Stinking Fossils and Smelly Science

In the past few decades, there has been an increasing number of paleontological discoveries that challenge the evolutionary paradigm. But we haven’t heard about them. In fact, years of excuses and denials is starting to expose the ideological and metaphysical prejudice of the so-called empiricists who continue to cheer for the reigning dogma of macro-evolution in spite of mounting evidence against it.

In 1993, Mary Schweitzer discovered blood cells in dinosaur fossils. That’s right—blood cells. Though her paleontological discovery was monumental, she couldn’t get a scientific journal to publish her findings. They all thought her sample must have been tainted. She fought back with heaps of other evidences, all of which were also rejected. In the past twenty years, technological advances have allowed paleontologists to find even more interesting things in dinosaur bones—proteins, hemoglobin, collagen, and radiocarbon. But still, the scientific community insists that this evidence is part of a vast and “unscientific” religious conspiracy.

Mary Schweitzer’s struggle to get published is extremely informative. An article in tells a little more of her story:

“If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?”

Why indeed? Unless of course they haven’t been extinct for millions of years, and their remains were preserved quickly under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago, or even more recently. But so entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr. Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published. “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,” says Schweitzer. “I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”

One could argue that is not the most neutral voice in this argument. I agree. But that doesn’t mean the evolutionary opposition is more neutral. The problem is that no voice on this topic is neutral. Every person in this argument has a vested philosophical interest in interpreting the evidence in a way favorable to his paradigm. But, historically, creationists are not the ones who have been doctoring the evidence. From Piltdown Man to Archeoraptor, evolutionary scientists have been desperate to find evidence of macro-evolution in fossils—and just as desperate to suppress evidence to the contrary.

Long before Schweitzer’s findings, paleontologists noted that many fossil beds stank like death. Stinking fossils were all over the world. So the truth was literally under and in their noses, but they couldn’t figure it out. Fossils aren’t supposed to smell rotten if the evolutionary paradigm is right. But evolutionists, blind to all evidence but what supports their hypothesis, have swept an increasing number of anomalies under the rug.

The so-called uniform solidarity of evolutionary “science” is actually a misleading pastiche of carefully selected evidential snapshots. Ironically, the most open-minded and free perspective on the available evidence is actually being accumulated by the people “scientists” call “close-minded.” Beyond profuse denials, evolutionists have not been able to explain stinking fossils and dinosaur blood cells in purportedly millions-of-years-old bones. But eventually, the anomalies will outweigh the consensus and the evolutionary paradigm will fall. I hope I’m alive to see it.

129 responses

  1. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Go to & find out the earth is really FLAT!!!!! You anti-science KOOKS are FRIGHTENING!!!!

    • Wow, you sure get around Mr Bob – too bad you have no idea what you’re talking about…there are very few people who actually believe what you are spouting…

      • Moron, get out of you’re trailer park once in a while & you’ll find that the ENTIRE PLANET believes in evolution except for a few religious KOOKS!!!!

        • When you have no evidence to offer, you resort to shouting and name-calling. That’s very grown up of you! (NOT)

          • Bob, the mixing of the theory of evolution with all these other things just reveals your own ignorance. Where’s your transitional species, huh Bob? No answer? Of course not, because there are none.

          • You are obviously a compete IDIOT!!! There is no such thing as a transitional species or “missing link”! The reason for this is that ALL species are transitional species! The concept of “species” is a classification that is made by humans strictly for organizational purposes. So a “transitional species” is a contextual classification, nothing more.But since, given evolutionary theory, all species are in the process of evolutionary change (assuming they don’t become extinct), all species are themselves giving rise to new species eventually, and thus we can say equally that all species are “transitional.”

          • so Bob now we are all evolving into something else right,well that make you a prophet as now you can tell the future,and what we are to become,my my Bob I do believe you are making this up as you go,what you have Just stated is pure nonsense,no one but an insane person would believe this bunch of dribble,and you call us nuts.—-Jim Hunt

          • “The reason for this is that ALL species are transitional species”

            The “Cambrian Explosion” proves your argument is asinine nonsense.

          • Yes, from an evolutionary perspective you are correct but you still should be able to see a stepwise development of species from the fossil record. If you don’t see it or anything like it then you must admit that the theory of evolution is lacking evidence. We are observing microevolution or the programmed design in life to keep it going, and extrapolating that macroevolution did occur resulting in the evolutionary tree. We must acknowledge that this is a huge extrapolation that very well may be false.

          • actually Bob the discovery of DNA proves that evolution is not true one species cannot change into another,for instance a monkey turns into a man,or a little ameba will someday give way to a reptile,or a mammal,the Bible Clearly tells us that every seed produces after its on kind,a cat will always give birth to a cat,a dog to a dog dream on Bob,because thats all it is, make believe.—-Jim Hunt

          • No evidence??? There isn’t ANY theory on earth that has MORE evidence! I suggest you get yourself a 3rd grade science book & start your learning process.

        • Mr Bob, why always so angry? Is anyone personally forcing you to believe what they believe? If you believe in pure evolution and lack of a deity, that’s fine. Who cares but you, right? But instead, you do the exact same thing that you perpetually complain that the other side does. You angrily denounce others and their beliefs while you always accuse Creationists of doing the same thing. Just because you’re convinced that you know the truth you cannot allow others their own rights to what they see as truth. I’ll be the first one to say that religious people can also be insulting, judgmental, and short sighted. But you’ve taken it upon yourself to be the angry response to what you despise as others’ angry response. What do any of you hope to accomplish? It’s only people of either side who are willing to listen and be understanding that actually promote knowledge and discovery. You do neither because every time you comment it’s an attempt to perpetuate animosity. What’s really the point? You dont live others’ lives and they don’t live yours so why the war? I believe you really think you’re correct in your beliefs which I can respect, but when it’s always your name every time I read comments where religious and secular people tangle, sometimes it feels pretty much like thou doth protest too much!

          • You seem like a nice person. I don’t “believe” in evolution, I accept it because of the enormous pile of data supporting it. Just like I accept that gravity follows an inverse square law, matter is composed of atoms,germs cause disease, and moving electrons constitute electricity. Scientific theories
            are not a faith. You can test them yourself and falsify them. Creationists do NOT “seek the truth” only confirmation of their own mythology. The “War” is being fought because religious kooks are trying to pass off religion as science!

          • Like the article says, “Every person in this argument has a vested philosophical interest in interpreting the evidence in a way favorable to his paradigm.”

            You’re no exception.

          • Science has no vested interest in ANYTHING but the truth!!! I assure you that if someone came up with evidence that could disprove ANY scientific theory science would embrace it! Evolution has stood the test of time & the mountains of evidence supporting it are overwhelming. But let me ask you this. Is their ANY amount of evidence theoretically possible that would convince you (or ANY creationist) that evolution is true? If not, then a belief that has no room for doubt isn’t a belief, it’s a superstation.

          • Each researcher has a vested interest in showing others that their work is of value and true. You obviously don’t work in the sciences or are so new that you don’t have a clue!

          • The scientific theories can be tested but one needs to be careful when you extrapolate it outside of the range of your collected data. This is what happened to Newtonian physics where it is useful over reference frames lower than 1/2 “c”.
            When we extend our present day physics back to the very beginning of the big bang, then we run the risk of extrapolating conclusions which are not true, just like when we extrapolate Newtonian physics near to reference frames near the speed of light.

        • Bob, you are definitely a troll. Have to be. No reasonable adult would continue to show their ignorance in this manner.

        • Are you not smart enough to figure out that the numbers of people who believe something does not, in fact, make it true?
          Talk about too stupid for science.
          You are a moron.

        • Man, you know what? When I was younger I recall the liberal idiots proclaiming GLOBAL COOLING, brain child! Now it’s the debunked theory of anthropogenic global warming! Did I catch you with that big word Bob? It means man-caused!

        • Your statements are not true. In the recent past before the big bang the speed of light is “c”. During the rapid expansion of the universe the speed of light was much faster due to general relativity and the fluctuations in the fabric of space-time.

          • I have explained already how evolution hijacks design so modern biology based on evolution is faulty and misguided. It is better to use the design paradigm where you search for hidden design and function in the genome, cell, and life in general. Geology assumes great lengths of time but they never even will look at evidence that says anything else.

      • Actually, just one piece of evidence would be helpful, but if you don’t have that, maybe you can string together a bunch of random bones and claim you found the “missing link.”

        • It’s frightening to fully understand how many Americans reject science. They ALL seem to be in the GOP which is why that party is going the way of the Whig party.

          • Read all your posts up to this point on this article Bob. Different day, same shit you always spout. Why do you bother posting here? You self flaggelate don’t you?

          • I am educated in the sciences and I reject neo-Darwinian evolution because of science! I hardly reject science but I do reject the pseudo science of evolution!

      • Bob, it would be nice if you corrected your difficulty with rectocranial inversion. No that is not what evolution means, nor does it address microevolution either.
        ANSWER ME, where are the transitional species? And right back at you!

        • the entire creationist ‘transitional species’ argument is a devious and illogical red herring very similar in nature to the ‘God of the gaps’.

          • So, we can use an argument, and you refer to it as bunk, but you can use an argument, and is sheer gold. Gotcha

          • Oh no it’s not, friend. It’s a necessary element to move from one kind or species to another. You’re just resistant to that necessity since it lays the burden of proof on YOU! Fact is you have no evidence substantiating your theory.

          • The issue of transitional fossils is not a problem? Even Darwin recognized this. The only ones who say this are devout atheists who have an agenda to spread and those trapped by their propaganda. Which one are you? If you had all the transitional fossils would that not support evolution? Since you don’t have the transitional fossils and very big leaps for the supposed ones you do have, can you acknowledge that evolution is a huge extrapolation that may be proved wrong!

  2. I want Mr Bob the genius to please explain to me why there are no transitional species, none, nada. Just a question. And could you explain to me why your ‘belief’ in evolution is not a belief? Exactly how have geologists established the exact date of geological formation, pray tell. There are so many assumptions involved at this guess that it’s maddening. There are also formations where they have uncovered humanoid remains alongside dinosaur remains, does that prove anything? Not according to you. Face it, your belief is as much a religion as any religion. You simply have no proof, nor can you. Nor can you claim the scientific method since this involves the repeatability of this, and can you demonstrate that, no, you can’t.
    Your hatred of anyone who disagrees with you devolves into as much ridicule and disdain as you can muster, all for the purpose of showing yourself correct.
    Sorry Bob, you can quote all the folks who claim themselves Christian that you want, that does nothing to establish your authority as the person with the intelligence superior to all of us knuckle draggers. I’m assuming something here in accrediting you with education, but you have no lock on reading, learning, or intelligence, in spite of your horn blowing. You demonstrate your intolerance for any viewpoint but your own.

    • the very term “transitional fossil” is essentially a misconception but your fight is not with me, it’s with science itself. Scientific theories are not a faith. You can test them yourself and falsify them, so if you can prove evolution wrong fame, fortune & a Nobel prize await you. Step up to the plate & prove something that NO scientist on the planet has been able to do yet.

      • When that is done, like in the article posted here, it is shrugged off, cast away. The “scientific” community won’t embrace things that are a change to their already wanted theories.

        • Mary Schweitzer (who happens to be a Christian) said creationists “drive her crazy” & ““They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” She also stated ” the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it”!!!

          • So, that’s one instance. What about many other examples that debunk evolution but aren’t published and nearly always passed off as false when it is reputable scientists behind them?

          • There has NEVER been ANY evidence that debunked evolution. You just don’t understand what the meaning of the word evidence is.

          • EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

            a. The universe could NOT have created itself

            In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.

            Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland … it’s not science!”11

            Lennox explains by saying; “If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent.”12 Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”13

            In relation to Hawking’s latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; “What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists”.14

            The universe cannot have created itself!

            Ravi Zacharias and John Lennox discuss Stephen’s Hawking’s ideas in his latest book entitled The Grand Design (4 part audio)

            b. The universe could NOT have always existed

            The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning.

            The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.


            The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by an outside intelligence.

            EVIDENCE 2: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

            The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

            World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
            “Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'” Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself – and that is what the second law is all about.”1

            As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes ‘a mess … deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself’. Now in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when left to themselves!

            Some people argue that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov’s quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered!

            The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very good scientific reasons; “Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us … the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words.” 9

            As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:”… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …”7

            Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence and, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, can never take place.

            Second Law of Thermodynamics – Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?

            EVIDENCE 3. Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

            To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

            Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

            A Biology textbook puts it like this: “As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis.” 8

            So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn’t make it true!

            Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

            EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve ‘bit by bit’

            In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory. Darwin’s own deductive reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only.

            We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.

            Darwin said: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” 3

            No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

            A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

            There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!

            Can evolution be the source of life in all its complexity?

            EVIDENCE 5: The Missing Links are Still Missing

            If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the ‘missing links’ are still well and truly ‘missing’.

            Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils.” 2

            What does the fossil record teach us about evolution?
            Who’s who & what’s what in the world of “missing” links?
            Is there fossil evidence of ‘missing links’ between humans and apes?
            Did ancient humans live millions of years ago?

            EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

            Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

            For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

            Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

            A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia

            Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

            Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!

            Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures?

            EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution

            Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'”5

            In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …”10

            A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9th power. BUT the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.

            Read our answer to the question: “Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?”

            Let’s now put this in its larger context. Proteins are ‘made’ by genes in the cell.

            * The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.

            * The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.

            * The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!

            * The constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts.

            * Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.

            There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!

          • One of the cornerstones in the crumbling foundation of creationist “science” is the notion that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Also, there is no such thing a “nothing”! Look, you’re NEVER going to convince me that the brightest most educated people on the planet that have studied this issue, have got mountains of evidence to back up their claims have got it completely wrong & some anonymous bronze age goat headers got it right. It’s just that simple.

          • From what I just posted, it has nothing to do with religion. Only evidences and contradictions to your strongly held belief in the theory of evolution in science. We are all waiting for all this evidence you speak of. At least I provided some of mine, show us yours.

          • Intelligent design, creationism or whatever else you want to call it IS religion! You’re waiting for the evidence I speak of??? Go buy yourself a 3rd grade science book!

          • Nothing I posted as evidences have anything to do with ID or creationism, and you know it. Don’t start your arguments if you have nothing to back them up except your repeated lack of defense speeches, Show us the evidence yourself if you are so confident. We’re waiting.

          • If you are a creationist, I urge you to understand what the theory of evolution actually states before you attempt to argue against it. I implore you to read actual science books or articles by credible biologists on the subject. Don’t
            get your definition of evolution from a creationist or apologist website. If you choose to argue against a scientifically established claim, it’s your responsibility to understand what conclusion science has actually drawn on a matter and what evidence lead to it.

          • You just don’t know how o read do you. You continue to skirt around the issue that you won’t provide your own evidence. Copy paste it from somewhere, I don’t care! Bring your own ammo to the table before trying to give lectures!

          • You cannot be serious! a 2TB hard dive wouldn’t be large enough to store all the evidence supporting evolution.
            Funny thing is, evolution, both micro and macro, have been
            directly observed. So to deny evolution is to deny a direct observation. Evolution is a scientific THEORY. Theories are supported by MILLIONS of independently verifiable FACTS. To deny evolution is to deny all of those facts and the hundreds of scientific techniques used to observe them. Worse yet, to deny evolution is to deny reason and logic, the core of the scientific method.Creationists are willing to deny all of this for evolution, yet have no problem exploiting the fruits of science for their own benefit, i.e. cars, computers,modern medicine.

          • You’re just a coward. I only gave several examples of evolution’s falsehood. Not everything. The least you could do is humor us if you are so confident. But you can’t. When backed into a corner, or require proof, you just insult and gnash your teeth like a scared animal.

          • You posted ZERO evidence! 1st of all evolution does NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics (did you think EVERY scientist on the planet just happen to over look this)? The rest of your “evidence” is nothing but pure BS. “missing links”?? the entire creationist ‘missing links’ argument is a red herring very similar in nature to the ‘God of the gaps’ theory. Pick up a science book & read it, you seem like a reasonably bright person.

          • There was more than just those two things. Missing links, fine. I can see how that might be moot on both sides. However, what about the others? Such as life from non life? Complex genes? And if the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t prove it wrong, how? How does it not apply?

          • Because their are “gaps” in the theory of evolution that science has not yet figured out doesn’t mean it was “magic” & even if it was, having a “creator” just causes more problems. Who created the creator & so on. Read up on the 2nd law of thermodynamics & you will understand.

          • “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?” Charles Darwin (1866)
            Red herring? Darwin didn’t think so.

          • Mutations are contrary to evolution. That was several of the 101. Fossil recordings sure, however it doesn’t always take millions of years. Hence even the title of this article. Carbon dating is not an exact science, nor can it go back more than several thousand years for accurate readings. If survival of the fittest is necessary for evolution, explain for example the butterfly? In a nutshell, the caterpillars cells “die”, in order to reform into a creature that feeds, lives, and reproduces completely different. How was that natural selection? Human DNA is much more complex for evolution on such a scale. Micro evolution does exist, but not on a macro scale. There are many variances in species and creatures. But that doesn’t mean they all evolved from the same single cell. Or hox gene. I prefer stem cells as a more legitimate alternative, pertaining to humans anyways, Similarities in animals, such as birds to reptiles: there are many similarities in plants and vegetables, that doesn’t mean they are the same fruit, nor same plant. Mutations do exist, but that doesn’t mean that those mutations are the only a base of many species and or human out there. I could go on, but can’t atm.

          • Macro-evolution has NOT been directly observed. Micro-evolution has been but is irrelevant to macro. The two are entirely different processes with no connection between them.

          • No, naturalistic evolution has hijacked intelligent design. God has made life robust, or else life would just die out. He has created gene switches that can be turned on and off based on environmental factors. In other words, many designs are programmed into the genome, which are triggered on by the environment. The supposed evolution actually supports design and creationism, but the warped and misguided thinking of naturalism blinds you to reality – scientific reality!

          • Intelligent Design and creationism are not the same. ID came out of the scientific community and has been supported by prominent scientists, such as Sir Fred Hoyle, who are not religious.

          • ID leaves out creationism per se and focuses on the design inference looking for intelligence in nature. Creationism focuses on searching the scientific evidence for the creation leading to a theory of Creation. The two are not necessarily hostile to one another and I chose to use both!

          • Agreed. ID acknowledges the fact that there are many things in nature and in the universe as a whole that cannot be plausibly accounted for by pure chance, as evolutionists claim. They are evidence of an Intelligence behind them, but ID does not speculate on the nature of that Intelligence.

          • The
            The Supreme Court has made no such ruling, though misguided judges in lower courts have done so. Nobel Prize-winning astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, definitely not a religious man, advocated ID in his book “The Intelligent Universe”. There zre many other sceintists who, regardless of their opinion about ID, dfo not consider it religious.

          • The intelligent-design movement was born a couple decades ago from of the wreckage of “creation science”. When the Supreme Court ruled that “creation science” could not be taught in public schools because it was a poorly disguised version of the Bible. Creationists came up with “intelligent design” which is nothing more then an improved disguise & tried to argue that intelligent design should be taught in public-school biology classes. This fooled nobody & our court ruled that intelligent design was religion, not science, and barred it from schools.

          • 1st let’s agree that evolution answers how life evolved not how it began. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a mathematical statement. If you claim evolution violates the second law then back up your claim with an actual calculation (don’t bother trying, it doesn’t). “Complex Systems do not evolve ‘bit by bit’?? this argument has been debunked many times. There are simpler versions of the eye on animals like the flatworm. Mutations are random. I could go on & on but seriously, you seem bright enough to grasp reality. Pick up a REAL science book & learn the truth. BTW, even if it was somehow proved scientifically that evolution was wrong that wouldn’t mean ID was right. This is what creationist simply cannot understand. Prove ID is right & you won’t have to waste your time trying to prove evolution is wrong.

          • A book I have read is by Stephen Myer “Darwins Doubt.” ID doesn’t have to be about religion or creationism. What we know of the cell today vs what Darwin refered to ss the simple cell, is vastly different. Nothing digitally or complexly designed can be studied read or for that matter come about, unless through an intelligent process. So it doesn’t necessarily point to a creator that made the complex cells. Just that evolution could have hardly created or become such a thing from nothing over time. Even the most basic and primitive of cells require a minimum of 255 amino acid proteins to become life. Then those chains need to line up perfectly all at once. The possibilty of thay randomly happening perfectly, is beyond possibilty.

          • The Second Law of Thermodynamics starts out as a statement which you seem to misunderstand. Deductions made from the Second Law statements lead to the equations like the Clausius inequalility.

          • “Mutations are random.” Also almost invariably destructive.

            “There are simpler versions of the eye on animals like the flatworm.” But nothing in the fossil record showing it changing into something more complex.

          • The Second Law of Thermo is a major problem for evolution though many in thermodynamics are trying to get around this by putting forward new fields such as dissipative structures which have been failures at explaining the origin of life and the evolution of life. Thermodynamics is all about the direction of processes. Evolution is going against the natural direction of processes, which requires a thermodynamic mechanism of great precision. The supposed Darwinian mechanism lacks the percussion where many specific mutations are required for added function. Even in a very large population, there is not enough time to explain the advancement. Evolution is therefore more faith than it is science and the talking heads keep spewing out nonsense and claim that it is science!

          • The Second Law of Thermo is NOT a problem for evolution. Get some knowledge from a REAL science book & NOT from creationist MORON!

          • really how old is she 70 million years,was she there to give first hand testimony,it always amazes me how they talk like they were there in person and know all things 68 million years ago,there mind reasons accourding to what is natural,but cannot discern that which is not of this world,so a confession of being a Christian means nothing,its the word of God that matters not a man made religious system.—–Jim Hunt

          • Let me ask you a question. When you look up into the night sky & see a distant star how is possible to see ANYTHING that’s over 6,000 light years away if the planet is only 6,000 years old?

          • Well, there are many mysteries to our cosmos, like what is the dark matter. The initial expansion of the universe could well be faster than light. Why would God do this? I think to teach us the physics behind the universe.

          • The notion of a good, intelligent creator that wishes us to believe in special creation, yet stupidly or deviously creates evidence that points towards evolution, and nevertheless expects us to believe in a self-contradictory literal rendition of a set of ancient writings, is illogical, untenable as a scientific theory, and too blasphemous to be a valid religious belief. Why would a good God give us five senses and a mind with which to explore the physical world, and then deceive us, that He might condemn us for being deceived? If God exists, He must surely find such creationist nonsense insulting!

          • Well yes some Christians have bought into evolution because they accept the premise that the possibility of God playing a role in creation and sustaining creation is not allowed in science. This distorts their reality and leads them to the false conclusion that evolution is true.

      • “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised
        state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the
        gorilla (p. 521).” – Darwin.

        This is the man Liberals hold up as Genius.


      • Another of your repeat posts. I saw this article and I knew Mr Evolution(Bob) would weigh in with a bunch of your usual copy and paste drivel. You never disappoint and are oh so predictable. How much do they pay you to troll Bob?

      • I’m sorry Bob, but a transitional species is required to go from single cell organism to the numerous creatures present today. I don’t need to prove it false, it’s never been proven true. Scientific method is essential to proving anything.

        • NO, it’s not. The fact you have no understanding of evolution & think there should be a “missing link “just highlights your ignorance

      • Dear Bob,

        The law of entropy precludes evolution. Everything goes from order to disorder. This is a basic physical law. It is impossible for a highly complex organism to come from clay or mud without the hand of God. Your argument is not with me, it’s with physics and scientific law. I’ll accept my Nobel Prize now. Thank you.

        • So, the brightest most educated scientists around the planet for the last 150 years have ALL overlooked this scientific fact that you pointed out? Are you retarded?

          • Dear Bob,

            You obviously don’t comprehend the second law of thermodynamics. Nature cannot create something from nothing. To answer your question, Yes, evolutionists have overlooked this scientific fact. to answer your second question, No, I’ not mentally or emotionally retarded. Are you retarded? Thank you.

        • the second law is a mathematical statement. If you claim that evolution violates the second law then back up the claim with an actual calculation!

    • It is ingenuous to expect that the conditions for forming fossils would necessarily preserve every transitional form of a lineage. That’s just stupid. We indeed have lots of transitional form. Once we discovered where the whales evolved, we have found all of the transitional forms. Repeating over and over that we do not have a full fossil record is as meaningful as saying that you do not have every document you every handled or received from your birth onward, thus you did not grow up from a baby and parents.

      • The point is Einstein, that there are NO transitional species. Find even one that definitively illustrates a transition from one KIND to another. There is none.

        • Yeah, but acknowledging that there is no concrete evidence, only immaterial assumptions, would expose the evolution hypothesis as being purely faith-based. We can’t have that.

          • People that don’t believe in or understand science look idiotic trying to use science to disprove science

          • Sorry Bob, you are the Einstein here. Did I say missing link, no. I SAID transitional species *******, and there had to have been transitional species to go from one KIND to another, even the most mentally challenged should understand that. Oh, and, news flash! Indoctrination into the faith of evolution begins in children very early and should any of them express even the slightest inclination to ask ‘why’, they are pilloried. That should teach them not to ask, shouldn’t it?
            You can do nothing but try to denigrate all who question your superior knowledge. My repeated question has not been answered by you because there is no answer, a sure sign of major ignorance on your part, my friend. Keep your insults and just congratulate yourself on being such an immanent scholar of the evolutionary faith.
            I’ve spent enough time, one day you will learn.

        • Einstein, there is no such thing as a “missing link”! Get yourself a 3rd grade science book & learn how evolution works!

      • Charles, the issue is that we don’t see any real clear stepwise development of any species leading us to see even a small portion of the evolutionary tree. What is put forward could be the programmed design to keep species alive over the long periods of time where we see many changes in the environment. In other words, design is being hijacked by evolution. The burden of proof is on evolution to show that blood and soft tissue can last the vast periods of time. The evolutionary way is to say, “We see it so it must have happened!”. This is a faith statement and not rooted in science. You need to make molecular dynamic models which capture all the physics which happened over time: radiation fluxes, thermal gradients, electrical currents, ground tremors, pressure, ion flow, etc. Thermodynamics would say that the large chemical molecular structure of life would break down over time!

      • Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, one of the world’s leading paleontologists, would disagree with you. This man, who knew more about fossils than almost anyone else, admitted that no transitional forms have ever been found.

      • Sorry Bob, this guy is just another atheistic hack, like Richard Dawkins. Don’t worry, you, Sam, and Richard will all know the truth one day, and unfortunately for you it just may be when you are before the Great White Throne confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord of All and awaiting your fate. Please reconsider the truth of the Scriptures.

    • I understand why Christians MUST reject evolution they have NO CHOICE in the matter so there isn’t ANY amount of evidence that will convince you evolution is true for this simple reason…Evolution destroys
      utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made
      necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you
      will find the remains of the son of god.

  3. Comparing blood samples on a shelf with fossils containing blood and pretending that there would be no preservation in a fossil is ingenuous. Anybody in forensics knows that we can extract usable DNA, proteins, and blood from teeth and hard bone many years after a person has died. The anaerobic conditions inside a large, dinosaur bone would be even better preserved over time.

    Jumping to the unfounded conclusion that organic material from a fossil is evidence of recent origin is also stupid. Creation is a fantasy cobbled up to give our ancestors a feeling of origin and has no relation to the real world. It was never intended to be factual. It is for the ignorant and young. As an adult, if you want to hang onto your fantasies, that’s just fine, but do not force them on those around you who want to understand the real world as it really is, through real science

    Evolution runs the same principles as this computer. You cannot have one without the other. Evolution also says nothing about the origin of life and it is misdirection to pretend that it does. Evolution only describes how life changes over time after life has arisen. It is the nonrandom selection by the environment of random variation in a species.

    • Their isn’t ANY amount of evidence, logic or reason that would convince a creationist that evolution is real or they would already be convinced. This entire debate is as absurd as debating whether the earth is flat or round.

      • There isn’t ANY amount of evidence, logic or reason that would convince an evolutionist that evolution is wrong or they would already be convinced.

        The posts made by buckman21 were educational, with FACTS and LOGIC.
        Yours lacks both…

        • You simply do not understand science, logic or evidence. scientific theories are testable so they are OPEN for ANYONE to prove FALSE! Because some idiots make claims like “evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics” doesn’t mean it’s true & a couple clicks on your mouse can prove it to you. The amount of evidence supporting evolution is SOOOO overwhelming to argue against it just makes you an idiot that’s been blinded by your faith.

    • Would the blood last hundreds of millions of years? In the fantasy world of evolution you say, “It is here so it must have happened!”. But this is only a faith statement and lacks evidence! The burden of proof is on you to show that it can!
      “Evolution runs on the same principles as this computer” is a joke of a statement! Exactly, what principles are you talking about? Computers are very precise with detailed and specific processes. We see the detailed design in them, which is evidence of ID. We don’t see bits flipping randomly around or else the computer would be useless!
      The origin of life has everything to do with evolution, since if life did not start there would be no chance for it to evolve!

  4. The silver tonged devil that seduced America with lies, and now we are stuck with his BASTARD law. We need RU480 morning after pill for this growing bastard law!!!

    • In a gentler and kinder age, Mr Bob would have gone screaming to the stake. Not a pretty picture, nor one under normal circumstances to emulate, but in his hyperventilating case, I’d likely make an exception. How many ways can you spell “shill”?

  5. Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order can develop from disorder, in one corner of a larger system, if on the whole the system is moving downhill in its level of order. Life goes uphill, sun burns fuel and scatters the energy into space. Analogy…a fridge is no violation of that law either. The generator is converting coal and oxy into co2, the fridge converts cool air and cool water into ice and warmer air.

Leave a Reply