Based on the fossil record, amniotes were thought to have evolved around 320 million years ago. However, this new discovery of clawed amniote footprints in Australia from 350 million years ago throws these estimations hugely off… “I'm stunned,” study co-author Per Ahlberg, a professor of paleontology at Uppsala University, said in a statement. “A single track-bearing slab, which one person can lift, calls into question everything we thought we knew about when modern tetrapods evolved.”
You can read the whole article for itself but here's the gist of it. Evolutionists believe they know when reptiles evolved. However, two amateur palaeontologists found a fossilized track left by a lizard supposedly walking around 30 million years earlier than they had believed.
I read articles like this all the time. Some new fossil is found that changes everything evolutionists thought they already knew about their theory. It’s rather hilarious because it points out the flimsy foundation on which they’ve built their models. How can anything in science be so imprecise and still be considered a "well tested" theory? There are so many things I could say about this article that I’m not sure where to start. Here are just a few thoughts.
DAWKINS’ “WRONG DATE ORDER” TEST
Richard Dawkins, a rabid atheist and evolutionary apologist, once spoke a terrible lie saying, “Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.” Dawkins tells this lie to make it sound like evolution is a very robust theory that is tested every time a new fossil is found. Evolutionists make this claim all the time. Biologist, J. B. S. Haldane famously quipped that if we ever found “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian,” that would disprove evolution.
Yet in spite of all their hubris, these quotes and every quote like them are all bluff. Radically out of order dates assigned to fossils will never disprove their theory. Rather, they merely “correct” their theory. Just google the term “evolved earlier than thought” or “fossil rewrites evolution” and see how many hits you find. Go ahead, I dare you! They say a fossil in the “wrong date order” will disprove evolution but we find examples by the dozen and nothing changes. Well, Mr. Dawkins, here’s a fossil in the wrong date order. Are you going to denounce your theory? I didn’t think so.
They’re all liars!
NYE ON EDUCATION
There’s an oft repeated claim that, if kids are taught creation, they won’t be able to understand science. Bill Nye has made this very point. In his own words, he claimed the following (source):
[T]here are more people in the world — another billion people all trying to use the world’s resources. And the threat and consequences of climate change are more serious than ever, so we need as many people engaged in how we’re going to deal with that as possible. And we have an increasingly technologically sophisticated society. We are able to feed these 7.2 billion people because of our extraordinary agricultural technology. If we have a society that’s increasingly dependent on these technologies, with a smaller and smaller fraction of that society who actually understands how any of it works, that is a formula for disaster.... My biggest concern about creationist kids is that they’re compelled to suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical thinking skills at a time in human history when we need them more than ever.... There are just things about evolution that we should all be aware of, the way we’re aware of where electricity comes from.
Life improving technologies - made by real scientists - are made every day without a single thought being given to evolution. Nye thinks we need to understand evolution just like we understand electricity. Really, Nye? You want us to think we can understand evolution the way we understand electricity? Finds like this highlight exactly how unsure “scientists” really are about evolution. Remember the quote from the Live Science article, “[This] single track-bearing slab, which one person can lift, calls into question everything we thought we knew about when modern tetrapods evolved.” If we had this same lack of precision in how we understand electricity, we'd still be reading by candlelight. Yet they still insist that kids are taught evolution as though it somehow will help them understand “science.”
I’ve seen videos where kids can't answer basic questions about science or politics or geography or history. If evolutionists were truly worried about preparing kids for the future, they would be alarmed that young people don’t know how many dimes make a dollar! But no, they think we need to devote more energy and resources to teaching them evolution! I truly believe they are more interested in indoctrinating kids rather than educating them.
EVOLUTION IS NOT IMPORTANT ANYWAY
In 1977, construction on the Citigroup Center in New York was completed. Because of a building restriction, the 59-story building was built on 4 stilts, positioned in the middle of each side of the building, rather than at the 4 corners. In the following year, a young, architectural student was asking the building’s structural engineer, William LeMessurier, a question about wind shear for the building when LeMessurier realized a terrible error had been made in the planning. The stresses put on the building due to wind were much higher than the design had anticipated and the building would almost certainly collapse eventually.
In real sciences, like engineering, being wrong could have terrible consequences. Fortunately, evolutionary biology isn’t really a science. So what happened when these tracks were discovered? I’ll tell you: a bunch of biologists probably started running around, redrawing their cherished, nested hierarchy. In the meantime, the rest of science continued its work improving people's lives. The average person didn’t even notice. Evolution is just that unimportant.
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., tackled the myth that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. He noted that a survey of college textbooks showed that most rarely discuss evolution. The anatomy and physiology text books examined didn't mention evolution at all. Of the colleges surveyed in Ohio and Michigan, biology majors were required to only take one class in evolution.
From a Bergman article, we read this:
National Academy of Science Member and renown carbene chemist, Professor emeritus Dr. Philip Skell of Pennsylvania State University (see Lewis, 1992), did a survey of his colleagues that were “engaged in non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects.” He found that the “Darwinist researchers” he interviewed, in answer to the question, “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin's theory was wrong?” that “for the large number” of persons he questioned, “differing only in the amount of hemming and hawing” was “in my work it would have made no difference.”
Evolution is the trivial pursuit branch of science. If you were to google, “how evolution helps research,” you'll find plenty of articles by people trying to convince you that understanding evolution is critical to scientific research. Here's another exercise to try: see if you can find any invention, scientific advancement, or life improving technology whose discovery hinged upon evolution being true. Maybe you can find one, but it is dwarfed by the explosion of improvements in medicine, computers, and technology that had nothing to do with understanding evolution. If you ask me, I think it's a shame that we waste resources studying the theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment