RECORD IS CATASTROPHIC, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Univ. of Chicago, “A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a ‘way of life’ although they may avoid the word catastrophe… The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record. The days are almost gone when a geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the total amount of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in centimeters per thousand years. The nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exist in popular treatments of geology, in some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks….one can hardly blame the creationists for having the idea that the conventional wisdom in geology is still a noncatastrophic one.” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Vol.54, March 1983), p.2 1

Thus, a modern fish is assumed to be over 400 million years old, when it might be only a few millenia old. The geologic column may well be in need of drastic overhaul if supposedly extinct fish keep turning up where they shouldn’t.

Damn, trolls are just SO predictable.

J/P=?

BUILT BY CORRELATION, L. DON LEET (Harvard) & SHELDON JUDSON (Princeton), “Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. This process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the Latin for ‘together’ plus ‘relate’”. PHYSICAL GEOLOGY, P.181

NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ. “And this poses something of a problem,: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?” TIME FRAMES, 1985, p.52

J. E. O’ROURKE, “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.”, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.51

TOM KEMP, Oxford, “A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?” New Scientist, Vol.108, Dec.5, 1985, p. 67

DAVID M. RAUP, U. of Chicago; Field Museum of N.H., “The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity…Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found.”, FMONH Bulletin, Vol. 54, Mar. 1983, p.21

D. B. KITTS, Univ. of Oklahoma, “But the danger of circularity is still present…. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation….for almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.”, Evolution Vol. 28, p.466

“Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science.” I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.

“The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion.” More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], “The Dogma of Evolution,” Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.

BOTHERSOM DISTRESS, STEPHEN J. GOULD, Harvard, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980. “Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. …They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

“WE KNEW BETTER”, NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum Of Natural History, “And it has been the paleontologist, my own breed, who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: …. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.”, TIME FRAMES, 1986, p.144

GOOD RECORD-BAD PREDICTION, NILES ELIDRIDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. … One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

THERE’S A GREAT DEAL MORE!

RE: the coelacanth (learn to spell, and look up data before making a fool of yourself) was first discovered in 1938 (when the Earth was 4026 years old..) which isn’t ‘recent’ even to an old fart like moi.
Why did it not change? Why should it if the environment it lives in didn’t lead to mutations forcing changes? That’s the ‘if men evolved from apes…’ fallacy. Sharks are still very similar to prehistoric forms, as well. Change is only needed when the environment leads to mutation being beneficial, it’s not ‘automatic’.

J/P=?

Hovind reports that the “Lobe Finned Fish” was once believed to be extinct and was known only from fossils. It was dated by the geologic formation in which its fossils were found to a bit over 400 million years. Then one was recently caught, proving the species still lives. The reaction was surprise that this species was still living after all this time, but no one wuestioned the geologic column by which it has been dated. Tell me, if this species was ideed living over 400 million years ago, how come it’s modern representative hasn’t evolved one iota? The specimen caught was identical to its fossil ancestor.

This same problem occurred when a “celiocanth” was netted by fishermen recently. The latter species was once thought to have died out “millions and millions” of years ago. But the modern fish was anatomically identical to the fossil examples. Something wrong with dating by the geologic column perhaps?