DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITES AND ARGUMENTS


MAIN CREATIONIST SITES
Answers in Genesis at http://www.answersingenesis.org

Institute for Creation Research at: http://www.icr.org

CreationWiki at: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Creation.org at http://www.creationism.org

WHO WINS THE CREATIONIST/EVOLUTIONIST DEBATES?

http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm

(I read the Wall Street Journal article quoted in the first link. It was an science professor from the Univerisity of MN and evolutionist who was quoted as saying the creationists "tend to win the debates").


THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISM


Completeness of the fossil record:

"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track.

The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9


SOME COMMENTS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORD AS A WHOLE

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." Robert G. Wesson,
'Beyond Natural Selection', 1991, p. 45



Quote from author, paleontologist, evolutionist, and curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge and co-author Ian Tattersall who is Curator, Deptartment of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History and who is also a evolutionist).

"Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...

One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall,
'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982, p. 45-46


A widely read evolutionist and scientist states the following regarding the fosssil record:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 (Mark Ridley is an evolutionist)



Some quotes regarding the fossil record that are more specific:

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England.
E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

"If the genealogies of animals are uncertain, more so are those of plants. We cannot learn a great deal from petrified plant anatomy which shows different spades at different times, but no real phylogeny [transitional plant species changes] at all. There are simply fascinating varieties of the plants we have today—some new species of course—plus many extinctions: but algae, mosses, pines, ferns and flowering plants are all clearly recognizable from their first appearance in the fossil record." —Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 181.

"We do not know the phylogenetic history of any group of plants and animals." —*E. Core, General Biology (1981), p. 299.

"Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 587 (1976 edition, Macropaedia).

"No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." —World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 291 (1982 edition). (regarding reptiles becoming birds)


"For use in understanding the evolution of vertebrate flight, the early record of pterosaurs and bats is disappointing: Their most primitive representatives are fully transformed as capable fliers." Paul C. Sereno,
The evolution of dinosaurs, Science 284(5423):2137–2147 (quote on p. 2143), June 25, 1999

"The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 585 (1978 edition; Macropaedia).

"Insect origins beyond that point [the Carboniferous] are shrouded in mystery. It might almost seem that the insects had suddenly appeared on the scene, but this is not in agreement with accepted [evolutionary] ideas of animal origins." —*A.E. Hutchins, Insects (1988), pp. 3,4.

"The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown. There are various features, many of them noted above, in which the two typical subclasses of bony fish are already widely divergent when we first see them." —*A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology (1988), p. 53.

"....squirrels have evolved in patterns that seem to differ in no important ways from their living relative Sciurus. Since Sciurus is so similar to what is apparently the primitive squirrel morphotype, it seems to fit the concept of 'living fossil.’" –*R. Emry and *A. Thorington, "The Tree Squirrel Sciurus as a Living Fossil," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 30.

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist. 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.

"Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. We do not know either when or where distinctively apelike animals first began to diverge from monkey stock . . Unfortunately, the early stages of man's evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery."— *Sarel Elmer and *Irven DeVore and the *Editors of Life, The Primates (1985), p. 15.

"No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." —*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 90.

"Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details." Theodosius Dobzhanski (he was an evolutionist), Mankind Evolving, Yale Univ. Press, 1962, p168.

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.



LARGE RESOURCE OF QUOTATIONS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORD

http://evolution-facts.org/a17c.htm


FIVE MUSEUM OFFICIALS SPEAK REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS

http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderlan...1TheProblem.htm


MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.asp


THE SEARCH FOR MAN'S MISSING LINK CAME UP EMPTY

Large number of articles: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...nthropology.asp

More examples of false missing links: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2002/res0205b.htm

An essay: The Fruitless Search for the Missing Link by Jerry Bergman

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BMissingLink...essSearch49.htm


WHY THE FIRST LIFE ON EARTH DID NOT ARISE NATURALLY

Excellent origin of life essay: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html

More articles on the origin of life: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp


FIVE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE MACROEVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS

Five Failures of Macroevolutionary Model: http://www.probe.org/docs/5crises.html


OTHER ESSAYS ON CREATIONISM

General essays: http://www.apologetics.org/articles/articles.html

Second law of thermodynamics: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn...modynamics.html


Articles regarding mutations and why they are not a good argument for the macroevolutionary hypothesis:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

http://evolution-facts.org/c10a.htm

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut13.htm



QUOTES FROM SCIENTIST AND OTHERS THAT LEND SUPPORT TO CREATIONISM

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php

http://www.nwcreation.net/quotes.html


YOUNG EARTH ARGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT CREATIONISM

http://www.age-of-earth.com/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-16.htm


LARGE DIRECTORY OF CREATIONIST SITES

http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html


EVOLUTIONISTS COMMENT ON THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE EVOLUTIONIST CAMP

"So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business."
-Sharon Begley, "Science Contra Darwin," Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p. 80.


"So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be without significant support.

Some other process is responsible for the emergent properties of life, those distinctive features that separate one group of organisms from another, such as fishes and amphibians, worms and insects, horsetails and grasses." Brian Goodwin, Professor of Biology, Open University, UK, "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity," [1994], Phoenix: London, 1995, reprint, p.x)

"We conclude -unexpectedly- that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation." H. Allen Orr & Jerry A.Coyne, 'Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis' & 'Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago' respectively. "The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment," The American Naturalist, Vol. 140, No. 5, November 1992, p.726)


A QUOTE FROM A WELL KNOWN PROPONENT OF THE MACROEVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, .... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, Professor, geneticist, and evolutionist. "The New York Review", January 9, 1997, p. 31


THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL


http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-17.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld010.html


IS GOD ETERNAL?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

http://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htm


BIG BANG THEORY PROBLEMS AND CRITICISMS

Brief webpages:

http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december99.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2001/dc-01-04.htm

Excellent Comprehensive Essay:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305ad3.htm


RECENT DEVELOPMENTS THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT CREATIONISM BEST EXPLAINS THE NATURAL WORLD

Please see my next post to the string.


CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htm


ONLINE CREATIONISM BOOK (UNIQUE)

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ441.html


FALL OF MAN AND CREATION

http://www.ldolphin.org/Ruin.html


re: Quotes of evolutionist

I wanted to speak briefly regarding the evolutionist quotes I used in the previous post. First of all I do believe in not taking quotes radically out of context. For example, unless a lot of fairness is used I generally do not like quotes of partial sentences and find them suspect. For example, the Bible says, "....there is no God." Bible scholars will tell you, however, that the Bible declares, "The fool in his heart says there is no God." On the other hand, in a court of law attorneys and judges will cross examine a witness and highlight certain portions of their testimony to show inconsistency. In short, I find that the legal/historical method of discovering truth can shed additional light regarding science issues. Now I do not believe for one instant that some of the evolutionist would like me emphasizing key portions of their public testimony in order to make a point favoring the creationist position. This does not bother me. I clearly indicated that some of the gentleman were evolutionist yet I quoted them in areas we agree. I see nothing whatsoever wrong in doing so. I also realize the limitations of using quotes and it is certainly not meant to be a replacement for thorough study of the matter.

Lastly, many of the quotes are from the 1980's although I certainly have some from the 1990's. In my next post I will discuss on new developments have continued to show that creationism is best explanation for the natural world we see.I would remind the readers that in 1980 the evolutionists had over 120 years to prove their case and still did not do it. I would also remind the readers that an appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy. Please see this webpages information:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...to-novelty.html

In regards to the above link, while new ideas can overturn old ideas this is not guaranteed by any means. Many times new ideas are have not been sufficiently tested. Of course, this does not mean that we do not seek new information to build on our existing knowledge. I also realize that people can stubbornly stick to antiquated ideas, however, at the same time I also realize that people can jump on new fads prematurely. After all is said and done it is not the newness or oldness of ideas or information but it is their validity that most matters.

WHY THE CASE FOR CREATIONISM IS BUILDING AS NEW EVIDENCE IS INTRODUCED

We discussed the logical fallacy of appeal to novelty and why it is the validity of inofrmation and not whether it is new or old information that is truly important.
At the same time, I would not deny there is new information that sheds light on the issue on whether or not God or naturalistic forces created all the various life forms on earth. The Wall Street Journal article I referred to earlier has an evolutionist declare the creationist are "picking up steam". I believe they are picking up steam because as our knowledge in various science disciplines increases the attempted naturalistic explanations fail in more or more ways.

THE IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY FOUND IN NATURE SHOWS ITSELF TO BE A STRONG CASE FOR CREATIONISM

Here are two articles published in the 1990's that definitely indicate that a purely naturalistic explanation for life is done if irreducibly complex systems exist and the best information we have at this time is that they do exist:

publhttp://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_trueacidtest.htm

http://www.apologetics.org/articles/machines.html

The work of Behe (who is a evolutionist although a theistic evolutionist) prompted the evolutionary scientist Thornhill and Ussery to clarify the issue of irreducible complexity within a macroevolutionary model. I think if you read their work below using the citation I give you this will cleary enable you too see that Behe has not been refuted whatsoever:

Thornhill, R.H. and Ussery, D.W., (2000) A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 203: 111-116.


BEHE WRITES A LETTER TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Wall Street Journal
February 27, 2004

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

So lamented Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in "The Way of the Cell" (Oxford University Press, 2001). Ms. Begley reports the very latest "wishful speculations." The flagellum, an astonishingly complex biological outboard motor that some bacteria use to swim, has in recent years been found to be even more sophisticated. Not only does it have a rotary nanomotor that has been dubbed "the most efficient machine in the universe," but we now know it also contains intricate protein pumps that allow it to construct itself, something no human-made machine can do. With breathtaking chutzpah but bizarre logic, a few rather unreflective Darwinists are spinning the increased complexity, which they neither predicted nor explained, as a public relations reprieve for their moribund theory. It's like contending that, although wheels, chassis and a steering column give a car the appearance of intelligent design, when the fuel pump is discovered then happenstance is a better explanation.

The Darwinian imagination is a marvel to behold. No wonder Darwinists try to rule out intelligent design "as a matter of principle." It surely can't be ruled out by the evidence.

Michael J. Behe
Professor of Biological Sciences
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, Pa.

MORE DETAILED RESPONSE OF BEHE

Now there is no denying the evolutionist who oppose Behe's arguments have attempted to bring forth criticisms of Behe but I believe that if you examine Behe's reply to his critics you will see the inherent soundness of Behe's work and the unsoundness the macroevolutionary hypothesis. I offer the following website of Behe:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:u7ybu...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

So I definitely believe that new information has shed additional light on this subject. I I think it has made the very strong position of creationism even more stronger.

THE FAILURE OF THE ABIOGENESIS HYPOTHESIS BECOMES MORE EVIDENT WITH NEW INFORMATION

Here is an essay by a gentleman I have email correspondeded with. It demonstrates the abiogenesis hypothesis as new evidence comes out is increasingly under attack.
I think he has written a very excellent essay on the topic of the abiogenesis hypothesis:

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

I think if you look at that essays sources there are numerous citations from the 1990's and this reflects that there is new information that is coming out against the attempted naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.



Why Darwinism is Theologically Unsound

The book of Genesis declares the following:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." - Genesis 1:26

Now I would ask any person who is a Christian and declares they are adherent of the macroevlutionary explanation for man's arrival on earth this question:

"If men are descendants of apes, where along the way did men obtain their image of God?"

Secondly, the Bible declares the following:

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

Accordingly I would ask the following question:

"What about the immense suffering caused by mutations and death?"

The Bible declares that man's sin caused their to be death, disease, and suffering when they chose to sin. Clearly, the Bible declares that when God looked upon sinless creation it was "very good."

Why Non Young Earth Creationism Uses Unsound Biblical Exegesis


Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory
by Richard Niessen
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articl...ion=view&ID=164



Here is another article that was highly recommended to me regarding the days of creation issue that I think readers will find helpful:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp

There is a chart that was drawn in the late 1800's that was used to show how the embryonic development of five different species were the same. It was drawn to support Darwin's evolutionary theory. Each pictured stage of development were strikingly similar. Anyone who saw this chart and many of you have, would readily believe we all evolved from common origins. Its interesting that this chart is still part of a 2004 copywrited high school life science textbook. You might say so what. In 1875 the scientific community showed that the chart did not come close to what the true developments of these various species looked like. In other words, it was completely discredited. I have seen photographs, not drawings, of the species in that chart photographed by an advanced microscope. They are not the same. My question is why is this hoax still placed in modern textbooks and passed off as authentic. There is something fundementally wrong with that. Not to mention most states make it a crime to intentionally put inaccurate data in public school textbooks. This is only one instance but there are literally hundreds of others. What could possibly be the true agenda behind these intentional frauds? No wonder so many well intentioned people are arguing about these issues. Data has been purposely distorted and passed off as science when the truth is evolution as a viable theory is extinct by current science. You can find a current life science textbook and see for yourself.

Ahem...

= Underground water deposits, probably underneath bedrock. Since there is some 17 billion cubic meters of water vapor in the atmosphere, that means a possible 17 billion cubic meters of water underneath the bedrock. Hmmm...


=Ok, so the fountains of the great deep which watered the plants before the flood broke open, and THEN the windows of heaven opened up, and THEN it rained. (This is going somewhere. Bare with me.)


A cudbit is the length from a man's middle fingertip to his elbow.


Everything outside of the ark that lived on land died. Landlocked fish would ahve died too, known t be common sense by anyone who owns a fishtank and has watched fish try to breath dirty water for long enough. This will be explained as well...


Ok, first of all, I'd like to note that neither am I a scholar, graduate of well, anything, nor am I particularly bright (You'll learn this quickly enough by looking at my grammar.). Now, I'll show you why this upsets me.

First of all, the lack of water vapor in the sky suggests a lack of cloud cover. This would have caused Ultraviolet light stronger than that which we have today, most likely a and b spectrum, as c spectrum would have caused everyone to get cancer and die, along with killing all waterbased life, and plantlife. Also, since the majority of the water was underground, the groundlevel would have been higher...in fact, considerably higher. This could have resulted in what we'd now, in our current atmospheric status refer to as a hyperbaric atmosphere, which could have been anywhere from 1.5 to 15 times higher than it is today. The atmospheric pressure to ground level ratio also has something to do with soil density and porosity, which would have been relatively porous since the plantlife was watered aeroponically (This means the roots were suspended in a porous substrate and misted or fogged with water. This is most easily observed in marijuana growing operations, and in forums on marijuana cultivation. It also allows for maximum oxygen absorbtion into the root structure, causing accelerated growth due to faster metabolisation of nutrients, which means faster absorbtion of co2, which equals exponentially higher overall growthrates compared to dirt cultivation. This technique works astonishingly well across the board for all plant types.). So, here we are, with high UVA/B levels, obviously higher temperatures, regulated humidity, hyperbaric atmospheric conditions, and aeroponically grown plantlife. These factors result some very important aspects of life in pre-flood times.

First of all, the atmosphere would have caused frankenplants. Gigantic flora that would have churned out O2, and provided perfect fruit for those inhabiting the area. The plant life would have easily been the same size as 'prehistoric' plants, which I'll call (p)re-(f)lood from here on. These plants would have not only dumped copious O2 into the environment, but due to the small populace, would have absorbed almost all waste CO2, which just accelerates the process further, making all life on earth just that much more vigorous. The hyperbaric aspect means that the plants not only 'absorbed' waste CO2, but were forcefed it, and not only that, but the root structure, being near the soil's surface, would have been forcefed O2 in the same fashion. This is what I'll call factor A; vigorous plantlife.

Second, the O2 in this hyperbaric atmosphere, combined with the high UV levels would have caused another astounding effect:
GIANT REPTILES. That's right, the high temperatures, food supply, and O2 levels would have grown massive reptiles, and amphibians, creating what one calls 'dinosaurs'. These dinosaurs, being big CO2 machines, would have produced, by themselves, the CO2 levels needed for the plantlife of the time to thrive. Also, the hyperbaric conditions would have caused any pooling water to stay on the ground, as the air pressure would have prevented evaporation any higher than a certain level, giving ampohibians a moist environment in which they would also thrive. Ta-da, dinosaurs.

Now, for men. Since O2 is not only good for us, but VERY good for us, the O2 levels, combined with the quality of food growing (All men were vegetarians before the flood. That's why 'food laws' went into effect afterwards.) would have produced the median 907.5 year lifespan (not including Noah, who lived also after the flood, and Enoch, who went up to God and didn't experience the first death.), along with, most likely, a body size anywhere from 12 to 25 feet tall. This would have mad a cubit from 4 to 8 feet long, meaning the flood would have been 60 to 120 feet deep. Consider that a sidenote. Also, due to the environment, man wouldn't have been nearly as hairy, or light skinned as he is today, probably resulting in an olive skinned, dark haired, almost Hebrew looking giant man. This, of course, is conjecture, but really, what else do we have but common sense to go on?

Lastly, the flood occurance. Since first, before the rain, the waters rushed upwards, what would have ocurred would have been the world's largest, until and since the time, quicksand pit. The quicksand, or mud rather, would have sucked down anything on top of it, including plantlife, animals, and most of all, man, due to our physiological stature, and the drainage would have settled everyhting down into layers, cementing everything into place from the weight and pressure of the dirt above. Oddly enough, looking at the fossil records, this can be seen, with the known fossils displaying said reaction in the said format, with the ground life, like bugs, snails, and other creepy crawlies at the bottom, denser amphibian types above them, reptilians by body type, density and ability to either swim, wade, or otherwise struggle against the suction above them, and finally, the lighter, hollow boned birds above that. The animals we see to the north, in the highland areas would have been the mammlians, which reacted to an instinct they still have known as the sixth sense, which would have caused massive migrations upwards, just like they do now before flood, lightening storms, and other natural disasters. Unfortunately for these mammals, inside of 150 days, they died from the worlds largest blizzard, as the evaporating water (heat+lower barometric pressure+newly formed jet stream due to massive atmospheric change=snow like crazy where it's cold enough) fell on them and iced them into place. Of note is the furry appearance of some currently non-furry animals, such as elephants. Take note that a barnyard pig will go from a pink, short toothed, slow, furless swine to a tusked, hairy, swift boar inside of two weeks when sent out into the wild. This is a fact that is commonly known amongst the rural pig familiar communities. Mammals adapt, but evolve...no. Frankly, they have devolved due to the change post-flood in the atmosphere, food supply/quality/ and air content/quality, as have we, and all plantlife on earth.

It all seems very simple to me, and has just been explained to everyone by a GED holding, average guy, using nothing but the Bible, highschool science knowledge, and the Bible. That is why I'm upset about it. If I can see it this clearly, and look at the clear progress of it all, why hasn't anyone else, and further more, since IT'S ALL TESTABLE BY ANY LAYMEN WHO WISHED TO DO SO, why hasn't it been tested.

In closing, if it's testable, and is tested, and proves to be the way it was, why not do it, and prove Darwinism to be mere atheistic eugenicism, and bring some scientific validity back to the Bible with one of God's greatest gifts to mankind:
COMMON SENSE

Earlier I gave the wrong citation for a A>N. Romer quote. I gave the wrong date. Here is the corrected quote and citation:

"The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown. There are various features, many of them noted above, in which the two typical subclasses of bony fish are already widely divergent when we first see them." —*Alfred Sherwood Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (1966), p. 53.


Here are some additional quotes regarding the fossil record:


"Although this transition [from fish to amphibian] doubtless occurred over a period of millions of years, there is no known fossil record of these stages." - Kraig Adler, Encyclopedia of Reptiles & Amphibians, Equinox, Oxford, 1986, pg. 4)


"Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know,have their origins firmly based in nothing" - quoted in W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987, 1: 62-63)


"All three divisions of the bony fishes appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armoured. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier intermediate forms?" - G. T. Todd, American Scientist 20(4):757, 1980.)


"But we still know very little about the early origins of fishes...." - Bone, Q., N.B. Marshall and J.H.S. Blaxter. 1995. Biology of Fishes. Blackie Academic & Professional, Glasgow, UK.; p. 6)


"No intermediate fossils between jawed and jawless forms have been found - early fossils of jawed fishes had jaws, teeth, scales and spines. The origins of jaws and other structures that characterized the early gnathostomes are lost in the fossil record, belonging to some group about which we known nothing. " (Helfman, G.S., B.B. Collette and D.E. Facey. 1997. The Diversity of Fishes. Blackwell Science, MA. 528pp.; p. 157)


"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," [1995], Phoenix: London, 1996, p.95.

I found the original quote for the lungfish quote.

Here it is:

“But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing, a matter of hot dispute among the experts, each of whom is firmly convinced that everyone else is wrong ... I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.” [emphasis in original] Errol White, “A Little on Lung-Fishes,” Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, Vol. 177, Presidential Address, January 1966, p. 8.


Here is an additional interesting quote:

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

The two above quotes were taken from: http://208.55.7.236/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes24.html

kendemyer, thanks for all the great links.
I spent a long time getting lost in all the info. I had a great time and will continue searching through it.

A sobering thought for Christians who cannot make up their mind about is the time line six days creation or is there a pre-adamic period ,is:

Death only enters after the fall of man, so nothing could have died before Adam.
I recently threw out my believes in the pre-adamic world and I am standing on the revealed Word.
Its a step in faith to confront a scientist these days and declare that you believe the sun is younger than the earth....by a few days
Cornelius

thanks