Comments on: Darwin Was Wrong, Part 9: Fossil Fraud

By: the problem child

the problem child — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:25:43 +0000

Thanks for your blog. I live near the real bay of fundy, and also near some real “bays” of fundie. The tide washes over all. Doesn’t give a shit if you are a believer or not if you are stuck out on the ‘flats.

By: Ron Britton

Ron Britton — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:55:39 +0000

Helena:

It’s both a floor wax and a dessert topping!

By: Helena

Helena — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:39:40 +0000

Steve Austin presented diagrams purporting to show how dozens of layers (totaling hundreds of feet) of the Grand Canyon were deposited in a few hours.

I thought they insisted that the Grand Canyon was cut by the flood. So which is it?

By: Jeff Eyges

Jeff Eyges — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:44 +0000

X-Men from mutations

That would be cool, though, wouldn’t it?

By: Parrotlover77

Parrotlover77 — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:36:42 +0000

It should be noted too that they claim microevolution in more of a “de-evolution” sense in that the animals are becoming less perfect as time goes on. They use this to also explain why Moses et al lived eleventy hundred years while we can only live a meager 80 if we are lucky.

This then all lines up with the “all mutations are bad” crap. Maybe neutral, but never positive.

Don’t you see?? that’s why we have genetic diseases from mutations and not X-Men from mutations! DUH!

By: Ron Britton

Ron Britton — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:32:33 +0000

Alex:

Sometime in the last 20 years, creationists went from denying all evolution to accepting microevolution only. Evolution within the “kind” was OK.

It actually solved one of their biggest problems: How did Noah fit every animal on the Ark? Easy. He only needed one pair of each kind.

By: alex

alex — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:10:25 +0000

So, they argue against the theory of evolution, and claim that donkeys and zebras “descended” from the horse “kind”? Then how come they are different species and cannot produce a fertile offspring? Doesn’t that mean that the animals… (drum roll) evolved?

By: godlizard

godlizard — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:55:56 +0000

This is all very disturbing. The twisted ethics, the ridiculous lies (hydrologic SORTING? really? floods … SORTING things? neatly, in symmetrical layers all over the planet? SERIOUSLY? Because, if there’s anything we know about floods, it’s how NEAT they are?)

It’s difficult to fathom how stupid you’d have to be to fall for this crap.

I feel terribe for all the people who did hard, honest work for their degrees from URI.

By: Sabazinus

Sabazinus — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:07:47 +0000

Um, there is no Rhode Island University (RIU). There’s a Rhode Island College, or The University of Rhode Island (URI).

It’s my understanding he completed his PHD at URI.

By: Ron Britton

Ron Britton — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:02:33 +0000

Imroy:

That’s really lame. And they claim evolution isn’t credible.

I’m amazed that after years of doing this blog I’m still encountering new lies.

By: Jeff Eyges

Jeff Eyges — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:02:23 +0000

Hydrologic sorting – it’s like the joke we tell about “intelligent falling”. If you made it up to discredit creationists, no one would believe you.

That YEC from Harvard whose talk I attended last summer quoted one of his colleagues at DI – “the world doesn’t look old; it looks flooded!”

This young man is the poster boy for my argument against allowing them into graduate science programs at legitimate universities. Giving him a PhD was a crime against science.

By: Imroy

Imroy — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:18:40 +0000

Hydrologic sorting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html

That’s how creationists explain different fossils ending up in different strata. Except, like most creationist claims, it doesn’t explain what is actually found – the fossils aren’t sorted by size or density, the sediment isn’t sorted either, and catastrophic floods wouldn’t be expected to cause much sorting anyway.