Creationists have fossils. Evolutionists have cartoons.

TOP LEFT: Perfectly preserved fly in amber, 35-50 million years old, same as today’s fly, no evolution whatsoever.

BOTTOM: World’s leading Evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, shows his compelling evidence for evolution…a cartoon of whales with feet.

TOP RIGHT: Perfectly preserved Gecko in amber, 90-94 million year old, who, by the way, will save you just as much money on car insurance as his modern cousin next to him, because they are exactly the same, no evolution whatsoever.

By the way, do I believe that these fossils are really millions of years old?  Of course not.  The universe is 6,000 years old.  “Scientists” constantly re-modify the age of the universe because every fossil they dig out of the ground shows zero evolution.  They must keep pushing the age of the universe back further and further in the hopes that someday, somehow, somewhere, someone will find a fossil that shows evolutionary change.

In the more than 150 years since Darwin’s fairy tale was popularized, all scientific discoveries verify Creation and disprove Evolution. Evolution is a joke.  That’s why I can post perfectly preserved ancient fossils that show NO evolutionary differences from their modern cousins, yet the world’s leading Evolutionist is reduced to showing a cartoon of whales with feet.

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them… — Exodus 20:11

But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. — 2 Peter 3:5

18 replies »

  1. The “actual fossils” to which you refer also appear to be drawings. Can you point to a perfectly preserved fossil of a whale with feet? (Please, no beavers, otters, or other such aquatic mammals that Evolutionists have tried to pass off as whales with feet.) The term “perfectly preserved” is crucial because it allows no room for manipulation– and manipulation is the primary tool of the Evolutionary “scientist”).

  2. Like I said, it was an anatomical drawing. These are useful as they clearly show the structure of the skeleton, something often not obtained by looking at the skeleton itself (which could be discoloured or broken).

    The “evolution” from skeleton to anatomical drawing to reconstruction is traced *here* for one of the whale forms Dawkins is pointing to (the second from the bottom of his diagram).

    This particular creature had legs but on the other hand has an ear like a whale; is able to swallow underwater like a whale and it’s face was shaped like a whale’s (indeed, other than lacking a blowhole its skull pretty much ticks all the boxes to be counted as a whale skull)

    • With all due respect, I still don’t see any fossils of whales with feet. A grave yard of perfectly preserved whale fossils was recently discovered in South America. None of those whales had feet. They looked just like today’s whales. Again, perfectly preserved fossils show no evolution whatsoever. It’s when bones are found en masse, disjointed, disconnected, and piled on top of each other that Evolutionists miraculously reconstruct a whale with feet. It’s creative anthropology. The fossil record shows no such thing.

  3. Sorry, the link didn’t seem to work. Here it is in full, without me trying to use fancy html

    And – with all due respect – what you see is moot. Subjective perception is not used to diagnose fossils. Instead there is a list of traits that define that particular for family. The whale definition includes the following key criteria

    *Accoustic isolation of the middle ear to optimize hearing underwater – the fossil above has this

    *No external ear – the fossil above has this.

    *Reduced zygomatic arches – the fossil has this.

    *Telescoping of the bones of the skull to strengthen the region between the eye-sockets – the fossil does not have this

    *Retraction of the nostrils to the top of the head – the fossil does not have this.

    *Shortening and reduction of cervical vertebrae – although this fossil does have a rather long neck for a whale its cervical vertebrae are starting to fuse, a feature present in whales but absent in most other animals. Like the lumbar vertebrae (see below) this fossil appears to be partway between a typical animal and a whale.

    *Modification of tail and trunk for axial swimming using dorsoventral flexion and an Increase in number of lumbar vertebrae – the fossil has this. Its spine is adapted to move like a whales. Further, normal mammals have 4-6 lumbar vertebrae; whales have 12. This fossil has 8, it is en-route from being a normal mammal to being a whale.

    *Reduction of hindlimbs to vestigial state or absence – although this fossil still has legs the muscles attached to them were relatively weak, indicating they weren’t used that often.

    Out of those 8 key whale features this fossil has 4 which match whales, 2 which are transitional and 2 which are absent. Indeed, it shares more features with whales than it does any other living group.

  4. Okay, thanks for the link. I was able to view it. Ambulocetus is not a well preserved fossil. A few bones were found in a group, and a few more were found a couple meters above them. This gets back to the point I made:

    “It’s when bones are found en masse, disjointed, disconnected, and piled on top of each other that Evolutionists miraculously reconstruct a whale with feet. It’s creative anthropology. The fossil record shows no such thing.”

  5. The fossil is actually rather complete with at least one example of every bone, save the tip of the snout, the scapula, a part of the tibia and some of the ankle bones.

    Also, whilst I’m not familiar with how it was found there are many techniques that can be used to reliably put a skeleton together again if it is found in pieces. These were employed to great effect at Pincevent where archaeologists were able to reconstruct reindeer found there and thus identify how the animals were shared across the prehistoric camp.

    On another note, what are the species of animals you are claiming are identical? The fly, as far as I can tell, is a “Scuttle Fly” (or at least, that’s what it is labelled when Islamic creationists use the same image). However, the Scuttle Fly refers to a family of organisms containing many different genera and species. As such there could’ve been significant changes between the past and the present but the organism could still be called a Scuttle Fly since that is a vague term referring to many different organisms.

    • One can create anything they want from a bunch of disjointed bones found in the same general area. This is how Evolution is perpetuated in our culture. Evolutionists put forth a bunch of disjointed bones, found somewhere in the same general geographical area, and add uncommon features not scene on today’s version of that species. The perfectly preserved fly in amber, however, looks an awful lot like a fly to me. Being perfectly preserved, there is no way it can be manipulated to have a beak, or to have only one wing, or 15 wings, or fins, or a blow hole. It’s just a fly. Nothing has ever crossed from one species to another, ever. God saw the theory of Evolution coming, so, remarkably, the Book of Genesis states several times that living things produce offspring “according to their kind.” Science shows this to be 100% true. A fly is a fly and always will be. And a whale is a whale and always will be.

  6. You could create anything you wanted but only one creation would be correct. You could stick a leg in an arm socket, but it wouldn’t match. The musculature wouldn’t align, the articulation wouldn’t fit, the ligaments wouldn’t match etc. Only placing bones in the correct position makes all of these factors (and many more) work out. Ambulocetus matches. It is correct.

    As for the fly issue, it would seem you don’t quite understand taxonomy so let me explain. Organisms are grouped into many categories, the most basic of which is a species. A group of closely related species are in turn grouped into a genus. We use binomial classification, where an organism is given a two part name of both genus and species. Binomial names should always be given in italics and only the first part is capitalised.

    Homo sapiens is one species, Homo hiedelbergensis is another. But both are members of the same genus, Homo. Closely related genuses are placed in a family, for Homo it’s Hominidae – the great apes, including gorillas, orang-utans and chimps as well.

    As you can see, there is a lot of variation within a family of organisms. One might find one very old bone and one very recent bone and go “they’re both great apes.” However, that statement would allow an orang-utan to become a gorilla, or a chimp to become a person. Despite this rather significant change both would still be classed as Hominidae and so you can say both finds are still great apes.

    As such you can’t go “they’re both great apes, therefore no evolution has happened.” A considerable amount of evolution would be tolerated within the same family. “No evolution” is not the result of “same family.” As I said, the Scuttle Fly – which the fly you show is typically labelled – is a family of organisms. Therefore considerable evolution could’ve happened and you could still say “they’re part of the same family.”

  7. So if you configure random bones “correctly,” you can make a fossil that backs up the theory of Evolution? That sounds like the “creative anthropology” I mentioned earlier. That leaves us where we started. Creationists have fossils. Evolutionists have cartoons.

    • You can make anything “seem” suspicious with a few well “placed” quotation marks. That doesn’t make the skepticism justified. I’ve given several ways you can check the accuracy, you’ve just been snarky. One of these counts as evidence, the other does not.

      • Adam, it wasn’t my intention to be snarky. I believed in Evolution for many years, but when I finally looked at it with an objective eye, the entire house of cards fell down so easily. It doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny. All science points 180 degrees away from it. I do appreciate, and thank you for, your posts. You are obviously smart, passionate, and motivated, so I will be praying that you join our side very soon. Again, thank you!

  8. Thank you for your post(s). I have looked at multiple of your posts and I have been blessed by them. The post on fossils vs. cartoons is right on. Keep up the good work. I appreciate people who are able to discern between the bias of scientists and the true revelation of science. Science does, indeed, support a literal reading of Genesis, and it is critical people understand that and realize they don’t need to apologize for their faith. May God bless you and your ministry. I, too, blog, between pastoring and writing and simply being with my family, and I enjoy sharing truths and thoughts about God, His Word, absolute truth, etc. It is wonderful to find you. Again, thanks. —Erick

    • Erick,

      Thank you so much for the kind words, and the encouragement! We truly appreciate it! I wasn’t by a computer for the last few hours (just my phone), so I couldn’t really reply until now. I will check out your blog. And thank YOU for taking a stand as well! Thanks again!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s