ofâ?� the second lawâ??s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earthâ??s â??open-systemâ?� biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described aboveâ??nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

In short, the â??open systemâ?� argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (one of whom has been quoted above with careâ??and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

[Pahu78]

Why don't those non-believers in evolution look an a chart of the phases of human embryo development into a complete human. The stages are very distinctive as the genetic code unfolds and the body develops. Reptillian and fish are are just two of the phases. :jointsmile:

If you want an religion that mimics evolution, look at Hindu and the transmigration of the soul through the life cycles and animal species. :stoned:

Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have â??gill slits,â?� because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, thatâ??s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble â??gill slitsâ?� have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a). Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).

a. â??This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as â??ontogeny [the development of an embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].â?? This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.â?� Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

â??It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.â?� George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.

â??The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the â??biogenetic lawâ?? and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.â?� Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.

b. Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this â??biogenetic lawâ?� that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, distorted his data. Thompson explains:


A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the â??convergenceâ?� of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The â??biogenetic lawâ?� as a proof of evolution is valueless. W. R. Thompson, p. 12.

â??To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that â??hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same chargeâ??.â?� Pitman, p. 120.

c. â??Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckelâ??s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.â?� Michael K. Richardson et al., â??There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,â?� Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 20. Embryology

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Missing Trunk 4
[/align]

In fact, many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today (f). Complex species, such as fish (g) worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish (h) sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animal species (living and extinct), have no known evolutionary ancestors (i) The fossil record does not support evolution (j).

f. â??Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.â?� Roger Lewin, â??A Lopsided Look at Evolution,â?� Science, Vol. 241, 15 July 1988, p. 291.

â??A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

â??Stephen Jay Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversedâ??we have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.â?� Chien, p. 2.

â??It was puzzling for a while because they [evolutionary paleontologists] refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist nowâ??thatâ??s more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now.â?� Ibid., p. 3.

g. â??But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing, a matter of hot dispute among the experts, each of whom is firmly convinced that everyone else is wrong...I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.â?� Errol White, â??A Little on Lung-Fishes,â?� Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, Vol. 177, Presidential Address, January 1966, p. 8.

â??The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes...â?� J. R. Norman, A History of Fishes, 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 343.

â??All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?â?� Gerald T. Todd, â??Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishesâ??A Causal Relationship?â?� American Zoologist, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1980, p. 757.

h. Cloud and Glaessner, pp. 783â??792.

i. â??There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like...Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred.â?� Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1962), pp. 14â??15.

â??There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods.â?� Frank M. Carpenter, â??Fossil Insects,â?� Insects (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 18.

j. â??If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.â?� Marshall Kay and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965), p. 103.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. Missing Trunk

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Out-of-Place Fossils 1
[/align]

Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order (a).

a. Walter E. Lammerts has published eight lists totaling almost 200 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. [See â??Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United States: Parts Iâ??VIII,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1984, p. 88; December 1984, p. 150; March 1985, p. 200; December 1985, p. 127; March 1986, p. 188; June 1986, p. 38; December 1986, p. 133; and June 1987, p. 46.]

â??In the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change: modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and a plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing the sequence. But the predictive (or postdictive) power of theory is almost nil.â?� David M. Raup, â??Evolution and the Fossil Record,â?� Science, Vol. 213, 17 July 1981, p. 289.

â??Fossil discoveries can muddle our attempts to construct simple evolutionary treesâ??fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodgepodges of defining features of many different groups.â?� Neil Shubin, â??Evolutionary Cut and Paste,â?� Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, p. 12.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Out-of-Place Fossils 3
[/align]

Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock (g). Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina (h). Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed (i). In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian (j) rocksâ??rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian (k) rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.

g. Andrew Snelling, â??Fossil Bluff,â?� Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1985, p. 8.

Carol Armstrong, â??Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198â??199.

Pat Shipman, â??Dumping on Science,â?� Discover, December 1987, p. 64.

h. Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the â??Great Carolina Marl Bedâ?� (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmesâ?? Book House, 1870).

Edward J. Nolan, â??Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,â?� Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80â??81.

John Watson did extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.

i. A. C. Noé, â??A Paleozoic Angiosperm,â?� Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, Mayâ??June 1923, pp. 344â??347.

j. R. M. Stainforth, â??Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,â?� Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292â??294.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796â??797.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, â??Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,â?� Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056â??1057.

J. Coates et al., pp. 266â??267.

k. George F. Howe et al., â??A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173â??182.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Out-of-Place Fossils 2
[/align]

In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs (b). Hoofprints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia (c). A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years (d). Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan (e) and Arizona (f).

b. Y. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, â??A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?â?� Moskovskaya Pravda [Moscow Truth], 5 February 1984.

c. Richard Monastersky, â??A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style,â?� Science News, Vol. 136, 8 July 1989, p. 21.

d. Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93â??96, 100.

e. Alexander Romashko, â??Tracking Dinosaurs,â?� Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10. [For an alternate but equivalent translation published by an anti-creationist organization, see Frank Zindler, â??Manâ??A Contemporary of the Dinosaurs?â?� Creation/Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1986, pp. 28â??29.]

f. Paul O. Rosnau et al., â??Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona?â?� Parts I and II, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 26, September 1989, pp. 41â??48 and December 1989, pp. 77â??98.

Jeremy Auldaney et al., â??More Human-Like Track Impressions Found with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta Formation at Tuba City Arizona,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 34, December 1997, pp. 133â??146 and back cover.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Out-of-Place Fossils 4
[/align]

Petrified trees in Arizonaâ??s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later (l). Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved (m). Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

l. Stephen T. Hasiotis (paleobiologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver), personal communication, 27 May 1995.

Carl Zimmer, â??A Secret History of Life on Land,â?� Discover, February 1998, pp. 76â??83.

m. Dong Ren, â??Flower-Associated Brachycera Flies as Fossil Evidence for Jurassic Angiosperm Origins,â?� Science, Vol. 280, 3 April 1998, pp. 85â??88.

The best-preserved fossils are encased in amber, protected from air and water and buried in the ground. Amber, a golden resin (similar to sap or pitch) usually from conifer trees such as pines, may also contain other preservatives. No transitional forms of life have been found in amber, despite evolutionary-based ages of 1.5â??300 million years. Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.

Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin, which was later covered by more resin and finally buried.

In a clean-room laboratory, 30â??40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! This amber is claimed to be 25â??40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils