Apologetics Press :: In the News
Another Living Fossil
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
For nearly 100 years (1839-1938), evolutionists were under the impression that fish known as coelacanths were "close ancestors of the first vertebrates to walk on land" (Perkins, 2001, 159[18]:282). Coelacanths allegedly evolved 380 million years ago and became extinct about 70 million years ago (Raven and Johnson, 1989, p. 857). But then, in December 1938, the scientific community was "rocked" when a living coelacanth was caught off the coast of South Africa ("Diver Finds...," 2006).
In 2006, a team of French scientists found a shrimp-like crustacean (Neoglypheaneocaledonica) in the Coral Sea. It previously was thought to have died out 60 million years ago (""Living Fossil"...," 2006). Its discovery in modern times, as well as the discovery of the coelacanth, is comparable to finding a living dinosaur, which evolutionists believe went extinct 65 million years ago.
The latest "living fossil" caught on tape is the "prehistoric" frilled shark (see "Rare "Prehistoric"...," 2007). Sometimes caught in fishermen"s nets, but rarely seen alive, this creature (named Chlamydoselachusanguineus) supposedly can be traced back 95 million years in the fossil record (Schmiedekampf, 2007)"thus, the designation "pre-historic" shark. The problem is, it is anything but pre-historic. It is a living fossil (see Butt, 2006, 5[7]:28-R). Even though it looks like a terrifying creature from an evolutionary propaganda painting depicting "pre-historic" times, it is as contemporary as iPods and LASIK surgery.
Once again, a "monster" that evolutionists once did not expect to see in modern times is found in modern times. And, once again, another free pass is given to the evolutionary timetable. One wonders what living fossil (if any) could be found to persuade evolutionists to discard their beloved"but flawed"billion-year geologic timetable.
The Bible still says, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11). Truly, frilled sharks, shrimp, and coelacanths are only one day older than man (Genesis 1:20-28).
That a small population of a species has managed to survive in an isolated area long after the other members of the family it belongs to became extinct does not have any relevence to either the age of the geological column or the theory of evolution.
That a small population of a species has managed to survive in an isolated area long after the other members of the family it belongs to became extinct does not have any relevence to either the age of the geological column or the theory of evolution.
Caldoc
Who came first, the Chicken or the Egg?
__________________
Jesus said, "he who stands firm to the end will be saved" Mark 13:13.
Live Life in such a way that those who do not know Christ will come to know Him because they know you
That a small population of a species has managed to survive in an isolated area long after the other members of the family it belongs to became extinct does not have any relevence to either the age of the geological column or the theory of evolution.
Caldoc
Again, "One wonders what living fossil (if any) could be found to persuade evolutionists to discard their beloved"but flawed"billion-year geologic timetable."
Thanks Caldoc, you continue to stay on a sinking ship. The real topic is the geologic timetable, not a fish that survived a long time.
Here are 3 more classic responses that evolutionistshave given to the evidence presented to them in opposition to the evolutionary geologic timetable.
(1) In an attempt to explain away "human-like footprints" embedded in 250-million-year-old coal veins in Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, Albert G. Ingalls (the state geologist of Kentucky) could muster only the following explanation.
[blockquote]
If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even the ape ancestor"s early mammal ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous period with his feet (1940, 162:14, emp. added; see also, Wilder-Smith, 1970, p. 300).
[/blockquote]
Evolutionary scientists still are rejecting the "attractive explanation""i.e., the obvious fact"that these prints are human footprints.
(2) In attempting to explain away how two trilobites were found fossilized inside of a human sandal print in Antelope Springs, Utah, in 1968, evolutionists have asserted that the print is merely a spall (cracking or chipping) pattern in the rock (see Conrad, 1981, 4:30-33). They do not question the authenticity of the trilobite fossils, yet they reject the interpretation that these trilobites are found inside a human sandal print. One wonders what kind of explanation they have for the stitching that is visible along the edges of the sandal print?
(3) During the summer of 2004, while I was visiting the Natural Bridges National Monument in southeast Utah, I asked one of the staff members at the visitor"s center how scientists explain the presence of an antiquated dinosaur petroglyph at the base of Kachina Bridge. Her response: "They don"t really want to explain it." Truth be told, if I were an evolutionist, I would not want to explain it either. This piece of evidence blatantly contradicts their timetable. According to the theory of evolution, humans never lived with dinosaurs. But if humans never saw living dinosaurs, how did the Anasazis, who inhabited southeastern Utah long before dinosaur fossils were found in modern times, carve such an accurate picture of a dinosaur onto the side of a rock wall?
If the responses by evolutionists to the mountain of evidence that points toward the Creation model were not so pitiful and potentially soul damaging, they would be somewhat comical. To think that some men and women who call themselves "scientists" actually reject facts of science in order to embrace the evolutionary theory is revolting. May humanity recognize that God has left testimony of His work in Creation all around us (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20).
Its habitat is "scattered to the 4 corners of the earth" - but is isolated at the same time. It would suggest that the species has migrated with the tectonic plates, over the melenia.
Thanks Caldoc, you continue to stay on a sinking ship. The real topic is the geologic timetable, not a fish that survived a long time.
Here are 3 more classic responses that evolutionistshave given to the evidence presented to them in opposition to the evolutionary geologic timetable.
(1) In an attempt to explain away "human-like footprints" embedded in 250-million-year-old coal veins in Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, Albert G. Ingalls (the state geologist of Kentucky) could muster only the following explanation.
[blockquote]
If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even the ape ancestor"s early mammal ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous period with his feet (1940, 162:14, emp. added; see also, Wilder-Smith, 1970, p. 300).
[/blockquote]
Evolutionary scientists still are rejecting the "attractive explanation""i.e., the obvious fact"that these prints are human footprints.
(2) In attempting to explain away how two trilobites were found fossilized inside of a human sandal print in Antelope Springs, Utah, in 1968, evolutionists have asserted that the print is merely a spall (cracking or chipping) pattern in the rock (see Conrad, 1981, 4:30-33). They do not question the authenticity of the trilobite fossils, yet they reject the interpretation that these trilobites are found inside a human sandal print. One wonders what kind of explanation they have for the stitching that is visible along the edges of the sandal print?
(3) During the summer of 2004, while I was visiting the Natural Bridges National Monument in southeast Utah, I asked one of the staff members at the visitor"s center how scientists explain the presence of an antiquated dinosaur petroglyph at the base of Kachina Bridge. Her response: "They don"t really want to explain it." Truth be told, if I were an evolutionist, I would not want to explain it either. This piece of evidence blatantly contradicts their timetable. According to the theory of evolution, humans never lived with dinosaurs. But if humans never saw living dinosaurs, how did the Anasazis, who inhabited southeastern Utah long before dinosaur fossils were found in modern times, carve such an accurate picture of a dinosaur onto the side of a rock wall?
If the responses by evolutionists to the mountain of evidence that points toward the Creation model were not so pitiful and potentially soul damaging, they would be somewhat comical. To think that some men and women who call themselves "scientists" actually reject facts of science in order to embrace the evolutionary theory is revolting. May humanity recognize that God has left testimony of His work in Creation all around us (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20).
It is posts like this that make young earth creationists (yec) the laughing stock of the scientific community. The "human footprints" from the Carboniferous and the trilobites in the sandals have been so debunked that even most creationist web sitesurge that they not be used as arguments for creation. The Anasazi drawing could be just about anything a viewer wanted it to be. What is signficant is that Anasazi remains and artifacts are never found in association with dinosaur fossils.
And these people that you dismiss asmen and womenwho call themselves "scientists" make up all of the Nobel Prize winners in Scientific fields, 99.9% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences and all of the science faculty members of America's leading universities. These are people that have forgotten more science than you will ever know, yet you feel you are in a position to question their credentials as scientists; Now that is truly revolting.
Thanks Caldoc, you continue to stay on a sinking ship.* The real topic is the geologic timetable, not a fish that survived a long time.*
Here are 3 more classic responses that evolutionists*have given to the evidence presented to them in opposition to the evolutionary geologic timetable.
(1) In an attempt to explain away "human-like footprints" embedded in 250-million-year-old coal veins in Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, Albert G. Ingalls (the state geologist of Kentucky) could muster only the following explanation.
[blockquote]
If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even the ape ancestor"s early mammal ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous period with his feet (1940, 162:14, emp. added; see also, Wilder-Smith, 1970, p. 300).
[/blockquote]
Evolutionary scientists still are rejecting the "attractive explanation""i.e., the obvious fact"that these prints are human footprints.
(2) In attempting to explain away how two trilobites were found fossilized inside of a human sandal print in Antelope Springs, Utah, in 1968, evolutionists have asserted that the print is merely a spall (cracking or chipping) pattern in the rock (see Conrad, 1981, 4:30-33). They do not question the authenticity of the trilobite fossils, yet they reject the interpretation that these trilobites are found inside a human sandal print. One wonders what kind of explanation they have for the stitching that is visible along the edges of the sandal print?
(3) During the summer of 2004, while I was visiting the Natural Bridges National Monument in southeast Utah, I asked one of the staff members at the visitor"s center how scientists explain the presence of an antiquated dinosaur petroglyph at the base of Kachina Bridge. Her response: "They don"t really want to explain it." Truth be told, if I were an evolutionist, I would not want to explain it either. This piece of evidence blatantly contradicts their timetable. According to the theory of evolution, humans never lived with dinosaurs. But if humans never saw living dinosaurs, how did the Anasazis, who inhabited southeastern Utah long before dinosaur fossils were found in modern times, carve such an accurate picture of a dinosaur onto the side of a rock wall?
If the responses by evolutionists to the mountain of evidence that points toward the Creation model were not so pitiful and potentially soul damaging, they would be somewhat comical. To think that some men and women who call themselves "scientists" actually reject facts of science in order to embrace the evolutionary theory is revolting. May humanity recognize that God has left testimony of His work in Creation all around us (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20).
Hey Goose11,
Thanks for the great information. You are a true blessing here and I really appreciate your knowledge. I am a degreed chemist and do analytical research on hydrocarbons, but I have always wanted to dive into the scientific evidence of creationism. Where you go to get information? Again, thanks for being bold enough to post and keep it up.
__________________
In Christ alone I place my trust.
Christians aren't perfect, just sinners saved by grace.
Love to fish, hunt, ride atv's, music at church, football, family and friends.
The truth of Creation in the News!
