Evolutionists Startled by ‘Exceptionally Preserved’ Embryos in Ancient Fossils

Waptia-compressed
Photo Credit: University of Toronto

TORONTO – A team of French and Canadian scientists have identified preserved embryos within the eggs of a tiny shrimp-like creature believed to have lived over 500 million years ago, raising questions about both the development of the creatures’ brooding abilities and the likelihood of such delicate materials surviving for thousands of millennia.

Waptia fieldensis is a tiny, shrimp-like arthropod whose fossilized remains were first found 100 years ago in Cambrian layers of fossils in Canada. Now extinct, Waptia was a frail creature that carried the eggs of its young within its own body.

Canadian researchers studying Waptia specimens recently made a startling discovery: despite the fossils’ purported ages, collections of tiny eggs somehow survived within their fossilized bodies. The scientists marveled at the remarkable condition of the creatures, describing them as “exceptionally preserved.”

“New, exceptionally preserved specimens of the weakly sclerotized arthropod Waptia fieldensis from the middle Cambrian (ca. 508 million years ago) Burgess Shale, Canada, provide the oldest example of in situ eggs with preserved embryos in the fossil record,” the researchers wrote in a report published earlier this month in the journal “Current Biology.”

A December 17 press release from the University of Toronto heralded the discovery as the “oldest evidence of brood care in the fossil record.”

“Clusters of egg-shaped objects are evident in five of the many specimens we observed, all located on the underside of the carapace and alongside the anterior third of the body,” Jean-Bernard Caron, a University of Toronto professor who co-authored the study, said in the release.

Though the Waptia fossils were first unearthed over 100 years ago, it wasn’t until scientists recently revisited the specimens when the eggs and embryos were noticed.

  • Connect with Christian News

The researchers attempted to tie their discovery into the evolutionary framework, proposing that their discovery is evidence of “rapid evolution of a variety of modern-type life-history traits”—namely, care for offspring by egg-bearing females.

However, others interpret the discovery as yet another instance of evolutionists struggling to explain the sudden appearance of complex physiology and advanced behavior among allegedly “simple” organisms.

“Waptia is a ‘shrimp-like arthropod’ with a lot more body complexity than the ability to lay eggs and hold them under its carapace,” an article last week on “Evolution News and Views” reports. “It had a nervous system, sensory organs, stalked eyes, antennae, respiration, digestion, and the ability to swim. Nevertheless, the ability to lay eggs and transport them to a protective place constitutes an additional design in this animal, requiring genetics and behavioral preparedness.”

“It’s amusing to see the euphemisms evolutionists use for the Cambrian explosion,” the article continues. “The paper spoke of the ‘Cambrian emergence of animals.’ The news release calls the Cambrian explosion ‘a period of rapid evolutionary development when most major animal groups appear in the fossil record.’ Why call it evolutionary development? If animal groups just ‘emerged’ or ‘appeared’ in the record, that’s not evolutionary.”

Another debatable aspect of this recent discovery is the likelihood of eggs and embryos surviving hundreds of millions of years. As previously reported, the discoveries of a variety of perishable biomaterials—including dinosaur blood cells and proteins within ancient shells—create predicaments for evolutionists, who maintain that such materials are tens of millions years old.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Reason2012

    Fish to men evolutoinists are anti-science, ignoring what evidence clearly shows. It’s scientific fact red blood cells and soft tissue cannot survive more than thousands of years, but when they’re found on fossils ‘dated’ 60+ MILLION years old, proving they can’t possibly be that old, since that would expose their fish to men mythology as being a farce, they just dismiss it with the wave of a hand “Looks like red blood cells and soft tissue can survive 60+ MILLION years after all!”.

    Bottom line is the topics of
    – origin of the universe
    – origin of life
    – origin of all biological diversity of life
    are beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can ever bring to the table.

    • John N

      >’It’s scientific fact red blood cells and soft tissue cannot survive more than thousands of years’

      I guess you didn’t care to read the article again, Reason. No blood or soft tissue to be found here.

      >’Bottom line is the topics of – origin of the universe
      – origin of life
      – origin of all biological diversity of life
      are beyond the scope of science’

      Nothing in this universe – except for the supernatural – is beyond the scope of science. And since there is no reason to think the supernatural exists, since so far everything has been explained without it.

      • Michael Todd

        If matter and energy is all that exists then your thoughts, memories, emotions, and personality are nothing more than the effects of properties inherent in matter. The logical conclusion is materialistic determinism. The human mind is a material reaction just like baking soda and vinegar. Real science and love have thus become an illusion, based on the tenets of philosophical materialism.
        Scientism (a philosophy) should not be confused with science. Only an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God can provide the basis for man’s endeavors to study the Creation.

        • Steven Thompson

          Why does something become unreal merely because it is a material reaction? You might as well argue that life is an illusion because it’s sustained by chemical reactions rather than some mystical “life force.”

          • Michael Todd

            It’s not that anything actually becomes unreal but rather that the atheistic worldview cannot account for reality since the mental life of man is predetermined by the properties inherent in matter. Such would be the atheist’s dilemma.

          • Steven Thompson

            I still don’t get your point. Is it:

            [a] We don’t have an explanation for how matter, even arranged in complex patterns, can think?

            We don’t have an explanation of how nonphysical spirits can think (or do anything else, or exist), so how is the believer in a better position here? We do know that matter arranged in particular complex patterns can calculate and solve problems (hence the machine I’m using to post this), so why could not even greater complexity lead to true thought?

            [b] Our thoughts are predetermined by the physical properties of matter, so there’s no reason to suppose that they accurately model the world?

            Again, the output of a computer is determined by the physical properties of its parts, which is no reason to suppose it can’t solve mathematical problems that weren’t known to the programmers. Our minds were presumably shaped by natural selection to accurately model the world, because that enabled us to better predict and survive in our environment.

      • Oboehner

        Or read other articles of soft tissue and blood cells found in supposed millions of years old dinosaurs.

        • John N

          I think you forgot to mention the word ‘remains’ – of soft tissue and blood cells.

          You make it look like the beast was still half alive.

          Seen to many Jurassic Park-movies lately?

          • Oboehner

            I didn’t mention “remains” because it has been found, you make it sound as if the beast was dead for bazillions of years – which doesn’t fit soft tissue samples.

          • John N

            If you think that, better reread the article. The original I mean, not the parody presented here.

          • Oboehner

            No need, I saw the piece on 60 Minutes interviewing the scientist that found soft tissue, as well as others who have found it.

          • John N

            Oh, I see. You got your scientific eductaion from Youtube now.

            Well, that must be somewhat better than from a 2000 years old, multiple times edited and retranslated book written by unknown authors with a clear agenda.

          • Oboehner

            Your opinion of the Bible somehow authenticates your religion? How does that work?

          • John N

            Your level of argumenting has sunk below the bottom. I can’t follow you any more.

          • Oboehner

            Then you admit you have nothing but blind faith in the evolutionism religion, got it.

          • John N

            OK, I admit your level of argumentation has gone below my level of understanding.

            ‘Your opinion of the Bible somehow authenticates your religion’ was the killer line.

          • Oboehner

            You’re the one with nothing but attacks on the beliefs of others, to try and hide the fact you can’t back up the science claims on yours.

          • John N

            No let me guess which scientific theory you would find is not backed up by facts.

            The germ theory of disease perhapse? The quantum theory of mechanics? The atomic theory? The theory of evolution?

            All these are genuine scientific theories, falsifiable but never falsified, based on tons of evidence, and accepted by the scientific community for hundreds of years.

            Could it be that your opinion on scientific theories being valid or invalid is just based on your personal religious beliefs? And would that not make you look foolish?

          • Oboehner

            Sorry, evolutionism not true by association, if I had a nickel every time one of you tried that one…

            Could it be that your opinion on scientific theories being valid or invalid is just based on your personal religious beliefs? And would that not make you look foolish?
            And the more you dance around claiming “fact” the more foolish you look.

          • John N

            Oboehner, making up fantasy words doesn’t help your case. Evolution is a fact.

            Species are not created nor immutable. We see speciation in the field and in the lab. We’ve got series of fossils supporting the gradual evolution of ammonites, horses, whales and even for humans. We’ve got the molecular evidence, showing common ancestry of all living organisms. We’ve got evidence from biology, geology, chemistry and physics.

            You could try, but you can’t deny reality.

          • Oboehner

            “Evolution is a fact” Hardly, no proof, no evidence that excludes any other possibilities, nothing but religious belief.

            “We see speciation in the field and in the lab” Nope we see bacteria adapting (which when left alone reverts back), but at the end of the day it is still bacteria. Any talk of how that leads to macro evolution is purely speculative fantasy and requires faith.

            “We’ve got series of fossils supporting the gradual evolution” No, you’ve got fossils somebody took and arranged the way they saw fit based on their religious belief, and claimed they are transitional – with ZERO proof, you just have faith they are. “even for humans” A small pile of bone fragments (from who knows what) doesn’t show any more than a strong desire and faith for your religion to be factual (which it is not).

            “We’ve got the molecular evidence” Which could be explained by a number of things including intelligent design, it is not exclusive to evolutionism – you just have faith it is.

            “We’ve got evidence from biology, geology, chemistry and physics.” Again: Which could be explained by a number of things including intelligent design, it is not exclusive to evolutionism – you just have faith it is.

            You could try, but you can’t deny the reality – you have a faith in a religion.

          • Valri

            Please don’t stop. I’m getting more enjoyment out of the walloping you’re giving him than if I were watching a wrestling match.

  • Cady555

    The Cambrian Explosion lasted at least 20 to 25 million years. “Rapid” is a relative term.

    Science is driven by new knoweldge. There is nothing upsetting about new data and facts. There is nothing here that in any way casts doubt on the Theory of Evolution.

    Those who are interested in knowledge should read a decent book like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or The Story of Earth by Robert Hazen.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Ah, let me help you there: according to the theory these tiny fish eggs are bzillions of bzillions of years old. They have been through rising seas, falling seas, desertification, geological flip-flops, leaching, calcification, compression, extrusion, heating, cooling, magnetic pole flip flops and cosmic rays. In this particular story of earth where evolution is true, it seems a little odd that they are still visibly eggs. If you don’t raise an eyebrow, the yolk is on you.

      • John N

        In this particular story of earth it is odd that we still find any fossils at all. After all, the chance of an organism being fossilised is not that large.

        Still we find them.

        Must be because in 3.5 billion years, billions and billions of organisms have lived and died, some of them in a way we still find their remains.

        Or did you think your creator god put them there to fool us?

        • Oboehner

          Fool us about what? Something that died and was buried?

          • John N

            So you do confirm that fossils are the remains of organisms that went extinct millions of years ago, ancestrals of extant organisms, thereby confirming the theory of evolution? Cool.

          • Oboehner

            No, I confirm fossils are dead creatures either extinct or undiscovered, no mythological “millions of years” about it, thereby confirming evolutionism is a religion.

          • John N

            Fossils are creatures undiscovered? That makes no sense.

            Well, at least you’re consistent.

          • Oboehner

            Read this slowly, fossils are the remains of a creature, one cannot say with certainty if the creature species still exists or is actually extinct. Like the Coelacanth, Gracilidris, Giant Palouse Earthworm, Terror Skink, The Nelson, Arakan Forest Turtle, Javan Elephant, Lord Howe Island Stick Insect, Takahe, Cuban Solenodon, and the Hula painted frog. The Coelacanth was thought to be extinct 65 million years ago (based on the ever accurate fossil dating) and wouldn’t you know it, it hasn’t evolved a bit since then!

          • John N

            Wrong again.

            The extant coelacanth is so much different from his ancesters that he has been placed in a new genus. The skeleton is a lot different, the skull, the swim bladder, and on top of they are three times the size of their closest ancesters. The only resemblance is that they all have four fleshy-lobed-fins.

            It hasn’t evolved a bit?

          • Oboehner

            So is that even the same animal with 130 different species? What about the others?

          • John N

            130 Different species? There are only two extant species of Latimeria. What others?

          • Oboehner

            “Fossil coelacanths are morphologically and taxonomically diverse (with more than 130 species), and globally distributed in various aquatic environments (fresh, brackish to marine waters)” – Forey, P. L. History of the Coelacanth Fishes Chapman and Hall (1998).

          • John N

            … and Latimeria is a sister group of the genus Macropoma from the cretaceous. From which it differs the way I described before.

          • Oboehner

            A fish differs from a horse, so what’s your point?

          • John N

            And at the same time they have so much in common. Could it be they are related in some way?A common ancestry maybe?

            Or did your designer had a lazy day and just created a horse from the leftovers after he did the fish job?

          • Oboehner

            The common designer created fish and then horses – separately to live on the same earth. You do know that when creatures are meant to occupy the same planet they will have similarities.

          • John N

            Yes, I know that, because the theory of evolution predicts that. Common ancestry, you know.

            You’ll have to do better than that. Tell us what your ‘hypothesis of creation’ predicts about the created organisms that is NOT predicted as well by the theory of evolution.

            And the show the evidence this prediction is validated in real life, and can not be explanied in any other way.

            Then you are halfway of defining a scientific hypothesis.

          • Oboehner

            All that in several million years, astounding!

          • John N

            Yes indeed. Natural selection never sleeps.

          • Oboehner

            Here I would have thought it would have been a horse by now, it must have been evolutionarily impaired.

          • John N

            Horses ar evolved fish. Very well!

          • Oboehner

            What difference does it make, it’s all fairytale, but do tell what turned into what.

          • John N

            Nothing ‘turned’ into anything else, except in the bible and in other fairy tales.

            Ancient fish slowly evolved to amphibians evolved to reptiles evolved to primitive mammals evolved to primitive horses evolved to modern horses. Over may generations, with a lot of transitional forms in between, you know these fossils you deny even exist. All transitions supported by numerous fossils and explained by mutations and natural selection.

          • Oboehner

            “Nothing ‘turned’ into anything else,” “Ancient fish slowly evolved to amphibians evolved to reptiles evolved to primitive mammals evolved to primitive horses evolved to modern horses.” Which is it?

            “you know these fossils you deny even exist” Now see there you go making stuff up in typical evolutionist style, I never said the don’t exist, I said they are not transitional as there is zero proof they are. You can’t even show they procreated let alone “evolved”. What you should be saying (to be more truthful) is that all fossils are pieced together to try and show some kind of transition – you know making the evidence fit the theory and not the other way around as it should be. Then there is the total lack of any hominid remains, there should be thousands yet….. nothing but a couple of fragments (often mixed with monkey parts and imagination).

          • John N

            If you can’t make the difference between ‘turning into’ and ‘evolving slowly into’, then why are you discussing science?

            So you accept there are fossils, but you deny they procreated and evolved. So that means they must have been created, piece by piece, making it look as if they did procreate and evolve, by your creator god. For some reason.

            And you clearly don’t understand what a transitional fossil is: the remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group (Wikipedia). Every fossil we ever found – unlass they are the last of their line – combines traits from their ancesters and their descendants. Tiktaalik by example, is a lobe-finned fish from the Devonian showing many features characteristic for tetrapods. Now how would do you explain organisms like this, using your book?

            >’Then there is the total lack of any hominid remains, there should be thousands yet….. nothing but a couple of fragments (often mixed with monkey parts and imagination).’

            Well that might have been some fifty years ago. Pity for you, since then new hominid remains have been found almost every year, the last one being Homo naledi last year.

            We have now a few thousands of human fossils, although most fragmentary, from around 20 species of hominids. Only one piece of one skeleton (Lucy ‘s skeleton) has been recently identified as a baboon vertebra.

            So there is no ‘lack’ of hominid fossils, they are not ‘often’ mixed with monkey parts, and they are not often ‘imagined’ – those are lies form your friends of Answers in Genesis.

          • Oboehner

            There is no difference, they are both just a figment of someone’s imagination, why are YOU discussing science?

            “but you deny they procreated and evolved” because there is no proof of that, just speculation, assumption and religious faith.
            “combines traits from their ancesters and their descendants.” More religious psychobabble speculation and assumption.

            “Tiktaalik by example, is a lobe-finned fish from the Devonian showing many features characteristic for tetrapods.” Devonian = someone’s fabrication. Platypus for example, exists but doesn’t prove any more than that, one would have to have faith it proved anything more, faith in the fabricated story of another with zero proof, just speculation and assumption. “Now how would do you explain organisms like this, using your book?” Simple, my faith says God created them that way. Another attempt to shift the topic away from your religion.

            All you have are a small collection of fragments coupled with a large amount of imagination (based on a religious view), and like I said – there should be thousands of complete skeletons “Only one piece of one skeleton (Lucy ‘s skeleton) has been recently identified as a baboon vertebra.” – so far, but that consists of probably 50% of the total.
            ” those are lies form your friends of Answers in Genesis.” Reality which you desperate religious types readily ignore because of your faith.

          • John N

            >’There is no difference, they are both just a figment of someone’s imagination, why are YOU discussing science?’
            ‘”… combines traits from their ancesters and their descendants.” More religious psychobabble speculation and assumption.’

            So you don’t understand the difference between scientific definitions, daily language and religious psychobabble. Just as I thought.

            >’Simple, my faith says God created them that way’

            So you have no evidence. Just as I thought.

            >’Only one piece of one skeleton (Lucy ‘s skeleton) has been recently identified as a baboon vertebra.” – so far, but that consists of probably 50% of the total.’

            Oboehner, you are incredible. Even when the evidence hits you in the face, you close your eyes and ears and stamp your little feet on the ground, hoping that your holy book will save you from reality.

            Well, good luck with it. I’m off. Call me when you’re prepared to show some evidence for your creator god.

          • Oboehner

            So you don’t understand the difference between scientific definitions, daily language and religious psychobabble. Just as I thought. You are incredible, even when the evidence hits you in the face, you close your eyes and ears and stamp your little feet on the ground, hoping that your religious belief will save you from reality.
            Well, good luck with it. I’m off. Call me when you’re prepared to show some exclusive evidence for evolutionism.

          • Valri

            Have you notlearned by now that throwing people’s exact words back at them only makes you look like an uneducated fool? John N HAS given you direct evidence which you continue to show no sign whatsoever of understanding.

          • Oboehner

            Direct evidence filled with religious belief – assumption and speculation. No exclusive evidence, ignoring possibilities is the opposite of science.

          • Valri

            You can call established facts and science religious belief all you want. You appear like a child who is calling their dog a cat to the rest of the world, and I think you know that. We have the science, we have the evidence, we have the study, we have the fossils. You have the talking snake. That’s how it is. Yours is religion. Ours is not – no faith involved.

          • Oboehner

            You can call religious belief established facts and science all you want. You appear like a child who is calling their dog a cat to the rest of the world with no proof it is at all, and I think you know that. You have the pseudo-science, You have no exclusive evidence, you have the assumption and speculation, you have the fossils with fairytales about transition when any rational person would know “transitional” is pure bull. You have the exploding dot. That’s how it is. Yours is religion – much faith involved.

          • Valri

            Yup, your usual moronic game of repeating people’s words back to them substituting words that make no sense. You’re a one trick pony Oboehner. Not a single original idea and denying science every step of the way. And wrong – pridefully, arrogantly wrong to the very core.

          • Oboehner

            It is a great way of demonstrating the asinine nature of the original comment, and how it better fits with my changes.

            You have no proof, you dance around making empty claims and when called on it, dance off claiming your pathetic fairytales are some kind of proof. One would think that if you had a speck of anything to stand on, proving it would be simple without resorting to just saying: “your usual moronic game, You’re a one trick pony, Not a single original idea, denying science (even though nothing more than religious belief was ever presented), And wrong… etc.” Now here is the ad hominem attacks and appeal to authority arguments – like clockwork…

          • Valri

            Let me show you what your parrotish retorts look like to the rest of the world:

            Me: I love apples. They make delicious cider. I love baking apple pies and love the smell of them baking with the cinnamon. I find that part of the Bible where the serpent tempts Eve with the apple to be interesting. I hate hating to throw the apple core away, seems like a waste.

            Oboehner: I love oranges. They make delicious cider. I love baking orange pies and love the smell of them baking with the cinnamon. I find that part of the Bible where the serpent tempts Eve with the orange to be interesting. I hate having to throw the orange core away, seems like a waste.

            See? You make no sense whatsoever. You take established, factual, proven science and try to make it into the very thing it’s not – a religion – which, ironically, you never want to claim for yourself. You’ve got a load of witchcraft and fables and juju and that to you is science. What a shame the rest of the world, including the dictionary and the education system don’t agree with you.

          • Oboehner

            What? That exploding dot…

          • Valri

            Oh my God, really? You’re serious?

          • Steven Thompson

            “The” coelancanth comprises three families, dozens of genera, and hundreds of species, and the one genus (and two species) known today are not identical with any past species or genus of coelacanth.

          • Oboehner

            “the one genus (and two species) known today” Like finding a fossil of a robin then seeing a woodpecker and claiming the robin evolved.

          • Steven Thompson

            I think his point is that trilobites or tyrannosaurs, having been contemporaneous with Adam and each other, might still be hiding out on Earth today, perhaps in some poorly-explored jungle.

        • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

          “In this particular story,” you can say almost anything you like. It’s just a story, but consider what a heroic part you have written for this little beastie: being fossilized eggs-and-all just so that millions of years later you can rant against the creator. Without your rant against God, it’s not exactly drama though. It’s rather dull actually.

          • DennisCL

            This isn’t a drama. Scientists aren’t continuously looking for ways to disprove the existence of God. Science is the art of discerning the truth through systematic and logical methods.

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            Apathy rolling over the true eternal God – now that is drama.

          • John N

            Well, science could sometimes seem a bit dull to the outside world.

            That’s because most of it is predictable. Once a scientific theory is set in place, a lot of predictions can be made from it. Most findings just confirm what the theory says.

            Do you have anything to say against that?

          • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

            Of course science is dull. This is why people do not relate to evolution as science: they relate to it as a story. It’s not science itself – it’s a story “loosely based on a forensic examination of [selected] evidence”. As a story, it is important that there are dramatic twists and intriguing sub-plots: we thought “x” was evolution, but it turns out “x” OR “not x” is evolution. To restate my original point: you wouldn’t care much for this story if it was not in such sharp contrast to the story of creation. Surely when a theory is true, it is confirmed by ALL findings, not merely “most”. Did you know that you can make evolution more true by simply saying “this too proves evolution” in response to any piece of evidence? You should try it. Use a documentary news-reader type voice, and it makes the evolution even more truthy.

      • Cady555

        “Fossilized fish eggs” are fossils. Note the term “fossilized.”

        • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

          Poached, fossilized, sunny side up, them’s eggs, but they’re not scrambled, which seems odd before breakfast.

    • Oboehner

      Those books do more to demonstrate evolution is a religion than they do to prove anything.

      • John N

        Those books have one thing in common that is missing in your book.

        Evidence.

        • Oboehner

          There is every bit as much evidence in my “book”, but then again my belief isn’t taught in government schools – burden of proof is on you and your religion.

          • John N

            Well, if you would start reading one you would have found the evidence – no proof. Proof is for lawyers and mathematicians.

            About the evidence in your book, care to share it with us? I hope you don’t mean the scientific evidence that snakes can talk, bats are birds, and insects have four legs and two feet. Oh, I see – it is.

          • Oboehner

            I find evidence that can be explained a number of ways, yet funny thing only one of them ever gets mentioned.
            Or exploding dots, magically appearing life, random chance creating immense complexities, transitional millions of years old fossils until the creature is found on a fishing boat, etc. Yup, it’s all there.

          • John N

            What evidence can be explained in more than one way?

            Exploding dots? Magically appearing life? Random chance creating …

            Have you been reading too much in your bible again?

          • Oboehner

            Name anything that isn’t assumption and speculation based.

          • John N

            The theory of evolution. In fact, all scientific theories, by definition.

          • Oboehner

            I’m still waiting for you to name anything that isn’t assumption and speculation based.

          • John N

            I’m still repeating – all scientific theories.

            By the way, did you already find that evidence you promised us from your book?

          • Oboehner

            theory – from Merriam-Webster
            noun the·o·ry ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē
            Simple Definition of theory
            : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
            : an idea that is suggested or presented as POSSIBLY true but that is NOT KNOWN OR PROVEN to be true
            Who was that guy on SNL that would cook up wild stories to explain things? Perhaps it wasn’t SNL, I can’t remember now….

            “By the way, did you already find that evidence you promised us from your book?” Like I said, any evidence (not assumption or speculation) you have can also be evidence for my belief – notice I said belief as I can admit I take some things on faith, you should try and admit it as well. We all know it’s true.

          • John N

            Scientific theory – from Wikipedia:
            ‘A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.’

            Now where do assumptions and speculations occur in this definition?

            >Like I said, any evidence (not assumption or speculation) you have can also be evidence for my belief – notice I said belief as I can admit I take some things on faith, you should try and admit it as well. We all know it’s true.’

            Oboehner, we all know it’s true? You can speak for all now? Being a bit of a god in your own mind, aren’t you

            No, rational people all now you are wrong.

            I appreciate you take some things on faith. I do too. I’ve got faith in a lot of things, because evidence from the past makes me confident they will be the same in the future.

            Your belief in a young earth creation on the other hand, has no evidence to support it. That is not a problem, as long as you don’t try to push them as reality. So stop trying to shoehorn science into your belief, it makes especially your beliefs look silly.

          • Oboehner

            “Now where do assumptions and speculations occur in this definition?”
            Merriam-Webster is wrong?
            Now where does “repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.” Fit in with evolutionism? There are no records or tests from bazillions of years ago, nor has speciation ever been demonstrated.

            I have said I take things on faith, but my beliefs are not taught as fact in government schools as fact.

            Your belief in an old earth random chance has no evidence to support it. That is not a problem, as long as you don’t try to push them as reality or teach that religion in government schools. So stop trying to shoehorn science into your belief, “it makes especially your beliefs look silly”[sic].

          • John N

            No, you are wrong A scientific theory is not equal to the daily use of a theory. A scientist, or anybody knowing the basics of science, woukd have known that. It is clear you don’t.

            I’ve already shown you the evidence for the theory of evolution. Look it up there.

            And of course your beliefs are not taught as facts in science classes. Do you also want them to teach my lack of beliefs in gods? I thought not.

            >’Your belief in an old earth random chance has no evidence to support it.’

            Until you try to understand at least the basics of the theory of evolution, you’ll keep on making the same stupid mistakes. It is actually geology who gives us the most evidence for an old earth – and physics, and chemistry, and biology, and history, and archaelogy. But of course it’s all of the same for science deniers.

            And science does have a place in science classes.

          • Oboehner

            “I’ve already shown you the evidence for the theory of evolution.” And I have clearly demonstrated how your evidence could be taken to mean a multiple of different things and how one has to have faith to assume it only pertains to his/her evolutionism religion.

            “Do you also want them to teach my lack of beliefs in gods? I thought not.” Yet they do in the form of evolutionism.

            “Until you try to understand at least the basics of the theory of evolution” Cop out straw man psychobabble. You have nothing but to resort to that pathetic tactic.

            “It is actually geology who gives us the most evidence for an old earth – and physics, and chemistry, and biology, and history, and archaeology.” Rife with assumption, speculation, and religious belief.

            “But of course it’s all of the same for science deniers.” I don’t deny science, evolutionism isn’t science, it’s a religious belief with no proof. I believe I have also clearly demonstrated that, but as a science denier, you refuse to see.

            “And science does have a place in science classes.” Sure, but not religion – like evolutionism.

  • Bezukhov

    ओम नमो रजो जुसे सृत स्थितौ सत्त्व मायायचा तमो मायया सैम-हरिणी विश्वरूपाय वेधसे ओम ब्रह्मण्यै नमः

    • Josey

      flagged you because if you come on here write in English, have no idea what you posted

      • Bezukhov

        Roughly translates:
        Brahma is the creator of the universe. He created the universe with his
        three nature qualities, positive, negative and dormant. Brahma
        represents Om, the eternal bliss. Brahma is the supreme god, who brought
        all things to form. I bow to that divine god Brahma.

        • Josey

          he is not god. The only way to salvation and Heaven is through Jesus Christ alone. you are bowing down to satan’s lies not God the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Not sure why you came to a Christian site to proclaim your slavery to satan who presents himself in many forms to deceive. Come to Christ Jesus the Son of the Living God who can show you what true freedom is and who is who He says He is.

          • mantis

            and how do you know that he’s not god? what’s your proof?

          • Michael Todd

            Brahma, as the story goes, had a beginning, and therefore, conceivably, an end. He is not eternal. Also, the principle of maya, that is, all is illusion. If all is illusion then one could not make pronouncments of fact since one could not knowingly breach the bounds of illusion.

          • mantis

            and? how does that prove he’s not a god? what about Odin, Zeus or Ra? how do you know one of them isn’t the true god?

          • Michael Todd

            If God were finite, He could be overcome, if not all good, He might deceive, if capricious, one could have no sure foundation for knowledge.

          • mantis

            that’s your idea of what a god is but that doesn’t make it true

          • Michael Todd

            Only by God’s special revelation, the Bible, can man be assured of the foundation of knowledge and ethics.

          • mantis

            according to the bible which isn’t much of an argument

          • Bezukhov

            Your skirting very close to the logical fallacy known as a Circular Argument

        • Nidalap

          Ha! Well, if you’re going to bow to a golden calf, that WOULD be a logical name, I suppose. (^_^)

        • Oboehner

          Sounds like bull to me.

  • bowie1

    Hm. I suppose they could be bred if well preserved embryos are intact. Wouldn’t it be something if dinosaurs could be made un-extinct once again, should they find embryos of them.

    • Steven Thompson

      Well-preserved fossils does not imply well-preserved complete genomes or eggs that could be revived and hatched. You might as well expect the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx to fly around in a zoo enclosure.

  • Klitius Smooth

    Man lies, are catching up with them. They just throw a year around, from the top of their head an since they are scientist people believe it. The world is so gullible with stupidity. First of all we switch calendars, to hide the truth. From the Julian calendar now to the Gregorian calendar. What about, actually following the calendar God gave to us during creation. I forgot, that will be telling the truth, an devil is the father of all lies. 600 million years ago, 2 trillion years, an no one never ask where did you come up with this yrs an assumptions. But you blind people with no good fruit, eat it up never asking questions, an never seeking truth for yourself. How much common sense do you need to know that you get lied to on a daily bases. Is it hard to ask, if you can determine the year of all this fossils and findings, why cant you never show the out ward proof of all this theories. Yes theories, the only truth is like or not is your either GOOD or bad. You can choose between truth or lies. Heaven or hell one of the two will be you be your final destination. If you let another man dictate your life with a bunch of distraction an made up things, may God have mercy on your soul. If you except Jesus (Yehshua) as your lord an savior, turn to Luke 3:16, Roman chapter 1:9-10. Be wise

    • Steven Thompson

      Enough people asked about the age of the Earth that G. Brent Dalrymple wrote an entire book on how we know that it is 4.54 (give or take a couple of dozen million years) billion years old. The universe is thought to be ca. 13.8 billion years old, based on comparisons of the WMAP studies of the cosmic microwave background and various Big Bang scenarios.

      Also, “theories” are explanations; they are not a rung on some imagined epistemic ladder ranging from “wild guesses” to “absolute truth.” There does not seem to have been, even on purely biblical grounds, a “calendar God gave to us during creation;” no event in the Bible is dated in years after the creation of the world. Years after some ancestor was born, or after the Hebrews left Egypt, or after some king took the throne, yes, but there was no anno mundi calendar until centuries after the birth of Christ, based on various calculations extrapolating from but not actually found in the Bible.

    • Josey

      Like one of Obama’s spokes ladies says, say something enough whether true or not, people will believe it. They don’t take the time to research things out for themselves as you said, exactly right.

  • Steven Thompson

    “Egg-shaped objects” are not soft tissues; they are permineralized fossils like their apparent parent. For that matter, red, iron-containing, blood corpuscle-sized spots on a fossil are not blood cells, even if they are the remains of blood cells. I am bemused that young-earth creationist (old-earth creationists, of course, have no problem with the idea that these fossils are tens to hundreds of millions of years old) assert confidently that decay rates of proteins (which are known to vary greatly depending on circumstances) cannot vary enough to permit them to survive a million centuries, but that nuclear decay rates (which are known to vary by only tiny amounts even under drastic conditions) can vary enough to make a 5000-year-old rock look a hundred thousand times that age.

    Incidentally, life is significantly older than the middle, or even early, Cambrian: there are fossilized jellyfish, worm tracks, tracks of something with legs, and various other fossils from the Ediacaran, tens of millions of years before the Cambrian, and fossils of single-celled life billions of years older.

    • Cady555

      Exactly. The planet was teaming with life before the Cambrian Explosion, but the species tended to be soft bodied so fossils were rare. The Cambrian Explosion was really just an increase species with hard body parts that fossilize more readily.

      • Oboehner

        Cambrian Explosion? Do you have pictures, video, or anything? I’d love to see that, sounds interesting!

        • Steven Thompson

          Arson investigators frequently don’t have videos or even still photos of the fire starting, and still often manage to determine whether it was accidental or arson. A medical examiner is rarely fortunate enough to have a death recorded on camera, and still often succeeds in pinning down cause of death to various natural or criminal causes. And the paleontologist definitely doesn’t have videos of millions of years of life on Earth, but he does have means of dating strata and observing what sorts of fossils are found in what layers. Below the Cambrian, there are no hard-bodied fossils (unless you count single-celled organisms with hard shells). The early Cambrian, the Tommotian, features the “small shelly fauna,” fragments of hard parts that probably represented partial exoskeletons. And later on, you find fossils of a variety of organisms with exoskeletons, shells, and a bit later, bones.

          • Oboehner

            The arson investigator and the medical examiner both have something to look at, and how long would each of them have a job if they based their findings on assumptions and speculation?
            Yes I am familiar with the old “how can we tell the age of the strata? By the fossils in it. How can we tell the age of the fossils? By the layer of strata it’s in.” Circular reasoning at it’s finest.

          • John N

            And wrong as well.

            Gelogists don’t tell the age of the strata on the fossils. They use radiometric dating methods. Which you don’t like either, only because the results contradict your specific creation fable.

          • Oboehner

            The old radiometric dating that assumes the earth is billions of years old, assumes the ignition radiation levels are a known constant, assumes the decay rate is also a constant, assumes there was nothing that would have altered the radiation levels over bazillions of years, assumes… That radiometric dating that only contradicts the intelligence of those who believe it?

          • John N

            Oboehner, we went through this before, and as far as I remember you were prepared to melt down the earth just to make your creation story work.

            In short, you have nothing here.

          • Oboehner

            Ahh… No, you just don’t have an answer so you toss out asinine comments like: “I remember you were prepared to melt down the earth just to make your creation story work.” Even though Creation has nothing to do with the validity of your religion, but you just can’t seem to grasp that.

          • John N

            Keep on repeating the ‘science is religion’-meme, Oboehner. You never know it might get real some day.

            So, are you ready to explain how radioactive decay before the flood was about …. 300.000 times higher than now, without melting the earth?

          • Oboehner

            Keep on repeating the ‘religion is science’-meme, John N. You never know it might get real some day.

            “So, are you ready to explain how radioactive decay before the flood was about …. 300.000 times higher than now, without melting the earth?” Where did I say that? I know you’re assuming to know the starting radiation levels on a rock again.

          • Steven Thompson

            What’s a “starting radiation level?” Your argument is that the Earth is a few scant thousands of years old and that scientists infer that it is 4.54 billion years old because they overlook the possibility that decay rates were different in the past. Note that decay rates would have to be faster, by hundreds of thousands of times, for five thousand year old rocks to yield dates of hundreds of millions or billions of years.

            Therefore, the amount of radiation that a rock sample has emitted in, say, the last fifty years that scientists have been measuring it, would have to have been given off roughly every hour. That can’t have been good for the health of antediluvian men (or cattle, creeping things, or plants).

          • Oboehner

            Scientists infer, scientists overlook, scientists assume, scientists speculate, scientists believe, scientists have faith, scientists shove what they see into their world view box whether it fits or not.
            A simple 5th grade science experiment, to determine how much water evaporated out of a bucket. Alas the class would have to know what the starting point was, they could assume it was full, they could also assume that no water from an outside source ended up in the bucket. Sure they could determine the evaporation rate during their window of time and through assumption say that it is a constant, but how accurate would their guess be as to how long the bucket sat there and how much water actually evaporated out? The answer is not at all. Would it be more accurate if they used the same assumptions and did it over and over? Hardly, using the same assumptions over and over and expecting fact is just plain insanity.

          • Valri

            “Scientists infer, scientists overlook, scientists assume, scientists
            speculate, scientists believe, scientists have faith, scientists shove
            what they see into their world view box whether it fits or not.”

            Wow, just wow. All the things scientists DON’T do.

            No wonder you keep calling evolution a religion. You have the definitions of “religion” and “science” backwards.

          • Oboehner

            “All the things scientists DON’T do” Thanks for clearing it up that evolutionists aren’t scientists.

          • Valri

            Thanks for clearing it up that you have absolutely no clue what evolution OR science are.

            And you’re very good at attacking established science but somehow NEVER have the guts to state what your belief system is, even though we know you’re a fundie.

          • John N

            Now where did I ever say religion is science? No way José.

            I don’t think religion and science have much in common. For example, it us a fact that science has made the world a better place for most people.

          • Oboehner

            “Now where did I ever say religion is science? ” Time and time again you say evolutionism is science.
            Do explain what the Bible has to do with the validity of evolutionism, if you can’t – stop bringing it up, it wastes time.

          • John N

            No, I’m not going to spent any time explaning you validity of made-up words.

            If you want to talk science, please use existing and applicable words and definitions.

          • Oboehner

            You spend a lot of time attempting to explain the validity of made up history.

          • John N

            So now science is history?

            Where did you get your scientific education? Let me guess – on the website of Answers in Genesis?

          • Oboehner

            By “education” you must be referring to the evolutionism propaganda – more appropriately called brainwashing. For me, people like Bill Nye the religious guy helped me see what a farce evolutionism is nobody else needed.

          • Valri

            Even though he has never once invoked religion in anything he’s ever said or done. Bravo.

          • Oboehner

            You must have missed his evolutionism rants, bravo yourself.

          • Valri

            He doesn’t talk about words you made up. He talks about science – which includes evolution.

          • Oboehner

            “somehow, probably” Yup that’s science.

          • Valri

            No, that’s your talking snake.

          • Oboehner

            What? I can’t hear you over that exploding dot.

          • Valri

            That’s because you have buried it deep inside your strawman.

          • Oboehner

            What the “talking snake” straw man?

          • Valri

            Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

            Surprise, surprise. Oboehner doesn’t know what a strawman is either. There’s your talking snake right from the book your people named “Answers in Genesis” after, in plain black and white, and in your logic this IS a strawman, but the “exploding dot” which NO ONE in science ever mentions, is somehow NOT a strawman.

            God your crap stinks, Oboehner.

          • Oboehner

            Genesis doesn’t have proof of your religion.
            “The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.] The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded (exploded) from a very high density (dot) and high temperature state” – Wikipedia

          • Oboehner

            So your mythological billions of years aren’t historical? I knew it.

          • Steven Thompson

            No, the Earth’s age is measured at billions of years. True, some radiometric dating methods cannot distinguish between a sample formed a million years ago and one formed last Tuesday — but they would yield an age of less than tens of millions of years, and other methods yield more precise dates of young objects. To suggest that multiple isotope pairs yield false dates of millions of centuries is to argue that the Creator has woven into the fabric of His creation, as one 19th-century writer put it, “one vast and superfluous lie.”

            Attempts have been made to alter decay rates; any method that alters them by more than a couple of percent also destroys the sample, which would leave scientists nothing to measure. And decay rates are tied directly to the quantum physical properties of atoms that govern all their chemical properties: life would not survive (Earth would probably not survive) the sort of changes in physical properties necessary to alter decay rates.

          • Oboehner

            “True, some radiometric dating methods cannot distinguish between a sample formed a million years ago and one formed last Tuesday” Very true, however there is no million years. Can the 19th century writer with his three and a half pound brain really comprehend the creator of the universe?
            “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’.” – Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University)

            Has anyone taken a couple of thousand years to test decay rates? How about radiation levels themselves? One cannot accurately take a tiny window and see the world any more than the three blind men described the elephant.

          • Steven Thompson

            Actually, you date some strata by finding adjacent igneous (volcanic, non-fossil-bearing) rock layers and using radiometric dating on them, then interpolating between the dates of the igneous rock to find the age of the sedimentary rock (and any fossils contained by those sediments) between them. Then you identify fossil species that are found only in rocks of that age (in rocks of other ages, similar but distinct species replace them), and infer that rock layers that contain the same fossil species but are not directly datable are probably of the same age. Test enough sites, and you can narrow down the range of possible dates to remarkably precise ages. Note that isochron dating (using multiple pairs of parent-daughter isotopes in the same sample) provides a check against most of the possible errors in radiometric dating, such as contamination (or even changes in decay rates, since multiple decay rates would have to change to identical degrees to give a clear, false reading).

          • Oboehner

            So one can use circular reasoning and a useless test based on assumptions, that way one can be consistently wrong. I see.

          • Valri

            No, this is how circular reasoning works:

            “The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible”.

          • Oboehner

            The Bible has nothing to do with the validity of your religion, get over it.

        • John N

          Why? Are you tired of watching your ‘Immaculate Conception’-video? Maybe you could check the dvd of ‘Jesus’ Resurrection – the Night of the Living Dead Saints’. Or go through that whole ‘Genesis’-dvd collection – parts 1 through 7 – again (not the rock group of course).

          Well you could be right. Those look really boring compared to the real stuff.

          • Valri

            It wouldn’t be an “immaculate conception” video, no way – as you might have guessed, Oboehner is one of the biggest Catholic-hating fundamentalists around here.

          • John N

            Yeah right, it is not easy to keep all those sects apart. Is there anything they all agree on, in fact?

          • Valri

            Well, Oboehner wouldn’t even consider them to be Christians, which I think practically everyone with a grade 1 education or higher knows is true.

          • Oboehner

            I take that on faith, I can assume you take your religion on faith as well?

          • John N

            No, I don’t. I’ve seen the evidence. That is exactly the difference between science and religion.

          • Oboehner

            What evidence is that exactly? DNS similarities (or whatever) which could also evidence a designer?

          • John N

            A designer replicating the same errors in closely related groups times and times again, so that humans are stuck with blind spots, a weak back, a unnecessary stretched nervus vagus, the inability to make their own vitamin C, and a vulnerable external scrotum, while keeping his solutions for all this problems for other, less related organisms?

            Now that is some ‘intelligent’ designer.

          • Oboehner

            Is it an error, or a perceived error? Like a vulnerable external scrotum that regulates temperature? Could these things like a weak back be from influences other than intended? Processed GMO food? Lack of proper exercise? Impropper footwear? Don’t blame the designer.

          • John N

            Strange that most mammals got better temperature regulators and don’t need this complicated and vulnerable solution.

            In the US alone, every year around half a million surgeries are needed to repair inguinal hernias.

            If there was a designer, I sure would blame him for incompetence.

          • Oboehner

            Has nothing to do with man made influences would it? Man is the only incompetence here.

          • Oboehner

            One would think those “errors” would have “evolved” themselves out by now, what has it been, a few bazillion years now?

          • John N

            Well, one could, but not one who knows how evolution works.

            One the other side, one could have told your designer to stop delivering sloppy products before he started with humans. At least human designers are intelligent enough to use Quality Control.

          • Oboehner

            Like I said sloppy or misunderstood or tainted by man? Human designers lie, “duck and cover Timmy!”

          • John N

            So the reason that every year more than half a million people in the US alone need surgery for inguinal hernias is because they misunderstood your deity?

            Or do you mean they were tainted because some mythical forefather did something not to the liking of your deity? So before the fall, Adam did not have his testicles hanging loose?

          • Oboehner

            “So the reason that every year more than half a million people in the US alone need surgery for inguinal hernias is because they misunderstood your deity?” Well now Mr. obtuse, did you know that topical steroids make the skin weak? That’s just one example out of thousands upon thousands of admitted or not (and we haven’t touched GMOs), now tell me again how man made problems are a result of poor design?
            Duck and cover Johnny! Remember, more doctors smoke Camel, and DDT is safe…

          • John N

            So you actually think hernias are caused by steroids making skin weak?

            Why did the medical world not think of that before!

            I’ll inform the Nobel Prize committee right away.

          • Oboehner

            Well mr. obtuse child who doesn’t want to go to bed, I said there are thousands of factors like that affecting the human condition, but for the sake of your sandbox games, you ignore that.

          • John N

            So then what do you think is the main reason for the massive occurence of inguinal hernias?

            And what is the main reason for the humans’ blind spot, the weak back, the unnecessary stretched nervus vagus and the inability to make their own vitamin C, just to name a few shortcomings?

          • Oboehner

            “An inguinal hernia occurs when soft tissue — usually part of the membrane lining the abdominal cavity (omentum) or part of the intestine — protrudes through a weak point in the abdominal muscles.” Mayo Clinic
            Can you demonstrate how weak muscle is a sign of poor design, or poor posture, lack of exercise, or other negative influences such as diet or factors during gestation?
            You can in no way prove the “nervus vagus” is ‘unnecessarily’ stretched, that would be speculative. I also noticed that you seem to have no problem giving evolutionism a pass in that regard, if any of these things are so bad, why didn’t we “evolve” the Percieved shortcomings away? After all we’ve had your “billions of years” right?
            Perhaps this is also you saying you know everything there is to know about human anatomy and how it works, in that case I give a hearty BS.

          • John N

            I showed you the external scrotum is a design flaw.

            I can also show you the nervus vagus is unnecessarily stretched. You only have to look at it. That should be easy, even for you.

            And why have we not evolved a better solution? Because evolution works with what is already available. And it doesn’t go for the best solution – an acceptable solution is good enough.

            An ‘intelligent’ designer working with that low set of standards would not be acceptable, godly or not.

          • Oboehner

            “I showed you the external scrotum is a design flaw.” Nope, it’s for temperature control.

            “I can also show you the nervus vagus is unnecessarily stretched. You only have to look at it. That should be easy, even for you.” Your claims to know everything there is to know about human anatomy is beyond laughable.

            “Because evolution works” Too bad it never occurred, but other than that it work great!

            “an acceptable solution is good enough” An opinion, again not science.

            “An ‘intelligent’ designer working with that low set of standards would not be acceptable, godly or not.” another opinion based on a religious belief – not science.
            And you have completely danced around the question of why all of your perceived “design flaws” haven’t “evolved” themselves out by now, “acceptable” is not an acceptable answer.

          • John N

            >’Nope, it’s for temperature control.’

            So I guess rhino’s, elephants and aardvarks don’t need temperature control? Or they got a better temperature regulator than we got, is it not? I guess your designer didn’t like us as much as you think.

            >’Your claims to know everything there is to know about human anatomy is beyond laughable.’

            You don’t need to be an expert in anatomy to find out the nervus vagus is stretched. I would say basic anatomy would suffice.

            By the way, the theory of evolution van explain this very well. Now do you mind asking your designer why he ‘intelligently designed’ such a ridiculous solution?

            >Too bad it never occurred, but other than that it work great!

            Well, you are here. But I admit that is not the best evidence available.

            >An opinion, again not science.’
            ‘another opinion based on a religious belief – not science.’

            Well, talking about opinions, show us what you’ve got. Except for telling us you have faith, I didn’t see any evidence yet?

          • Oboehner

            I guess your religion doesn’t work as advertised, if those things were flaws they should have evolved away by now.
            Like I said, your claims to know everything there is to know about human anatomy is beyond laughable.

            “By the way, the theory of evolution van[sic] explain this very well.” Assumption, speculation, religious belief.

            “Well, talking about opinions, show us what you’ve got.” Just as soon as my beliefs are taught as fact in government schools at taxpayer expense, until then the burden of proof is on you – proof you don’t have.

          • John N

            Well Oboehner, evolution works exactly as advertised. Flaws ‘should not have evolved by now’ – notjing in nature ‘should’, because there is no direction or target.

            And maybe my knowledge of anatomy – even is basic – seems laughable to you, but that tells more of your knowledge – or abscence of – than of mine.

            I’m afraid your beliefs will never be taught at taxpayers expense, at least not in the US. I’m glad you admit they are just that – beliefs. No evidence, just your personal opinion. Which you are entitled to have, but not to push onto other people’s children.

          • Oboehner

            If they are such terrible flaws, how did they “evolve” like that in the first place? Evolutionism make boo boo?

            “No evidence, just your personal opinion. Which you are entitled to have, but not to push onto other people’s children.” Back at ya.

          • Valri

            Wow John, you’re like a late Christmas present to me or something.

          • 65marcus

            Loss of information in DNA causes the problems we have. Take a look at these cuttings John You have no high ground believing in evolution it is a dead duck and needs burying…….
            Re quote .” (Wald, George, “Innovation and
            Biology,” Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)

            “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous
            generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of
            God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose
            from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis
            Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life
            arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution

            Bill Gates in answer a question from Rollingstone magazine about if he
            believed in God said The Mystery and beauty of the world is overwhelmingly
            amazing, and there is no scientific explanation of how it came about. he went
            on too say “I believe it makes sense to believe in God”

            PHILLIP DAY:
            When pushed on a design inference for the origin of life in the recent Expelled documentary, Dawkins states on camera, and I quote:
            “It [life] could come about in the following way. It could be that at
            some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilisation evolved by
            probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer….”

          • John N

            >’Loss of information in DNA causes the problems we have.’

            Except for the inability of vitamin C-synthesis, no, it is not. All the other problems are caused by evolution – the imperfections of random mutations and natural selection combined with genetic drift.

            And for the inability of synthetising our own vitamin C, this is known to be a defect in the GULO-gen that occured long before humans came on earth, some 63 million years ago, in the predecessor of all monkeys, apes and man.

            >’Spontaneous generation, that life arosefrom non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.’

            No he did not. Pasteur proved that extant organisms, like flies and mice, only came from living organisms through reproduction. Abiogenesis is by definition not creating extant organisms by reproduction. And non-believe in any gods does not make creation implausible – the abscence of evidence for any gods does.

            And I’m sorry, but quotes taken out of context, even by scientists, are not accepted as evidence either.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    Fish eggs, fish eggs,
    Roly poly fish eggs,
    Fish eggs, fish eggs
    Eat them up, YUM!

    (Scientists should confine themselves to the truth, or prepare to eat their words.)

    • Josey

      heh

  • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

    I guess I missed the quote where evolutionists were “startled.” Would Garrett Haley please provide the source, or are we to assume that the word was used inaccurately to describe the normal way in which scientists are surprised at findings which are not consistent with currently accepted hypotheses?

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

    Nothing startling about this. Very fine fossil structure are nothing news. Fossilized leaves from hundreds of millions of years ago exhibit astonishingly detailed structure.