The Amazing Fossils vs Their Invented Stories

“Believe it or not, the ancestors of elephants were once as small as mice,” says Dr Evans in phys.org. No, really Dr Evans? What is the scientific evidence for that conclusion? We chose the generation as our basic measure of evolutionary time, as it is the shortest interval over which evolutionary change can occur.” 

So Dr Evans, you deduced from your own invented data that it takes 24 million generations for a mouse to become an elephant, however, you say it only takes two million to loose all that weight to become tiny again! Believe it or not, you say…Not believing! No scientific evidence was presented, invented data doesn’t count.

Moving on…Duck-bill dinosaurs  are considered the champs for eating their veggies than elephants or even horses!

In live science

“The plants these dinosaurs fed on were tough and covered with hard, tooth-gouging particles. Hadrosaurids chewed their meals with teeth that possessed flattened grinding surfaces much like those of horses and bison. Some hadrosaurids sported up to 1,400 of these teeth, and were continually replacing them.” 

“The complexity of hadrosaurid teeth would have proved excellent tools for handling tough, gritty plants.”

The earth is only thousands of years old, which allows for discoveries like this to happen which allows us to learn more about the animals! Hadrosaurs teeth are considered 70 million years old by somehow avoiding decay in the invented evolutionary time frame but these teeth are a lot younger and are perfectly functional if placed in a living dinosaur as the research team points out…

“We were stunned to find that the mechanical properties of the teeth were preserved after 70 million years of fossilizationif you put these teeth back into a living dinosaur they would function perfectly.  

When the earth is young, one expects to find well-preserved fossils that normally would not survive so many millions of years. These fossils are amazing, the stories that follow them are not. Interesting to note, the teeth of Hadrosaurs is more complex than any known mammal which suggests so-called evolution of teeth has been going downhill the last 70 million years.

Although speculation can be questioned about how much understanding do they have about the teeth, they freely admit they lack the understanding with horses’ teeth. “We still don’t have a good understanding even of how horse teeth work.” 

In phys.org…They came up with a reason for such well-preserved teeth that could have lasted for so long...”Their complex dentition could have played a major role in keeping them on the planet for nearly 35 million years.” This is another Believe it or not question. In other words, they believe it could have been in the development of the teeth, like humans have primary dentition  of deciduous teeth and a secondary dentition of permanent teeth and Hadrosaurs has a third dentition, an invented story about how young teeth are old. Believe it or not about Hadrosaurs teeth? Not!

In another story, after over a century of a fossil known to be that of a  lemur (a primate) is now reclassified as a fish! Oops! Paleontologists often pride themselves on how much they can tell us about any given creature from just a fragment. They also like taking credit by saying now we can learn more  about fish transitions…lol One would think that proper identification is a prerequisite for understanding.  Over a 100 years of misidentification is a rather long time!

About these ads

5 thoughts on “The Amazing Fossils vs Their Invented Stories

  1. “Believe it or not, the ancestors of elephants were once as small as mice,” says Dr Evans in phys.org. No, really Dr Evans? What is the scientific evidence for that conclusion? “
    …..
    So Dr Evans, you deduced from your own invented data that it takes 24 million generations for a mouse to become an elephant, however, you say it only takes two million to loose all that weight to become tiny again! No scientific evidence was presented, invented data doesn’t count.

    Michael often does not cite his sources. So the first guess is that he is simply lying. But, I found the source, source, and yes, he is in fact lying to us. Michael demands the evidence, and accuses Dr Evans, a respected Australian biologist, of lying through his tusks. Well, Michael, PNAS has the data,[1] and thinks that the data support his conclusion: Alistair R. Evans, et al.,[2] “The maximum rate of mammal evolution” PNAS online doi: 10.1073/pnas.1120774109 (Jan 30, 2012). The technique for “Measuring the evolution of body size in mammals” is found in PNAS 2012 109 (11) 4027-4028 (February 21, 2012).

    MICHAEL, PLEASE REPEAT YOUR ACCUSATION THAT DR. EVANS INVENTED HIS DATA. We must not have heard you clearly the first time.

    Can anyone think of a stronger reason than this post to call creationists dishonest, lying scumbags? No wonder scientists call them “Liars for Jesus.”

    =================

    [1] Supporting data is online here.

    [2] In fact, TWENTY other authors. Michael thinks they’re all lying.

  2. When the earth is young, one expects to find well-preserved fossils that normally would not survive so many millions of years. These fossils are amazing, the stories that follow them are not. Interesting to note, the teeth of Hadrosaurs is [sic] more complex than [sic] any known mammal which suggests so-called evolution of teeth has been going downhill the last 70 million years.

    Michael once again puts on public display his astounding ignorance of paleontology. Teeth are the hardest parts of any animal. They preserve longer than bones. Shark teeth are often preserved far longer than their bones, sometimes for hundreds of millions of years. Yet another lie, Michael.

    Michael falsely claims that Hadrosaur teeth are more complex than those of. any other mammal. This is also a lie. Eurekalert[1] says only that Hadrosaur teeth are more complex than those of horses and cows.[2]

    Michael also sneers that the evolution of teeth has gone downhill for 70 million years. Here, he confuses evolution with design. If a 70-year-old Audi 50 had a transmission more advanced than a 2013 dual-clutch RS4, then we could say that its DESIGN had gone downhill. But evolution does not “advance” toward a goal.[3] By this logic, Michael would hold that humans are less advanced than horses or cows,, because we can’t chew grass as well. Also, of course, designers have access to materials that have been developed since their early efforts, whereas evolution is constrained by its ancesters. If only 2 of the 6 components of Hadrosaur teeth had evolved in other lineages, then the other 4 are not available[4] to mammals—or even to other reptiles.

    Which brings up another question. If God DESIGNED the complex Hadrosaur teeth,m and if they were so advanced, why did God not design them into modern horses and cows? Is God incompetent? Or merely forgetful?

    ==================

    [1] Which, true to form, Michael neglected to cite.

    [2] And this, of course, is only an opinion from a secondary source not known for its strict accuracy.

    [3] Creationists gag on this concept. We should probably treat it as as a congenital incurable defect.

    [4] Absent convergent evolution, which does occur occasionally.

  3. In another story, after over a century of a fossil known to be that of a lemur (a primate) is now reclassified as a fish! Oops! Paleontologists often pride themselves on how much they can tell us about any given creature from just a fragment. They also like taking credit by saying now we can learn more about fish transitions…lol One would think that proper identification is a prerequisite for understanding. Over a 100 years of misidentification is a rather long time!

    Oh, I don’t know. Creationists have misidentified rhinoceros as biblical unicorns for much longer than that.

    Michael again hopes to hide his source from his readers. It is probably “‘Noseless Lemur’ Fossil Is Actually A Fish, Paleontologists Find In New Study”. Stripping away Michael’s embellishments, the actual story is that ONE 19thC paleontologist misclassified a fragment of a 2-inch-long fossil after a quick glance at its teeth, which were more mammal-like than fish-like for this species. The fossil was still mostly encased in rock when he saw it. And that particular paleontologist had a bizarre theory that mammals had originated in South America.

    It is, of course, instructive to note that it was mainstream scientists who properly reclassified the fish. No creationists were harmed in the identification of this fossil. In fact, no creationists had a clue. It is passing strange that Michael, who can’t tell the difference between a hair and a feather[1] has the chutzpah to crow over such a mistake.

    =================

    [1] Speaking of the feathers recently found on some dinosaurs Michael pontificates—

    You see, type 1 protofeathers are also found on you, horses, dogs, cats, and other animals who have hair!

    See Olorin comment on July 10, 2012 at 11:09 pm.

  4. Creationists have misidentified rhinoceros as biblical unicorns for much longer than that.

    Which creationists have stated explicitly that the biblical unicorn has to be a rhinoceros? And perhaps you can properly define ra’am for us as well?

  5. Dragons, Unicorns, And Other Endangered Species
    August 17, 2012 · by Phil Jones
    — in Answers in Genesis, Dinosaurs in the Bible, Ken Ham

    Critics occasionally point out that the word “unicorn” appears at least nine times as well, but such people are willingly ignorant of the fact that the Bible is referring to Elasmotherium, a giant Ice Age rhinoceros.(3)

    ———————————

    (3. The biblical writers may have been aware of the modern rhinoceros, which lived in parts of northern Africa, and commentators in the past sometimes identified the biblical “unicorn” with this animal. This interpretation is based on the LXX μονοκέρως (monokérōs or “one-horned animal”) and the Vulgate unicornis and rinoceros, but there are no contextual reasons for assuming the animal referred to had a single horn. Most scholars today believe the Hebrew is related to an Akkadian word meaning “wild ox” (possibly the Aurochs, which became extinct in the 1600s). Of course, modern rhinos and wild oxen are just not as sexy as Elasmotherium!

    Creation Myth: Day Six

    The Reem

    …..

    Unicorn

    Now I realize that you might never have heard of a Reem before … but perhaps you’ve heard of the Reem by its other name — the unicorn.

    BUT, if you prefer, we can change to a less controversial claim—
    Creationists have misidentified dinosaurs as biblical behemoths for much longer than that.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s