Ancient Lizards Preserved in Amber Could Pose Problems for Evolutionists

Gecko_in_amberChristian scientists are touting the recent discovery of amber-encased lizards as evidence of a recent creation as described in the Bible.

Last month, the journal Science Advances published a detailed analysis of amber-embedded lizards, estimated to be approximately 99 million years old. Thanks to the “extraordinary preservation” qualities of the amber, scientists were able to observe intricate details on the lizard specimens.

“Amber deposits are especially useful for preserving small, delicate organisms that are seldom represented as lithified remains or, as fragmentary microvertebrate elements, are often overlooked,” the journal article explains. “This is critical because most lizards are small-bodied.”

A diverse array of species were preserved in the amber, including several that are similar to lizards today.

“In the amber we have things that are clearly gecko,” said Edward Stanley, one of the report’s authors, according to The Christian Science Monitor. “Even 100 million years ago geckos apparently already had evolved a well-diversified subset of tools for clinging onto surfaces.”

The similarity between today’s lizards and these preserved lizards from the past is a tricky subject for evolutionists. Did no evolution occur over those 99 million years?

“The encased organisms show no evidence for evolution between creature kinds,” wrote Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research in an article published last week. “Instead, the dozen lizards fall neatly into five modern lizard categories. For example, the researchers found life-like modern geckos and even identified a tiny chameleon fossil.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Thomas pointed out that other modern creatures, including scorpions, roaches, ants, and termites, have all been found in the ancient amber, indicating “that no evolution between kinds has happened since their golden entombment.”

“All this amber evidence urges the question: Did the 99 million years really happen?” he wrote.

Thomas believes the amber-encased specimens are best understood through a biblical perspective, where the amber is thousands—not millions—of years old and the lizards are the products of creation—not evolution.

“Only minor variations within basic kinds happen today—and that’s exactly what we see in these amber specimens,” Thomas said. “This means that lizards living with dinosaurs looked like lizards that live today, which fits the Bible’s perspective of recent creation.”

In a similar commentary, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell of Answers in Genesis rebuts evolutionists’ claims on the preserved lizards, saying evidence for evolution in this discovery simply does not exist.

“There is no evidence for upward evolution through a transitional form in this lizard’s amber tomb—just evidence for the sort of variation that ordinarily occurs within the created kinds of animals God made,” she wrote in an online article published on Friday. “Despite their supposed great age, these lizards, according to the scientists that studied them, display modern features and still have counterparts in today’s Old World tropical forests. Why haven’t 99 million years of evolution changed lizards more? Could it be that they aren’t really so old?”

Furthermore, Mitchell explained, the claim that the amber dates back nearly 100 million years is suspect.

“The age assigned to the amber encasing these lizards should not be accepted because it is based on some assumptions which are not only unverifiable but demonstrably untrue,” she asserted.

“So the lizard collection preserved in Myanmar demonstrates nothing about the reptile evolution over millions of years but only the variations that had developed among the kinds of lizards created by God,” Mitchell concluded.

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • gizmo23

    “The similarity between today’s lizards and these preserved lizards from the past is a tricky subject for evolutionists. Did no evolution occur over those 99 million years?”

    This statement alone shows that the “creation” folks have no understanding of the science of evolution or biology.
    Species are not required to evolve only adapt. If they no longer need to adapt, change is not necessary for survival. Species do not evolve “up”, whatever that means. Lizards are not trying to become another species, just a better lizard. If there is little pressure to keep mutations those mutations will not become a significant part of the species’ geome.

    • bowie1

      Even creationists support the idea of adaption but the controversy comes when species branch out into what essentially becomes other species over a long time period such as primates to humans.

      • Tangent002

        We have extant examples of speciation both in laboratories and the wild. What Creationists generally demand to see is change among ‘kinds’.

        • Balerion

          What they want to see is changes that took place over millions of generations to happen overnight, and when it doesn’t they thump their chests and bleat that THEIR creation myth is what actually happened.

          • Tangent002

            I’ve yet to come across one who can give me a decent definition of ‘kind’ in the first place.

      • Tangent002

        Not to quibble, but humans are primates.

      • gizmo23

        Genetic adaptation is evolution

      • EscapetheDarkness

        @ bowie1

        bowie1 said: “Even creationists support the idea of adaption but the controversy comes when species branch out into what essentially becomes other species over a long time period such as primates to humans.”

        That is, assuming the mainstream concept of “species”, as opposed to the Biblical concept of “kind” in Genesis 1, even exists. Even in the Neo-Darwinian Evolutionist community, there are multiple, usable definitions of “species” which are floating around.

        • John N

          Correct, depending on the domain and the need, biologists can use different definitions of ‘species’. Like because ‘species’ is a human concept.

          And your point is?

          By the way, please cite the bible chapter and verse where any usable definition of ‘kind’ is specified.

          • EscapetheDarkness

            @ John N

            John N said: “Correct, depending on the domain and the need, biologists can use different definitions of ‘species’. Like because ‘species’ is a human concept.

            And your point is?”

            Thanks for this admission.

            You should know my point here. Speciation–as in one species evolving into another species in general–cannot be a real, objective phenomenon, if the fundamental concept of “species” is a fluid, variant, subjective concept which exists relative to goalposts of the moment.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            John N said: “By the way, please cite the bible chapter and verse where any usable definition of ‘kind’ is specified.”

            First, the Bible does not give a scientific definition of “kind” or מִין [ref. Strong’s G#4327]. But, even so, I think that it can inspire one. After all, I believe that Science picks up where the Bible leaves off, in such matters.

            Now, I am still researching this issue. But, I do know of some interesting points which the Bible gives on this matter. For instance:

            • (1) Noach’s (or Noah’s) Ark only had a certain amount of room in it (ref. Genesis 6:13-21). Yet, YHVH (God) commanded him to bring seven pairs of every “kind” of clean animal, two pairs of every kind of unclean animal, and every kind of food (i.e. fruit) into the Ark (Genesis 6:19-21, Genesis 7:1-3).

            This would be impossible, if we assumed that every individual “species” was unique and irreplaceable. But, if we assume that every “species” was part of a larger “kind” and every “species” had the ability to carry on the genetic data of a “kind” as a representative of this kind at the time, then the Ark might not have been so packed and, indeed, could have done the job here.

            • (2) Notice that in Genesis 1:

            • Genesis 1:11 implies that plants which just produce seed (i.e. grass, herbs, etc.) and trees which produce fruit with seed in it are different “kinds”.

            • Genesis 1:20-22 implies that birds in general and sea creatures in general are different “kinds”.

            • Genesis 1:24-25 implies that beasts which are dumb and can be made livestock, animals in general, and creeping organisms in general are different “kinds”.

            These pieces of information imply that the classification of “kinds” are predicated upon the function and the environment of the organism in question, especially in relation to man.

            • (3) Interestingly, in Leviticus 19:19 and Dueteronomy 22:9-10 of the Torah’s Law, YHVH (God) commands the Hebrew people of Yisra’el (or Israel) to not mix and interbreed different kinds of livestock beasts and different kinds of crops. Assuming that this particular law had a practical reason for it along with its moral reason of demonstrating purity, this law implies that different “kinds” are part of a created order which is to be maintained and each of them offer something unique and beneficial to man.

            Now, taken all together, what do these example observations mean? These imply that man should be categorizing animals according to “kinds” of function (i.e. how they can be used by man, their particular envionment in which they live, how they contribute to their particular environment, etc.). And, in relation to this criteria of categorization, their DNA, their morphology, their behavior, and so on should be studied and categorized.

            In this sense, the Bible helps fill in a critical blank for Science in this matter. That is, by itself and in a purely Naturalistically Materialist context, Science has no objective basis by which to categorize the living organisms on Earth. In short, it seeks to answer the how of this mater without even being to able to ask why any given how should work. So, Neo-Darwinists just blindly assume that similiarity equals relationship and run with this assumption, with unproven just-so stories and all. However, if we take what the Bible suggests here, then Science has a basis by which to relate the living organisms on Earth. In short, the Bible objectively gives Science why a certain how should work in this matter.

            But, even having said this, I must hedge my reply here with a logical point of order: Be this issue what it may in your eyes, disputing the validity of the the Biblical concept of “kind” in Genesis 1 does not automatically prove the mainstream concept of “species” right. Regardless. the mainstream concept of “species” must stand or fall on its own merits.

        • Tangent002

          For multi-cellular organisms, the usual standard is reproductive isolation, whether behavioral or biological. For single-cell organisms, it’s a bit more complicated.

    • Balerion

      They may “look” similar to lizards living today, but their genomes are different enough that they would not be able to interbreed with any species existing today.

      • gizmo23


    • Jason Tirre

      Who causes this adaptation??. It just happens come now!!??adaptation is not evolution. Why are these two couples together?. We have no excuse for unbelief or so called science. The problem is the scientist. REAL SCIENCE GLORIFIES GOD OUT CREATOR AND FATHER.

      • gizmo23

        No one causes adaptations. Genetic change is kept or discarded depending on if it creates an advantage or not. That is what evolution is

        • Jason Tirre

          They just happen, that is a bunch of garbage and lies. They happen according to our Creators parameters and His will and plan, not by chance.

          • gizmo23

            God created nature and gave it the power to change and adapt

          • John N

            So you do know your creators parameters, his will and his plan? Care to join it with us?

          • Jason Tirre

            Look at the boundaries That our Father and YOUR CREATOR as well as mine has given us. He seperates land from the waters. The atmosphere from water. He gives night and day, darkness and light. Parameters are another name for functions or boundaries again read your bible and test it with creation if you had a a speck of faith in your heart and were not dishonest but asked Elohim for integrity not that of your own you may be able to see, but…. You choose what you choose, time is short John n and no matter what you or others say it sounds the same to me and God gives me Truth that satisfies my heart, He satisfies my heart. He worked out all the questions and brings me to Himself. He’s REAL to me because He is simply real, the real issue is sin it is sin that seperates you from your Father until you humble yourself you will remain defeated and in darkness with no hope.

          • John N

            I read your bible. I read Genesis several times.

            There is not a speck of evidence to find into it that explains adaptations are happening according his parameters, his will or his plan. In fact, except some nonsense story about striped goats, there is not anything concerning evolution or more specific adaptation at all.

            You are not making this all up, are you?

          • Jason Tirre

            You have not Gods Holy Spirit. His Spirit will lead you into ALL truth. And as it is written a spiritual man discernith all things but is discerned of none. There is wisdom that is hidden in that story of Jacob. When you come to God He also gives by His Spirit a heightened common sense which with out God is not so common. What I share is written in His Word. Didn’t I speak about how God separated darkness from light and land from air and water and set up boundaries for man and all things function according to His will. Unless you humble yourself John as a little child you will never know Gods truth. It is hidden from the wise and prudent and given to babes. The beginning of wisdom is to fear the Lord. Have you read the book of job and ancient book at that. You read Genesis but have never studied with a new heart in faith. Again in circles we go. I’m not making anything up, if I did I would be a liar like you and I don’t want to lie before God or others at all, not anymore. I’ll let God be true and every man a liar, if I lie Gods truth abideth still.

          • John N

            I do not need your gods holy spirit to recognize deliberate ignorance.

            Please try to understand at least the basics of what you want to attack. This way it really is no fun.

          • Jason Tirre

            Withot God you are an empty shell, a corpse, your arrogance and high mindedness is no fun. You basics are what got you in this mess already. You buying the Devils lies when we have an Almighty God. Reevaluate your so called knowledge John and see what it had made you.

          • UtahTwisted

            reality is hard

      • UtahTwisted

        No. Real science does not use magic (God) in describing reality.

        • Jason Tirre

          Your reality is hard because the way of sinners who deny and disobey A Holy God is hard. Yahushua said that those who are burdened and heavy laden can come unto and find rest for their weary souls. The Lords burden is light and His yoke easy that is because He bares our burdens for us and teaches us that He is our burden bearer. The way of the ungodly one is hard and miserable. Let God exchange your “reality” for His True Reality. When you oppose Him you only hurt yourself. If you humble your yourself He will grant the faith of the mustard seed to believe His obvious truth. His glorious hand is revealed in Creation but in these last days we have His Son. It is through Him that we can genuinely know God in our hearts and spirits.

          • UtahTwisted

            blah, blah, blah, magic and superstition. Grow up. A ridiculous book of fables is basis to build any reality. Your book promotes slavery, says the earth is flat, has been edited and changed numerous times.

      • Cady555

        Adaptation happens when there is genetic variation in a population, and that variation influences which individuals leave more offspring.

        • Jason Tirre

          variation and adaptation two different things. That’s a flawed definition because your premise is untruth.

          • EscapetheDarkness

            @ Jason Tirre

            Jason Tirre said: “variation and adaptation two different things. That’s a flawed definition because your premise is untruth.”

            I understand what you are trying to say here. However, I think that it is better to say that variations (i.e. variations which happen to aid a specfic organism in a specific environment at a specific time) and mutations (i.e. mutational adaptations) are two different things. And Evolutionists deliberately assume, without justification, that these two things are always one and the same, under the circular logic that all biological change is ultimately “Evolution”.

          • Jason Tirre

            No my premise is not wrong. I stand for my Lord and Savior truth. Variation is one thing and comes from the word variety. In Gods creation things vary that is why we have different physical characteristics. Yet God has equipped His creation to sustain life according to where He has placed us. Variation is one thing and generic adaptation is another both come and are given to us by God according to His will

          • EscapetheDarkness

            @ Jason Tirre

            Jason Tirre said: “No my premise is not wrong. […] Yet God has equipped His creation to sustain life according to where He has placed us. Variation is one thing and generic adaptation is another both come and are given to us by God according to His will”

            Are you a theistic evolutionist? If so, then I must ask: How can you hold to the Theory of Evolution, without, in the process, making YHVH (God) superfluous to the naturalistic processes which allegedly produced the origin of life and so on and throwing out Genesis 1-3(?) as a literal account of the beginning of Adamic Earth?

          • Jason Tirre

            No I don’t believe in evolution at all. I believe in Yahuah Elohim my Father and creator.we can see things adapt bit they don’t evolve. I can’t stand all this language its a bunch of foolishness. I don’t know all the Details of how my God and Father created all the seen and unseen realms, I do know He did and I give Him all glory for doing so as He deserves.

          • EscapetheDarkness

            @ Jason Tirre

            Jason Tirre said: “No I don’t believe in evolution at all. […] we can see things adapt bit they don’t evolve.”

            Okay. So, how do you hold to the concept of genetic adaptation, without holding to the fundamental ideas which make up the Theory of Evolution?

          • Tangent002

            Adaptation is evolution.

            A reasonable stance would be that God created evolution.

          • Jason Tirre

            No it’s not that’s farthest thing from the truth. God our Father doesn’t need to make us out of chimps or some other organism. He is wise and all powerful and He tells us how he made our bodies; and that out of the dust of the earth that is why are the main minerals in the earth are find in our bodies. The Lord did this instantly not over a period of time;He has the power of the instant. He gave us our spirit by breathing His life into us. Evolution is a lie and steals glory from God and comes from the father lies. Please don’t put words in my mouth. We have it in our genes to adapt under certain conditions but we don’t become something else. God has natural laws and order to sustain life. He holds all things together through the Word if His power.

          • Jason Tirre

            I cor 15 speaks of resurrection and tells us there is different types of flesh and the Lord doesn’t take one to make the other. Different substances

          • UtahTwisted

            what a book of magic says is not very relevant to reality

          • Tangent002

            If evolution were true, would that invalidate the words of Jesus?

          • Jason Tirre

            It’s not true so you don’t have to concern yourself with that. I’ve learned not ask vain questionings and ignore so called science. Let God be true and every man a liar. John 14:6

          • Jason Tirre

            No and no

          • UtahTwisted

            Jesus never existed

          • UtahTwisted

            reasonable and completely unnecessary

          • Tangent002


          • UtahTwisted

            What about Zeus?

          • Tangent002

            So evolution was designed by God? I’m good with that.

          • Jason Tirre

            No true child of God will believe in evolution. That is worshipping the creation rather than the CREATOR who is blessed forever more

  • Tangent002

    Amber cannot form in a few thousand years. The polymerization process takes millions of years and there is no known way to speed it up. If the Young Earth paradigm were true, we should have no amber at all.

    • Josey

      you cannot verify the age of the amber as the article says.

      • Tangent002

        Physics would say it must be at least 30 million years old.

        • ComeOnPeople!

          Physics are not and will never be all knowing.

      • Ronald Carter

        Yes, of course you can.

    • cadcoke5

      Coal and diamonds have also been stated to take millions of years to form, but coal has been demonstrated to form within minutes in lab tests. So, given the tendency to vastly overestimate these ages, the formation of amber may be similarly incorrect.

      Carbon14 dating of coal gives an apparent age around 40,000 to 50,000 years. There should be NO carbon 14 left by the age evolutionary thought requires. And though the carbon 14 ages are too old for a young earth creationists, carbon14 tests have to be calibration to the amount of c14 being generated at a particular time. Different weather and radiation variation may have been different before the flood, so it is reasonable to not expect an exact match of dates. (there are other dating methods that do agree with a recent creation in the 6,000 years ago range)

      • Tangent002

        “Carbon14 dating of coal gives an apparent age around 40,000 to 50,000 years.”

        According to whom?

      • John N

        Carbon 14 dating of coal? Have your ‘creationist scientists’ been in a lab again? I hope they cleaned up the mess afterwards.

        Yes, we know. Things might have been different before Noah’s flood. You know, radioactive decay could have been so high way back then that 90 million years appear as 6000. And would have cooked all the earths’ water at the same time. And stopped being so extremely right when the flood happened. And without anybody noticing.

        It’s really funny that YEC’s are so eager trying to find a scientific explanation for their young earth. Why don’t you just say it is all a miracle? That would be more honest and just as believable.

  • Tangent002

    Evolution does not require organisms to change if they are well-suited for a particular environmental niche. Sharks have remained largely unchanged for millions of years, as has the coelacanth.

    • ComeOnPeople!

      Oh my do you have a time machine? If so please bring back concrete evidence for all of us to see. Evolution is based on a theory, not on fact. There is more evidence for a young world thousands of years old then for one that is billions of years old. Even the creator of the theory died not believing his own claims.

      • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

        R u aware of the Gap Theory between GEN.1:1 n 1:2, ie there was an older earth under the dominion of Lucifer/Satan when there was dinosaurs but no humans n today’s earth of Adam n Eve.?

      • John N

        Oh, Darwin died not believing his own theory? Can you give us more details on that? Were you there when he died?

        We happened to have concrete evidence of evolution, you know. Tons of it. They are called fossils and if you look at the top of the article you can see a picture of one of them. There are your ‘facts’. There are a lot more if you would be prepared to read a book on the theory of evolution. Yes, a theory – the highest level of accuracy science can offer in explaining reality.

        If you do have more evidence for a young earth creation, why are you hiding it from us?

        • Cady555

          And fossils are merely one category of evidence. There is also genetics, embryology, study of atavastic and vestigial traits, geodiversity and more. The evidence in any and all of these areas is conclusive.

          Any alternative hypothesis explaining the diversity of life on earth must likewise encompass all of this evidence. Despite 20 years of any day now promises, creationists have yet to support their claims with evidence.

          They merely wave their hand at hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils and say “Nope. There ain’t no transitional fossils.” Kind of like my kid standing in front of a broken lamp claiming the lamp isn’t broken. Nice try, but evidence wins.

        • Jason Tirre

          Whatever lie Darwin believed, he doesn’t believe it now. Let the dead bury their dead says my Lord Jesus Christ.

          • John N

            Well, if you think he believed in lies, and if you think the great majority of scientists still believe in those lies, I suggest you come with some pretty hard evidence.

            You do know your god does not like slander.

          • Jason Tirre

            Where is your hard evidence John of evolution. Where is fancy bread in your heart or in your head. lol.

          • John N

            Look at the top of the article. See the picture?

            Go to the nearest museum of natural history. There is more ‘hard evidence’ than you care to see.

            But I guess for some people it is like throwing pearls to swines.

          • Jason Tirre

            Your a sad man John. You call dung heaps pearls. I’m a forgiven swine who has life from God John. I’ll take the Lords many people and His glory in there lives or your so called many scientist any day John

          • John N

            I am a sad man? Oh, those religious folks with their godgiven mind reading powers!

            Well, sometimes I’m sad, sometimes I’m happy. After all, I’m not living in a phantasy world of eternal joy, and when I die I will be dead. Just like you.

            So, are you happy with the ‘hard’ evidence you requested or do you prefer to remain blind and deaf?

          • Jason Tirre

            I don’t know your heart only God does but the insight we have been given is because without the Lord we are as you. The evidence is all near you you just refuse to see.

          • John N

            Yes, the evidence is all around us. It just doesn’t show what you hope and believe it does. But if you want to prove me wrong, then please do.

          • Jason Tirre

            You have already been proven wrong John. There is no wisdom or power greater than God. It’s in your own decieved and delusional mind you are right. What fruit and hope do you have???. The Lord will be found by those who want to be found. You love darkness rather than light because you love your sin and you don’t want to leave your sin and evil deeds of pride and unbelief and self justification. There is enough truth and evidence to believe on the True and Living God. He way is by faith and that is His way through His Son Yahushua Hamashisch.,so you will have your false faith in yourself and your man made theories but sadly you are perishing and your mouth will be stopped on that day in the judgement you will realize the fool you were and it will be too late. Time is running out for you

          • John N

            Proved wrong? Must have missed that. Please do it again, I’ll better pay attention from now on.

            But leave those threats behind, please. It just shows you are really desparate in finding arguments.

          • Jason Tirre

            I’m at peace John and my peace comes from God. You are the one who posts on my comments. I didn’t start speaking to you again. You are one who likes to argue. Why are you in these threads because you want to argue only but you say the same redundant things regurgitated from the same old athiests lies. I spoken Truth from God to you inline with His Word.You posts are big welcome here John so please stop

          • Terry Collmann

            “There is no wisdom or power greater than God.”

            Really? Get him to pop down and show it, then, he’s done a rotten job of it for the past 2,000 years

          • Jason Tirre

            He has. He revealed Himself through the Person of His Son the Lord Jesus Christ who is the image of the unseen God and the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. He was manifested to take away our sins. The Lord Jesus has done all things well,none could of done what He has done for us. He loved us unto blood and has the power to bring us back to the Father.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            So sad to hear you will be dead one day. I for one will be alive for an eternity. Why? Because I believe in the CREATOR of all things and worship HIM rather then created beings. It is HE whom you deny when you believe mans lies rather then truth. Die if you choose but I choose to live this life loving the One who Created this earth and then spend eternity in the new earth He promised to created. Hope is a marvelous thing that evolution offers no one but the Creator offers everyone. Evolution is the biggest fantasy every constructed.

          • John N

            The creationists’ book of rules, Rule #1: In abscence of rational arguments and hard evidence, switch to preaching and/or threats.

          • Meepestos

            Rule #2. Quote mine, and when challenged to contact the authors you quoted out of context to find out what the authors actually meant, deflect, run away or make up a lame excuse why not to contact that person; even when given the email addresses and phone numbers of that person/persons.

          • Terry Collmann

            ” I for one will be alive for an eternity.”

            You wish.

            Unfortunately, dying scares you so much, you have to deny science to try to block out your fear that there really is no sky-daddy to keep you alive for ever.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Time will tell & time affects us all. Those who have hope only in this life are all men most miserable. Science my friend which denies a Creator leaves all men without hope. There are Scientist who share views of a young earth and of intelligent design. Oh but only Science that holds your view is real science. I understand…

          • Terry Collmann

            I’m not your ‘friend’ so don’t patronise me. And neither am I miserable, thanks: I thoroughly enjoy what life has to offer, without kidding myself there’s anything beyond.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Evidence of life but not evidence of life billions of years old. That is mere speculation. No one can find proof of a very old earth and as a matter of fact it has been shown to be very flawed. Yet people who believe they are evolved from apes or crawled up out the scum of a pond continue to support such nonsense . But hey it’s hard for apes or pong scum to reason since they are constantly evolving .

          • John N

            So, you have measured the age of those fossils and you can prove scientists are wrong, do you?

            And you are also able to prove our dating methods showing the age of the earth are all flawed, can’t you?

            And of course you have absolute proof we did not evolve from apes, haven’t you?

            Because creationists are not known for making unsupported claims or lying about their findings, that’s for sure.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Let God be true and every man a liar. HIS ways are higher then our ways and HIS thoughts higher then our thoughts. Where were all of us when HE created all we see. I tend to believe the bible which find after find is proving to be true and evolution continues to be shown to be one mans theory. Sad how if you repeat something long enough & loud enough those who only listen to propaganda believe anything thrown their way.

          • John N

            Well, then show us the evidence!

        • ComeOnPeople!

          So these fossils spoke to you and told you how old they are. It is all based on theory nothing more and has been proven over and over again to be such.

          • John N

            Correct. The theory of evolution is probably the most attacked scientific theory we ever knew – more than 150 years of continuous attacks from creationists – and still standing strong.

            And indeed the fossils say a lot about there age – after all, it were christians who found out the earth was much older than the bible says, based on the fossils they found. And they didn’t have the accurate dating methods we now have.

      • UtahTwisted

        Not understanding the word “theory” when used in science shows your ignorance. How do you feel about the “theory” of gravity or the germ “theory” of disease?

        • ComeOnPeople!

          A theory proven is no longer a theory.

          • UtahTwisted

            You are only compounding your ignorance. A scientific theory is not a “guess” and a theory “proven” does not become a fact.

            Here’s the first definition I found: 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.

            Theories are built on multiple FACTS. Plain and simple.

            You may not “agree” with evolution, but not understanding simple scientific terms is incredibly ignorant on your part…

          • Tangent002

            No, a scientific theory does not ‘graduate’. Theory is the highest form of certainty in empirical science.

      • Cady555

        1. The story of Darwin changing his mind was started by liars. It is repeated by liars. It usually involves a fictitious death bed conversion to Christianity.

        2. The most amusing thing about this story is that it only matters from a religious viewpoint. The validity of a religious message depends a lot on who says it. If X said god wants us to welcome immigrants, you would react differently to the exact same words if the person quoted were Billy Graham or Mr. Obama.

        Science is based on evidence. Darwin isn’t a god. He got some things wrong. But evolution and natural selection would remain every bit as true if Darwin had never lived, never written a book or had recanted every word. Attacking the messenger is a religious tactic that is simply meaningless in science. The Theory of Evolution is backed up by 150 years of research by 100s of thousands of scientists.

        The evidence for the evolution of life over approximately the last 3.5 billion years is overwhelming.

        • Jason Tirre

          You were there 3.5 billion years ago to observe this, if only this kind of faith were of God how things might differ for you. You keep believing in that. Man is devolving morally and spiritually because they have departed from the true God. The more evolutionists say Darwin didn’t die afraid and repenting the more I do believe he did want mercy. The wicked have no bands in their death. May be OUR GOD AND FATHER GAVE HIM one

          • UtahTwisted

            The fact that you choose to believe in a book of magic that says the earth is flat, bats are birds, the moon shines by its own light, and that slavery is moral instead of evidence says an awful lot about your ability to make rational decisions

      • Bluesman1950

        So which ‘time machine’ did you use to go back to verify creation?

        • ComeOnPeople!

          Hmmmm let’s see… History & actual science, that does not dream up billions of years which can never be verified by history or real science methods. Evolution has and always will be a theory .

          • UtahTwisted

            You mean like evidence? Like fossils, DNA, the tree of life? Evidence. Or do you mean a magic book about a magical genie you popped everything into existence with some magic words?

          • Bluesman1950

            Gravity is also a theory! Check out the scientific use of the word ‘theory’. It doesn’t mean a guess or hunch.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Gravity was a theory that was proven. Therefore Gravity became scientifically proven to be fact. Billions of years can never be studied out or proven. It is poor science that makes no room for evaluation. No one can prove numbers thrown into the air so far removed that only a time machine could prove the theory correct.

  • Greg Paley

    This is all academic. Simply, the world is divided into those who think God created the world (in days, or millions of years, the details are not important), or God did not. Amazing that in 2016 people still fight these silly battles. The great creeds of the church affirm “God the Father, Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth,” and, thankfully, those creeds do not press the details, nor should they.

    • UtahTwisted

      No one “thinks” god created anything, they believe it without evidence. Thinking is hard. Magic doesn’t answer anything.

    • I am all for people believing as they wish (or were taught to believe), but the problem is that fundamentalists tend to suggest that all of society should live by their beliefs.

      Creationists fight a never ending battle to stuff creationism into science classrooms. That is not a “silly” thing simply because creationism is not science. Creationism does not follow the scientific method and that is why it does not belong in a science classroom.

  • Robin518

    I’ll wait for their citations & peer review.

    • jjgrndisland

      You do that.

  • Irene C

    When you see the amber on the picture What do you see? “a simple lizard” Can you see any difference from the lizards today? “Not” that simple “no evolution occurred since the earth is earth. Do not complicate something that is so simple to understand and believe. :/ Genesis 1:12, 20-25, Then Genesis 1:26

    • John N

      So, which species of lizard do you see?

      If it did not change, it should be easy to determine, is it not?

      If you can’t make out which species, how do you know it is not different?

      And you seem to prefer the creation story in Genesis 1. Why? Is Genesis 2 to complicated for you? Why two different creation stories? And why are they both wrong according to modern science?

      • Guest

        There’s no difference between Genesis1 and 2. It’s a verb rendering that may have you confused.

        Both are not wrong according to true science. You might want to look up the article, “Big Science Is Broken” that appeared in “The Week”.

        • Cady555

          Adam and Eve were created after plants and all other animals.

          is exactly the same as

          Adam was created before plants and all other animals. God brought the animals to Adam to name as they were created. Eve was created later because the other animals weren’t good enough.

          Yep. Sure. Exactly the same.

          Ignore the spin dictors and Read Your Book.

          • Guest

            That’s not what it says at all. Why lie? The word ” yatsar” is rendered in its pluperfect state, meaning God had formed. It’s just telling us how the animals were formed. No difference at all.

          • Cady555

            It isn’t one word. Read the entire text describing 2 different series of events.

          • Guest

            I’ve read the text many times. 🙂 They both state the same thing, merely that God had previously created animals and later brought them to Adam to name.

        • John N

          Thanks, but to know what scientists say, I prefer to read their own work. And guess what: they say your Genesis is a myth. Both versions of them.

          It is verb rendering that may have me confused? Right. Your god is not very accurate in his scientific descriptions, is he? Maybe it is you who is confused. To me, they are clearly different.

          • Guest

            The link to which I referred you quotes actual scientists. 🙂 You do know there are plenty of scientists who are secularly trained who believe in the Genesis account, don’t you? Faraday, Newton, Pupin, Damadian, most of the NASA scientists, etc.

            As far as verb rendering goes, no biggie. I don’t expect atheists or agnostics to be able to discern basic Hebrew or various verb tenses. After all, God says that fools don’t believe in Him.

          • John N

            … and has not any relevance in this discussion, I know.

            I don’t mind anybody believing in the Genesis account, including scientists. I do mind when they involve the Genesis story in their scientific work. And most of the NASA scientists will be atheists, as is the majority of scientists everywhere in the US.

            As for the Genesis account, they do represent two historically different versions of the creation story, as will modern scholars tell you. Both of them based on a much older Mesopotamian creation story, by the way.

          • Guest

            a.) You’re wrong about NASA. Did you not read about the huge Bible studies they have?

            b.) Pupin based his scientific work on the Genesis account. 🙂

            c.)Majority doesn’t mean right. Look how many Muslims there are. 🙂

            d.) The Genesis accounts do not represent 2 different versions of creation. Respectfully, you have reading comprehension problems.

          • John N

            >’You’re wrong about NASA. Did you not read about the huge Bible studies they have?’
            No, I didn’t. Did you also read NASA scientists found out your god has stopped the sun from moving for a day and 20 minutes?

            >’ Pupin based his scientific work on the Genesis account. 🙂
            Did he? I doubt your sources. The ICR website is not known for its scientific accuracy.

            >’Majority doesn’t mean right’
            Right. So your initial argument is bogus.

            >’The Genesis accounts do not represent 2 different versions of creation. Respectfully, you have reading comprehension problems.’
            Problem is, modern scholars accept they are. Maybe you have some wishfull thinking problems.

          • Guest

            a.) You should research before commenting. 🙂

            b.) I’m referring to Pupin’s own autobiography, not to ICR. 🙂 However, ICR is known for its scientific accuracy, and is supported by many scientists today, including Dr. Damadian (inventor of the MRI), and other scientists.

            c.) You are contradicting yourself, John. 🙂

            d.) Modern scholars? Which modern scholars? Also, re-check your statement. Your grammar and spelling are off. 🙂 Like I said, reading comprehension problem. 🙂

          • John N

            a.) Why do you want me to do your research? If you’ve got a point to make, make it.

            b.) I do not see a trace of genesis or your god in any of Pupin’s findings or patents. So again, if you want to prove something, show it.

            c.) You started the majority argument (…there are plenty of scientists who are secularly trained who believe in the Genesis account …). What’s it going to be?

            d.) Check Wikipedia – lot’s of reference there. I thought you were the bible expert in the house?

          • Guest

            a.) I already made it. 🙂 I referenced something you didn’t know about (but should have, if you were really up on news in the scientific community.):)

            b.) You obviously didn’t read Pupin’s own autobiography where he spells it out. I suggest you do. It’s required reading for basic physics.

            c.) Plenty does not mean majority. Again, reading comprehension much? 🙂

            d.) Wiki is hardly a credible source. Anyone can write anything there. 🙂 I prefer to refer to the scientific journals to which I subscribe. 🙂

          • John N

            A.) You made a point? You claimed most of the NASA scientists are believing in the Genesis accounts. And your proof is they have huge Bible studies. So?

            b.) No, I didn’t, and I’m not planning to. So show me the evidence of Genesis or God in Pupin’s findings or patents.

            c.) Indeed, plenty is less than the majority. So you’ve just created a new fallacy – the argument from plenty.

            d.) Do you thinks so? Well, it is more accurate than your bible – because anyone did write anything there, avoiding peer review and corrections by claiming goddidit . At least Wikipedia is being checked and corrected. And they have references – you know, pointing to scientific journals describing what I told you. Maybe you subscribed to the wrong ones.

          • Guest

            a.) So you think non-Christians meet for a NASA Bible study? 🙂

            b.) Why ask for evidence if you don’t want to see it? 🙂

            c.) You need to learn how to use logic terms properly. You’ve misused fallacy. 🙂

            d.) Nothing is more accurate than God’s Word.

          • John N

            a.) Still no evidence for your claim that most NASA scientist are believing the Genesis accounts. Do you actually understand what the term ‘evidence’ means?

            b.) Again, show me the evidence for your claims. Which finding or patent of Pupin is based on the Genesis account?

            c.) Did I? Please elaborate.

            d.) Is that so? So your bible must be free of any factual error, contradiction, dimness or fantasy story, should it not? So that there can be no discussion and/or different interpretation of its contents, correct? And therefore all christians all over the world would have exactly the same understanding of their beliefs and their god, right? Well …

          • Guest

            a.) Apparently you don’t since I’ve already given you the evidence. 🙂 You might want to look up Colonel James Irwin’s book. Or check out all the stories about NASA Bible studies that Obama has is up in arms over. 🙂

            b.) Pupin’s biography will tell you that. Why don’t you read it? Are you afraid of big books? Big words? Finding out you are wrong? 🙂

            c.) See above posts.

            d.) Of course there are no errors in the Bible. The fact that you think you see some merely points to your obvious reading comprehension problems. 🙂 (You also lack scientific knowledge, but that’s another story. 🙂 )

          • John N

            A.) No, you did not. Re-read your claim. Then re-read your ‘evidence’. If you don’t see the problem, I really can’t help you.

            B.) No, I prefer that you, making the claim, explain to me, who you try to convince, in your own words what your evidence is. You seem to have a problem understanding words like ‘claim’ and ‘evidence’, and I want to be sure we are talking about the same thing.

            C.) Does not explain anything.

            D.) The fact that there are tree major religions, of which one has thousands of denominations, each claiming they have the only right way of explaining your gods words, clearly shows your holy book is somewhat the least accurate, clear and unambiguous book in the world.

            And that is without counting the numerous factual errors and scientific inaccuracies that even a blind man can see.

            But hey, you are free to belief whatever you like, as long as you don’t sell it as fact.

          • Guest

            All you’ve done, John, is deny the evidence that’s before you. 🙂

            Do you know that the Bible is used as a historical document in secular history departments at all leading universities and colleges? Do you know that every single scientific source I’ve used is a secular source?

            All you’ve done is pretended that I’ve not given you evidence when I’ve given you plenty. You can find these books at good secular universities and colleges. You have also pretended to see inaccuracies in God’s Word merely because you don’t understand how the pluperfect tense of a verb works. Pity.

          • John N

            Well, that was really easy. For both your claims, you presented not one actual piece of relevant evidence. No, having bible studies does not prove the majority of NASA scientists accept the Genesis account. And no, the existence of a autobiography does not prove a scientific finding is based on the Genesis account. If you can’t do better than this, I’ll have to conclude you were lying.

            I did not see you using any scientific sources in this discussion. If you did, you were very good in hiding it. By the way, there is not even such a thing as ‘secular’ scientific sources.

            I’m not going to do your homework, so if you got evidence, show it.

            Regarding inaccuracies in your god’s word, there are plenty. The two different versions of Genesis is only one of them. The earth being flat and immovable, the heavens a solid dome, life being created and unchanging, adam and eve, a global flood, bats being birds, … all evidence for your bible being written by ancient people trying to explain the world like the saw it, and not by an all-knowing deity.

          • Guest

            Actually, what’s easy is proving you a.) haven’t looked at the evidence I’ve presented, and b.) didn’t understand the little you did look at. 🙂

            You keep repeating yourself, but you’ve yet to show that a.) you understand what evidence is, and b.) have yet to present one error or contradiction in the Word of God. I guess that’s why you’re not a NASA scientist. 🙂

            Have a good day.

          • John N

            A. You haven’t presented any.
            B. So the earth is flat, is it? Don’t fall of then.

          • Guest

            a.) Again, close those ears and eyes. Thinking hurts your brain, huh? 🙂

            b.) The Bible never says the earth is flat. That’s the Qur’an. 🙂 Sir Isaac Newton quotes from Isaiah referencing the earth in his scientific studies. If you studied science, you’d know that. 🙂

          • John N

            A) I’m not going to continue playing your silly game. If you have the evidence for your claims, present them here. If not, withdraw them.

            To help you a bit, these were your claims and what I would consider evidence:
            . most NASA scientist are believing the Genesis accounts. Evidence for this would be a list of NASA scientists acknowledging they believe the Genesis account, and a full list of all NASA scientists;
            . Pupin based his scientific work on the Genesis account; evidence of this would be a scientific finding or a patent from Pupin, clearly referencing the Genesis accounts, like the creation of life out of nothing;

            Can’t be too difficult, can it? Now, get to work.

            B) So you even don’t know your own holy book. Isaiah describes the earth as a circle, a flat disc your god looks down upon, vaulted by the heavens. As far as I know, a flat disc is not a sphere, and certainly not a ellipsoid.

          • Guest

            a.) John, REREAD the posts. Do you not know that I’ve been giving you sources all along? I use the term “secular science” so that you note that these sources are from secular universities and institutes. Do you not recognize sources when you see them? A book title is a source. An author is a source. A scientific document is a source. Do you not have a local library where you can go to read these books? A nearby university? That’s how sourcing works. Very little academic science is presented online. It’s available in copious amounts via scientific journals and tomes available at libraries and universities.

            b.) The Hebrew word in Isaiah refers to circle or sphere. 🙂

          • John N

            Guest, I thought we were discussing scientific topics here.

            In science (what you prefer to call ‘secular’ science, as if there is any other kind of science) scientific findings are mostly presented in peer reviewed scientific journals, the abstracts of which are readily available on the internet. Scientists do not publish scientific findings in their autobiographies or in news articles about bible studies. And there are very good reasons to do so.

            So one more time, can you present relevant evidence for both of your claims, like you promised?

            And the hebrew word in Isaiah, “chugh”, means circle or compassed – drawn by a compass. The earliest Greek translators knew this and translated it as “gyros” – circle – and not as “sphaira” – sphere.

            Which is consistent with other incorrect notions about the earth in your bible like in Matthew and Revelations.

          • Guest

            The contention that NASA has Christian Creationists working there isn’t scientific journal stuff. 🙂 You clearly don’t subscribe to any because otherwise you would know that.

            Every source I’ve used has been from a scientific journal. You haven’t used one such source, but rather much conjecture. Why not quote from actual scientific sources?

            Regarding Matthew and Revelation (there is no “s” 🙂 ), there are no contradictions. I also see that you don’t know Hebrew and merely cut-and-pasted from a site. 🙂 (Fluther for one). The information is wrong. Isaiah was translated from the Hebrew, and not from the Greek. 🙂 Have a great day.

          • John N

            >’Every source I’ve used has been from a scientific journal’
            Which one? I did not see you referencing any source at all, except for two autobiographies – and they are clearly not scientific.

            No, I do not know hebrew. Neither do you, that’s clear.

            But the Greek did. And they correctly did translate the hebrew word ‘chugh’ into the greek ‘gyros’ – circle.

            Sorry to bring you the bad news – the authors of your precious bible did think the earth was flat. Which was to be expected, because most of the people at that time did. But it clearly shows your bible is not written by an all-knowing deity.

          • Guest

            John, not only are those books scientific, but they are often cited in scientific journals – something you would know if you subscribed to them. 🙂

            You are wrong about my knowledge of Hebrew. 🙂

            Isaiah was written in Hebrew, not in Greek, and the Hebrew word means “circle” or “sphere”. 🙂

            There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that the earth is flat. That’s a myth made up by those who have never read the Bible Scientists who proved the earth was not flat were Christians – young earth Creationists, in fact – and they stood up against popular scientific notion to prove that the earth is a sphere. 🙂

          • John N

            Sorry, Guest, most books and certainly autobiographs are not scientific journals. For one thing, they are not peer reviewed. They are worthless as scientific evidence. Try again.

            And the Hebrew word for sphere is “dwr”, not “chugh” – as the greek translators knew very well. Wrong again.

          • Guest

            Scientific books written by scientists that tell how they arrived at their discoveries ARE science books. 🙂 If you had a science degree, you’d know that and would have studied the books I cited. 🙂 Those same books are cited in modern scientific journals to this day. 🙂

            You are wrong about the Hebrew word for “sphere” and clearly do not know Hebrew. 🙂 The same word can also be translated as “compass” and there are many verses that are translated thusly. 🙂

          • John N

            Now, they are not. They are called ‘autobiographies’ for a reason – because they are personal stories.

            And indeed “chugh” can be translated by ‘compass’ or ‘compassed’ – drawn by a compass. A circle is drawn by a compass. A sphere is not. Thanks for confirming I’m right.

          • Guest

            You clearly did not take a university physics course. 🙂 Indeed, Newton’s and Pupin’s autobiographies are included as text books and are required reading. 🙂

            Regarding “chugh” – do spheres have quadrants? How about circles? Be careful how you answer. It’s clear you never studied geometry either. 🙂

          • John N

            Autobiographies from devote christians are required reading for a universitary physics course? Now where did you study physics?

            Knowledge of geometry is not required to read your bible, but of course some knowledge – like the value of pi – helps a lot in finding its errors. Any more arguments for your claim?

          • Guest

            Harvard, Princeton – they all use Pupin’s and Newton’s biographies as part of general science courses. 🙂 In fact, I can’t think of a single respected institute of learning that doesn’t require it at a higher level of learning. Certainly required reading for a Master’s Course.

            Knowledge of geometry is not necessary to read the Bible, but knowing the Bible makes the knowledge of geometry more understandable, and opens the way for major scientific discoveries. Most, if not all, scientific discoveries, were made by individuals who believed in God and respected the Bible.

          • John N

            Do they? Very strange.

            I do not know of one university where reading biographies of christians, or of any autobiographies at all, is part of the curriculum for physics training . But you’re free to post the evidence here.

            So instead of giving any evidence for your claim ‘ the bible says the earth is a globe’ you just switch to making more silly claims. What is your evidence that most/all scientific findings have been made by believers in your specific god?

            Please take into account that according to recent surveys, even in the US only one third of scientists believe in your god, and in Europe even much less than that

          • Guest

            It’s not strange at all, and the fact that you think it is shows that you’ve never studied science. 🙂 These books contain very little of the personal aspect of each scientist’s life, but does spend much time on how they developed their finds. Newton speaks about a verse in Isaiah, while Pupin discusses Genesis and Psalms, and says that taught him that if God could communicate with us via light, then we could communicate with each other via light as well. Einstein himself talked about a belief in God, as did Faraday, Pasteur, and most (if not all) great scientists. Damadian talks about his faith and a young earth Creationist viewpoint while discussing how he invented the MRI. I only have a secular education, but it was instrumental in guiding me to faith. The higher up I went, the more I felt drawn to God and His Word.

          • John N

            Ok. So no evidence for your claim christians’ autobiographies are used in physics curiculum in Harvard or Princeton?

            And if you think about scientists, you only know Newton, Pupin, Faraday, Pasteur, Damadian and Einstein? No acientists active in the last 50 years? No Englert of Higgs? No Lindahl, Modrich or Sancar? Szostak, Blackburn or Greider? Not even Dawkins, Gould or Sagan? I mean, only in the US there around 6 million scientists and engineers at work. And you just name 6?

            And even about them you are incorrect – Enstein did not belief in the god of the bible: ‘I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.’.

            Need I say more?

          • Guest

            What do you want me to do? Scan a copy of my syllabus? 🙂

            As far as your comment about me choosing scientists not active in the last 50 years – uh, did you not realize that Damadian is alive and well right now? 🙂 And that the scientists you listed never discovered anything? 🙂

            And you are wrong about Einstein. He did believe in the God of the Bible. He may not have claimed him as his personal God, but he did reference him repeatedly. If you’d read his writings instead of copying the odd quote from an atheist site you’d know that. 🙂

            Here are some living creationist scientists for you:

            Sung-Do Cha
            Dr. Tsin
            Dr Eugene F. Chaffin
            Dr Harold Coffin
            Dr. Steve Austin
            Dr. Saami Shaibani

            Dr. Keith Wanser
            Dr. Henry Zuill

            That’s just off the top of my head. 🙂 Have a nice day, John. 🙂

          • Bluesman1950

            Newton believed in alchemy too!

          • Irene C

            God said v. 7 “then the Lord God formed the man of dust” When you die, your body is going to turn in what? Job 34:15 “man would return to dust” tell me that is not what happen to us? Ecclesiastes 3:20 “All are from the dust, and to dust all return” We are dust.

        • Paul Bray

          Sorry, true science doesn’t make exceptions for geocentric creation myths.

          • Guest

            Indeed, there is no room for myths in science, which is why evolution must be tossed out the window.

      • Irene C

        How many species of lizard exist in this world? How many of them are extinct?
        I have no problem with Genesis 1 and 2, I do my homework of reading the book everyday. If you read chapter 1 and 2 you will read on the first chapter the title that read “The Creation of the WORLD” ESV chapter 2 read “The Creation of Man and Woman” on the second chapter He give us more details about the creation of the Man and the Woman. The book of Genesis begin with the introduction Who made the Heavens and Earth, Where the Spirit of God was, Who created the light and more. There is not confusion between both chapters. First Chapter WHO? Second Chapter WHY? WHERE?

        • John N

          How many species of lizards? Why? And most of them will be extinct, because lizards have been around for quite a while – 220 million years to be more precisely. A lot of time for them to have evolved to what they are now.

          So what’s your point exactly?

          • Irene C

            They are not evolved… because there’s many species of lizards doesn’t mean they evolved. Lizards don’t have that power. They are just LIZARDS, they were lizards in the past, they are lizards now and they will be lizards for rest of their life. You just said “lizards have been around for quite a while – 220 million years” that is my point. They do not evolved. They are many of species, that’s all.

          • John N

            And those many of species just popped up miraculously in those 220 million years, of course. Because, you know, they have that power.

            Lizards did evolve into dinosaurs, birds and mammals, did you know that? Now, we can discuss on dinosaurs, but birds and mammals do not look like lizards to me. Or are you saying you are a lizard yourself?

          • Irene C

            Wow… really? tell a better story than that one. They are lizards and they still lizards today. Lizards give birth lizards, birds give birth birds. They can’t decide what they want to be in the future.

          • John N

            That is correct – no lizard ever has decided to be a dinosaur tomorrow. That would mean they are here for a rreason, like your bible seems to think. You do have little knowledge of the theory of evolution, if you think it works like that.

            Still, they evolved into dinosaurs, birds and mammals. All available evidence points to that: their fossils, their anatomy, and their DNA. No creationist has been able to refute that evidence, but you are free to give it a try.

    • UtahTwisted

      “Bats are birds: Leviticus 11:13-19

      Not a very good science book… the bible

      • Irene C

        The Bible is number one as a science book. Mention Leviticus 11:13-19 is not an answer but you know what? Bats still bats today since Leviticus was written. Who name the birds on that list you mention? Who gave the name to the bats? The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see.

        • Bats have not always had the name, “bat.” Rather than seek answers in the Bible, Google the etymology of the word and discover it’s true origins.

          Language changes over time. Were you to hear a person speak who was alive during the Roman occupation of England, you would have great difficulty understanding her, if you could understand at all.

          A bat has not always been called a bat in English for the simple reason English, as you know it, has not always existed. The name has changed much in the past few thousand years–but a few thousand years is normally not enough to completely speciate. “A rose by any other name . . .”

          The non scientific names (the common names) we use are a result of hundreds/thousands of years of migration and conquest by people of many different languages. Examples: the word bat in English is Murciélago in Spanish, and chauve souris in French. Even the same language changes over time. There are words the British use that you would not recognize, and vice versa.

          • Irene C

            We referring to “bat” because that’s the language we are speaking in here. Sir, the Bible is the first source of all things. Google began couple years ago. “Bat” the Hebrew word (atalleph’) so rendered ( Leviticus 11:19 ; Deuteronomy 14:18 ) that’s the language used to write the old testament five to seven thousands years ago. The bat is reckoned among the birds in the list of unclean animals. This is what we are talking about in here. Anyway we are still using the word “bat” in English to recognize a “bat”.

          • Sir, the Bible is the first source of all things.

            Indeed? Bats are not birds, they are flying mammals. Disease (mental or physical) isn’t caused by demons or an angry god. If we accepted that fallacy, many billions of us would have died who did not, and it is quite possible that you and I would never have existed.

            And, contrary to Bible, the earth is not just “round” and nor has it corners. It is a sphere. The solar system and universe is not geocentric, our solar system is “heliocentric” and our galaxy is contains roughly 100 billion stars/solar systems–and there are billions of galaxies.

            Somehow, I never saw any of that in the Bible. And, BTW, there are animals indigenous to other parts of the world that were nowhere near the Middle East 6000-10000 years ago.

            Did Adam name the three toed sloth?

            The main question, however, is; Do you deny all science and believe the Bible is the only book we need in schools?

          • Irene C

            I’m not going to repeat myself on this dumb topic. The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. Bats are the last on the group of birds in the Bible because of what I just mention before. I don’t know from where you are getting your nonsense but I’m not going to give importance to that.

            Can you mention what Bible verse is talking about the shape of the earth. Again stop copy and paste from everywhere in the internet (that is not smart)

            Sure you can’t see anything in the Bible if you don’t understand what you read in there, if you don’t believe in the author. Where were you when the Lord our God laid the foundation of the earth?

            Obviously you can’t understand what the Bible said. Adam wasn’t the only one in name animals. Genesis clearly say “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And LET THEM HAVE DOMINION OVER THE FISH OF THE SEA AND OVER THE BIRDS OF THE HEAVENS AND OVER THE LIVESTOCK AND OVER ALL THE EARTH AND OVER EVERY CREEPING THING THAT CREEPS ON THE EARTH.” God gave us the authority to name and have dominion over all on the earth except have dominion over other humans.

            The atheists deny the Bible not other way around.

          • I do appreciate your civility here. I completely understand your position and I would respect it if it didn’t find its way into politics. That is my only real grip, and it is the only reason I debate theological issues. It’s fine with me whatever anyone believes, but everyone who believes the Bible are quite short on understanding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which places all religions (and the not religious) on the same plane in the eyes of government). We are all equal in our right to freedom of conscience.

            Fundamentalism is always wide open to self-serving, lying politicians who frequently thump the Bible and say what it wants to hear, but then works for corporations to the detriment of the working poor–many of whom are fundamentalists and still voted for them.

            The round Earth: Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

            You accuse me of plagiarism? Please point out what you believe I have copied and pasted besides quoting your own words?

            Where were you when the Lord our God laid the foundation of the earth?

            Where were you? Where’s the evidence. And you cannot point to the Bible to prove itself.

            Obviously you can’t understand what the Bible said. Adam wasn’t the only one in name animals.

            Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. (KJV)

          • Irene C

            Isaiah 40:22 is not talking about the shape of the earth… is talking about God’s sovereign over the earth “God is the one who rules the whole earth, and we that live here are merely insects.” It’s what it means…

            You can’t answer a question because any human was presented when God laid the foundation of the earth.

            In the beginning Adam gave names to animals… God gave not only authority to Adam He gave authority to all men “Let THEM have dominion” is in plural. Today science still giving names to animals, fish, birds, insects they discover.

          • Ah, interpretations.

            Genesis 1:26 ¶And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

            I think I see what you are saying. You are saying here that the word, “Man” in this sentence means that “Adam” was simply the progenitor of “mankind?” Do you think that was a metaphor for the first archaic human to diverge from apes? Or, do you take the Genesis Creations verbatim?

            But, I detect an equivocation in your “naming the animals” theological hypothesis. That a god gave Adam (the supposed first man) the authority to name all the animals, but gave “Men” the authority of dominion (sovereignty) over animals, is not giving men the same thing as the first man was given.

            That a king has sovereignty over his subjects does not mean he names them.

            Another question is begged by this verse: Does the use of the plural pronoun, “us,” have the same effect as the plural pronoun, “them?” Or, do you reinterpret the “us” to be singular?

            If you are to believe that the bible is literally true, then you must accept that “Adam” was the first human being on earth, the words “naming” and “dominion” have completely different meanings, and plural pronouns are, indeed, plural. Yahweh had company.

            As for your suggesting that no one was there when your god created everything is the same as saying that no one can “disprove” it. But, this is the precise reason that the creation story does not belong in the science classroom–it is not science.

            A valid scientific hypotheses is one that can be falsified (tested for verification). For a scientific hypothesis or theory to remain valid, it must continue to be independently verifiable.

            Therefore, there are many ways to disprove or verify aspects of evolution, but not creationism/intelligent design. Inconsistencies abound in the Bible and in the minds of Judeo-Christian society, but they are still believed without question.

            Inconsistency in a scientific theory will trigger the death of the theory or its replacement with one that fits the evidence and is consistent. It is a self correcting process based on evidence. The Bible is not.

      • Tangent002

        True. And you cannot breed speckled goats by having the parents mate in front of stripes made of sticks.

        Genesis 30:37-39

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    God created creatures according to their kind as He decreed. Atheists have no correct model in anything. Only the Holy Bible does.

    • John N

      So Grace, how does your bible explains an extinct species of lizard captured in a piece of 90 million old solidified resin?

      Chapters and verse please.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        Proof that your piece of solidified resin is in fact 90 Million years old please.

        • John N

          I’m sorry, proof is for lawyers.

          As for evidence, read the article.

          If you don’t agree, you are free to redo their investigation and propose a more accurate estimate.

          So do you have a bible chapter explaining how extinct lizards can be captured in a 90 million old piece of resin?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        It’s not 90 million old. You guys have been deceived by the atheistic fiction writers. They are experimenting with you to see how much absurdity you’d willfully take by declaring outrageous numbers on years without any ground. They believe that time creates everything. The possibility is zero. God created everything – a finished universe. Read Genesis ch.1-2, The Gospel of John ch. 1-3, and Colossians ch. 1.

        • John N

          Nope, no lizards in there.

          Try again or admit you were lying.

  • ComeOnPeople!

    If evolution be true then show me an animal or human that is still evolving . Oh I know I know ahaha the process is so slow that we just can’t see it happening. COME ON! Amazing because I can see a baby born after the human kind, a cow born after it’s kind, a dog born after it’s kind… etc etc

    • John N

      Easy. Look in the mirror.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        So John, you were born with a tail and have lost it? Oh or maybe your parents had a tail but you don’t but have horns? I looked in the mirror and saw a human, then I looked at a photo album and saw my parents and grandparents. Yup all human. The only mutation was my Grandma of a very huge nose. Thank God I have evolved to a mordent sized one.

        • Tangent002

          Humans have a vestigial tail. On rare occasion, an infant will be born with an actual one that must be removed.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Still a human after the human kind. Apes have little baby apes. Dogs have little baby dogs. If a puppy is born with an extra leg or a horn , it is still a baby dog. All animals are still producing after their kind. They may grow thicker fur to adapt to the cold or any other adaptation but they will remain a dog or an ape or what have you.

            Copied off of a web page on the tail claims…. Monkeys generally have tails and apes don’t. If evolutionists believe that the tail is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which don’t have tails? Which tailed ape is this anomaly supposed to be throwing back to anyway? If you go through the apes and alleged ape-men claimed to be in humans’ evolutionary lineage, you can’t find one that had a tail like any human baby born with this appendage , because it is useless as a tail.

            And isn’t natural selection supposed to favor improvements, and not impediments? Why then would natural selection cause something as useful as a tail to wither into an encumbrance and then disappear?

            The TalkOrigins website thinks that some “tail” abnormalities on humans are evidence of evolution, and at the time of writing they point out that there is “at least one known example of a primate tail that lacks vertebrae, as found in the rudimentary two-inch-long tail of Macaca sylvanus (the Barbary ape)”.

            Rhesus macaqueUnfortunately, we could not find any other evolutionists who were willing to say that a tail that lacks vertebrae on a human is evidence that a Barbary ape turned into a human. And we must point out that the Barbary “ape” is actually a monkey, not an ape, and most monkeys have tails anyway. So how does it help the evolutionists’ claim that ape-like creatures turned into humans by saying that a monkey has a tail?

            We also could not find evidence that the Barbary macaque is considered to be closer to humanity than, say, the rhesus macaque, which has a long tail (see drawing above). But we will continue looking.

            Evolutionists notoriously change their evidence to suit the occasion. So they can’t blame people for treating evolution as something of a “fairy tail”.

        • John N

          Not born with, but indeed all mammal embryos do have a tail, including humans. We lose it when we become a foetus.

          More evidence of humans being nothing more than apes, primates, mammals, animals.

          If you want to see humans evolve, then compare your body lenght with that of your ancestors of the last hundreds generations.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Sorry I have not fully evolved yet and can only understand you if you send me a video jumping up and down, scratching your back side and holding a banana . Please send said video so I might understand. As I wait, I shall sit down and pick lice out of my fur and have din din. Do please help me understand, you have lost your fur and are much more evolved then me. OO OO OO I wanna be like you oo oo.

          • John N


            But if it comes back, please visit a physician.

    • Tangent002

      I have a beneficial mutation in that I had only three of the usual four wisdom teeth. I passed that mutation on to one of my sons.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        And so now your son is no longer of the human kind?

        • Tangent002

          Nope. You asked for evidence we are still evolving. I provided. If you expect a dog to give birth to a snufflecack, or whatever, in a single go, that’s a straw-man.

  • Tangent002

    The fact that some species demonstrate a remarkable degree of relative genetic stasis is no problem for evolution at all. It simply means that the species is well-adapted to its particular environmental niche.

  • Tangent002

    Here’s my question: If evolution and deep-time cosmology were true, would that necessarily invalidate the message of Jesus?

  • Psygn


  • Brett Williams

    stop being willfully ignorant please

  • Hal Slusher

    Believe don’t believe on your own head be it.

  • Gena B

    I think people should be more concerned about where they are going…

    • Tangent002

      I’m going to the grocery store later today…

  • Let’s take a closer look at science and creationism.

    The difference is that real science uses the scientific method:

    A scientist begins with a question about some natural phenomenon that isn’t well understood. She then formulates a hypothesis (scientific guess or preliminary conclusion) to explain the phenomenon based on a wealth of accumulated knowledge of past research done on similar phenomena—an educated guess.

    She then thinks of ways to test her hypothesis, predicting a certain outcome if her hypotheses is correct. If the tests fail to support her hypothesis, then she throws out the hypothesis in favor of one that better fits the evidence. If her tests tend to confirm her hypothesis/conclusion, then she publishes her findings, including the details of her experiments. Note that it is not yet a scientific theory—it is still a hypothesis. One scientist does not a theory make.

    Then comes the most critical part of the scientific method: independent verification. Scientists in the same field of study will recreate her experiment to confirm her results, and then think of their own experiments to either confirm or refute the hypothesis.

    Only after years of independent confirmation does the hypothesis become a valid scientific theory. It is called a “theory” because, ideally, it is always open to evidence that might render the theory (confirmed conclusion) invalid.

    A Creationist begins with a concrete conclusion—God created everything very much as we see it today. In order to refute evolutionary science, which refutes the biblical creations, he then finds phenomena in nature that he believes supports his conclusion. If evidence is found that tends to refute his conclusion, then he throws out the evidence in favor of the conclusion. At no time and under no circumstances will the conclusion be suspect.

    The logical fallacy here is evident even to the dullest student in freshman critical-thinking (informal logic). Real science does not make concrete conclusions based on belief. In fact, real science makes no concrete conclusions at all. To the layman who uses reason, however, there is quite enough evidence to understand that evolution is a fact.

    A final point: Science does not attack anyone’s religion. Science is simply looking for physical explanations for physical phenomena. If the evidence supports theories that tend to step on someone’s theological toes, it was wholly unintentional. But it would be dishonest to toss out the evidence.

  • First, a note to the moderators: This is not an attack on creationism, it is an honest and civil explanation of the difference between science and creationism. This post is on topic because the article is about what creationists believe might be evidence for young Earth creationism. I will believe it if solid evidence is independently verified. I will try to locate just want offended you and expunge.

    Anyone can understand the most fundamental basis for science simply by understanding the scientific method:

    A scientist begins with a question about some natural phenomenon that isn’t well understood. She then formulates a hypothesis (scientific guess or preliminary conclusion) to explain this phenomenon based on a wealth of accumulated knowledge of past research done on similar phenomena.

    She then thinks of ways to test her hypothesis, predicting a certain outcome if her hypotheses is correct. If the tests fail to support her hypothesis, then she throws out the hypothesis in favor of one that better fits the evidence. If her tests tend to confirm her hypothesis/conclusion, then she publishes her findings and includes the details of her experiments. Note that it is not yet an accepted scientific theory—it is still a hypothesis.

    Then comes the most critical part of the scientific method: independent verification. Scientists in the same field of study recreate her experiment to confirm her results, and then think of their own experiments to either confirm or refute the hypothesis.

    Only after years of independent confirmation does the hypothesis become a valid scientific theory. It is called a “theory” because, ideally, it is always open to evidence that might render the theory (confirmed conclusion) invalid.
    If the following is not correct, then please give me the reason it is not:

    A Creationist begins with a conclusion—God created everything very much as we see it today. In order to refute evolutionary science, which indirectly refutes biblical creation, he finds phenomena in nature that he believes supports his conclusion. If evidence is found that tends to refute his conclusion, then he throws out the evidence in favor of the conclusion. At no time and under no circumstances will the conclusion be suspect.

    Real science does not make concrete conclusions based on belief. In fact, real science makes no concrete conclusions at all.

    The bottom line is that science does not intentionally attack anyone’s religion. Science is simply looking for physical explanations for physical phenomena. If the evidence supports theories that tend to rub against someone’s religious belief, it is wholly unintentional. But it would be dishonest to toss out the evidence.

  • The similarity between today’s lizards and these preserved lizards from the past is a tricky subject for evolutionists. Did no evolution occur over those 99 million years?

    This statement tends to mislead the public on the process of evolution. Evolution does not say that every species changes into another species. It says that there is a divergence of one species from another.

    For example, there is evidence that humans and apes/chimps diverged from a common ancestor. The evidence lies in our second chromosome. But that does not say that the progenitor species did not continue to live. Often the P species will die out, but sometimes it might survive.

  • Not all forms of this miracle of Life have the God-given capacity or need to evolve toward God, the Creator of the universe and all its constituents.

  • Found One

    Oh my. Cr and AIG . You might as well ask the kids!!

  • Found One

    Science Advances does not require scientific consensus for publication? Then it is not a science journal. It is only an outlet for the jackass Discovery Institute and other fools.

  • Elie Challita

    When your entire argument hinges on “Did no evolution occur over those 99 million years”, you might want to consider the following:

    Evolution occurs in response to outside pressure, as animals that are better able to breed or survive (the two aren’t always complementary). If no beneficial mutation occurs that can increase a species’ survivability, that species will not evolve until new conditions occur.

    A gecko-like lizard preserved in amber simply means that geckos have been very well adapted to their environments for millions of years, and that they can survive in a broad range of environments. Frankly this is nothing new:

    Coelacanths as well as certain species of sharks and crocodiles have barely changed in millions of years because they simply have no reason to: They are very well adapted to their environment. From looking at the fossil record, though we can determine that other species that were related to them existed once, but went extinct because they couldn’t adapt to changing conditions.

  • Seen From Space

    It’s not unusual at all for outward features of an animal to change very little over millions of years. What IS strange is that YECs should make “uniformitarian assumptions” of their own, and decree that anything should – or shouldn’t – happen over millions of years! How do you know that the animal’s immune system hasn’t evolved considerably? Asserting that a successful phenotype that endures is some kind of embarrassment for evolution just shows ignorance of biology.

  • rational_being

    Perfectly consistent with evolution theory. A pattern well-adapted to a particular niche will persist in that niche. In fact unrelated species may converge to similar patterns in a given niche.

    The interesting thing would be if there is a significant amount of preserved DNA. Comparing that with modern DNA from similar species would probably find noticeable differences in areas of the genome that are not essential for preserving the successful pattern.