Piltdown Superman

Darwinists tend to get a mite riled when biblical creationists use the term living fossil. Probably because it reminds them of evolution's failure. (One reason I chose "Piltdown Superman" for this site is to remind molecules-to-machinist evolutionists of the Piltdown Man fraud that fooled many scientists for about 40 years.) So, isn't it the trend these days that if someone can't handle the truth, try to get them to stifle themselves about it? The Wollemi pine is considered a living fossil Woll a mia Nobilis , WikiComm /  Fritz Geller-Grimm  ( CC BY-SA 2.5 ) Briefly stated, a living fossil is something that shows up in the fossil record, hasn't been seen, then is discovered alive and well. Embarrassing to evolutionists, and some invoke the spirit of stasis , a ridiculous attempt to say that things didn't change because they didn't have to, despite dramatic environmental changes over millions of Darwinspeak years. So, someone's offended, i

So often, evolutionary science is a game of words. Remember the new golden rule, that whoever makes the definitions makes the rules . In this case, it's the term "living fossils". This is generally applied when a plant or animal is found alive and well, but had been declared extinct for "millions of years". The term "living fossil" is a bit of a loaded term, implying that evolution is true despite a bit of a glitch. They also want the best of both worlds. Evolution is a "fact", sometimes called a law as if it was a kind of inexorable force. So when these "living fossils" are discovered virtually unchanged, people will say something like, "It didn't evolve because it didn't have to". What fallacy is that, No True Evolution, or special pleading? stock.xchng / Fire Salamander / gc85 Salamanders are a bit different in the "living fossil" realm, since they have not been declared extinct while in hidi

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Every once in a while when creationists use the term "living fossils" to show flaws in evolutionary ideas, someone comes along with a comment like, "That's a term made up by YECs to attack evolution!" That's the opposite of the truth. But what if Young Earth Creationists did make up that term? Words and phrases are made up all the time. So if we did make it up, somehow it wouldn't be legitimate — but it's all right for atheist evolutionists like Clinton R. Dawkins to make up the word "meme" ? Double standards, you can but we can't. But we didn't. The first known use of the term "living fossil" seems to have been with Papa Darwin himself . Like his successors, he used an observation and then guessed about an explanation. When people do it today, it's called "science". Since some people want to cling to their beliefs despite the evidence, I'm going to show you that the t

People who have followed the origins controversy have probably heard the term living fossil, originally used by Charles Darwin. This term essentially means that something living shows no appreciable change over millions of Darwin years. Wallace's Giant Bee is an ironic contribution. Megachile pluto , Wallace's Giant Bee drawing by Dr. Heinrich Friese This bee was made famous by Alfred Russell Wallace , a friendly rival of Charles Darwin, when Wallace was in Indonesia. It was thought extinct since 1981, but was found again recently. Nice when that happens. However, it also prompts evolutionists to come up with Just So Stories that rival Rudyard Kipling. You see, amber is quite a preservative, better than a typical fossil, so they have to explain away the lack of change. "Stasis" is a non-explanation that buzzes the wrong way for evolutionists' claims, and is just an excuse to get out of admitting that life was created recently. Every now and then one of the

Back when Darwin roamed the earth, he called the ginkgo a living fossil. Some organisms with that moniker disappeared from the fossil record, then were found alive and well ( such as the coelacanth ). Others have remained essentially unchanged over alleged millions of years when compared to their fossils. A frequent rescuing device when something remains unchanged is stasis : It had no need to evolve. To be blunt, that is a stupid excuse because a lot can happen over all those years. No, one reason it did not change is because the earth is not as old as evolutionists claim. Gingko leaves in autumn, Wikimedia Commons /  Joe Schneid  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Moving on from the living fossil aspect, people can easily find ginkgo biloba supplements in "natural" food stores and in vitamin sections of stores. Like with many health benefit claims, those not fully researched . Coordinated international research would be nice. Ginkgo is a large, hearty tree. It also has a large genome — bigge

Woll a mia Nobilis image credit: Fritz Geller-Grimm / Wikimedia Commons The Wollemi pine is a mystery to paleontologists. For one thing, it was unknown until 1994 despite being discovered on 125 miles from downtown Sydney, Australia in Wollemi National Park. These secluded trees require specific growing conditions. Another baffling thing about them is that they are not in the fossil record. Pollen from their genus is in the fossil record, however, in strata allegedly 200 million years old. Then, nothing. The Wollemi pine has been called a "living fossil". Because it does not fit with the evolutionary scheme but does fit well with creationist models, it has probably been called other things that are best left unrepeated. The foliage of the Wollemi pine is virtually identical to that of one of its supposed fossil ancestors, the late Jurassic (150 million year old) Agathis jurassica (figure 3). This obvious relationship explains the designation of the Wollemi pi

The article featured below this introduction was almost skipped, since "living fossils" and evolutionary excuses have been done here a few times already. However, it turns out that it's worth examining, since it's not a list of inconveniences to evolutionists. No, it's much more. Image credit: Pixabay/ Kylienne Although some anti-creationists have claimed that we came up with the term living fossil,  it was Darwin's invention. The purpose is to identify annoying critters that didn't follow evolutionary rules, refusing to evolve after millions of imaginary Darwin years. They're doing fine (thanks for asking), and their fossilized counterparts are essentially unchanged. Evolutionists come up with rescuing devices such as stasis  (it didn't have to evolve, so it didn't). But this fundamentally flawed thinking pattern has also led to other concepts that do not exist in nature, the lab, or anywhere except the imaginations of evolutionists. T

When biblical creationists discuss living fossils  and point out that critters remain unchanged over alleged millions of years, it is common for internet misotheists to wave off the problem and want us to be quiet. It bothered Papa Darwin his ownself, and he admitted that there is little to no difference between fossil forms and living counterparts. Remember, the fossil record is supposed to display the plentiful transitional forms in the evolutionary tree of life. One excuse evolutionists have for lack of changes is stasis : things did not change because they had no need. Ridiculous. Lack of change is hostile to evolution but is expected by creationists. Bivalve mollusk (white clam, in this case), HippoPx How scientists are able to tell different species of clams apart is beyond the ken of this child. A bivalve mollusk (clams are in that group) was discovered and determined to be one of those troublesome living fossils. Interestingly, many whales are filter feeders, gulping down huge

We hear about living fossils, those critters that show up in the fossil record under different names than their still-existing counterpart. Proponents of fish-to-physicist evolution get burrs under their saddles when living fossils are mentioned because they show flaws in their belief system . For that matter, some anti-creationists have said that we  invented the term living fossils, but they are a mite uninformed, possibly dishonest, because it was conjured up by Charles Darwin . Image made at RedKid.net The overwhelming majority of fossils are marine invertebrates , and we get fish, plants, and so on. Mammals, not so much. When you tie on the feed bag at your favorite eatery, quite a few items on the menu could very well be the living counterparts to creatures that have been fossilized and given different names. Since the "fossil record" is kind of catawampus (the fossil progression only existing in textbooks and evolutionary propaganda videos), the best explanatio

Charlie Darwin believed evolution by blind faith. His followers past and present accept it despite lack of strong evidence, hoping that their beliefs would be justified later. That is the opposite of science, old son. They have problems with living fossils that, in and of themselves, falsify evolution. Living fossils are creatures that were thought to be extinct but later found doing well, or that have gone mostly unchanged over alleged millions of years, such as sea lilies and feather stars. Darwin knew about them . Now someone is stepping up to evosplain the problem away. Sea lily (crinoid), Wikimedia Commons / Alexander Vasenin ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) People who know evolutionary concepts can see through attempts at rescuing Papa Darwin. F'rinstance, evolution is presented as almost an irrevocable force in nature; things must  evolve over millions of years. There are "evolutionary pressures" that force them to change — except when they do not  change, and that is called stas

There's a false claim by anti-creationists that the term living fossil  was invented by creationists. Even if that were true, such a claim would be meaningless. But the fact is, it goes back to Charles Darwin his own self, and other non-creationists use it as well. You savvy? A "living fossil" is something that exists today and is essentially unchanged from those found in fossils alleged to be millions or billions of years old. Chambered nautilus image credit: USFWS Sure, evolutionists have excuses for that. One is that it didn't need  to evolve. Right. Even though they claim that other creatures faced genetic mutations and environmental pressures that brought about evolution, but many things were unaffected? On one had, evolution is an irresistible force, but on the other hand, it doesn't happen. That's a policeman's exit (cop out). It seems that some people will come up with almost any excuse to deny the obvious: life was created recently, and evid

There are creatures in the fossil record that show no appreciable difference between supposed millions of years to their modern descendants. Charles Darwin was displeased with this additional evidence against his conjectures. He called them living fossils . If a handful of them existed, they might be waved away as odd quirks. But there are many living fossils. Evolutionists change mystical hats, trading the one where evolution is an undeniable force with the other where stasis occurred. That is, they did not have to evolve. These owlhoots get downright dishonest as well. Horseshoe crab (which is not really a crab) is a living fossil, MorgueFile / xpistwv Unfortunately, people are  not taught  critical thinking, and they seldom display healthy skepticism. The Bearded Buddha taught that things evolved from a common ancestor, branching out on the Tree of Life, gradually turning into something else. Right? People know this, but when dishonest evolutionists change the definitions with the

As discussed previously, the Cambrian Explosion is classified by secular scientists as happening over 10-25 million Darwin years. Animals with very different body plans are found, but there is no evidence of precursors . This has been a problem all the way back to Darwin, and evolutionists have been attempting to solve it ever since. There has been a great deal of recent news and noise by secularists presenting rescuing devices only to have them wither in the cold light of reason. Yes, some evolutionists want to cut through fake science. We have five articles, three today and two tomorrow, to consider. Diorama of the Burgess Shale Biota, Flickr / James St. John ( CC BY 2.0 ) Creationists know that the Cambrian Explosion is best explained by the Genesis Flood, but secularists reject that out of hand. Gotta have that naturalistic philosophy intact, you betcha! So we watch as evolutionists work on plans and others shoot them down. One was a speculation that the sudden increase in diversi

fws.gov When an organism is found fossilized and the living specimen is virtually unchanged, it is called a "living fossil". Such things are baffling to evolutionists (although Darwin's Uninformed Cheerleaders brush off the facts by saying, "Well, evolution does not require things to change"). To have so many critters in "stasis" in their ecosystems for alleged millions of years simply does not make sense and interferes with evolutionary theories. Some folk just don’t see the significance of the myriad examples of ‘living fossils’. Following our interview with Dr Carl Werner on the topic, one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic informat

In their ongoing efforts to provide evidence for common-ancestor evolution, paleontologists and evolutionary biologists have something to tell all y'all: it's a squid. Yep, a well-preserved fossil that was dated at several million Darwin years is the same as modern squid. That is, a living fossil. Jewel squid image credit: Mike Vecchione , NMFS/NOAA Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents Living fossils are annoying to evolutionists because there is no sign of something becoming something else over alleged long ages. Still, these owlhoots commence to doing misleading storytelling. They include definitive scientific term probably, and use a passel of assumptions. Circular reasoning is helpful, too. Problem is, Darwinoids grab this stuff as actual science and then spread it around. The logical conclusion is that such evolution did not, does not happen, and the evidence shows special creation instead. A recent science news article sheds light on the amazing squ

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen I'm a bit late to this party. The book Evolution's Achilles' Heels  was released in July 2014, and the DVD came out in October 2014 (see the trailer at the bottom). Once my finances stabilized, I went to the stable, saddled up and purchased the book-DVD combo pack. That means Creation Ministries International did not give me anything, financial or otherwise, for writing this here review; I bought the items by my lonesome. In fact, they don't even know about the review yet. Haven't read the book yet, but I'm looking forward to it and will give that a review later on. First off, some basic information. You want credentialed scientists? You got 'em! The 15 Ph.D. scientists in the Evolution's Achilles' Heels  video discuss seven areas where evolutionary theory fails, but they don't go into a lot of heavy scientific lingo. The video is 96 minutes long, and the sections are separated so you can find them easily if you don