Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Galaxies

Evolutionists now admit that galaxies cannot evolve from one type to another (a). There are also good reasons why natural processes cannot form galaxies (b). Furthermore, if spiral galaxies were billions of years old, their arms or bars would be severely twisted (c). Because they have maintained their shape, either galaxies are young, or unknown physical phenomena are occurring within galaxies (d). Even structures composed of galaxies are now known to be so amazingly large, and yet relatively thin, they could not have formed by slow gravitational attraction (e). Slow, natural processes cannot form such huge galactic structures; rapid, supernatural processes may have.

a. “There is much doubt, however, that galaxies evolve from one type to another at all.” George Abell, Exploration of the Universe, 2nd edition (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969), p. 629.

“Our conclusions, then, are that the sequence of the classification of galaxies is not an evolutionary sequence...” [ Paul W. Hodge, The Physics and Astronomy of Galaxies and Cosmology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 122.

b. “The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.” Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe, p. 55.

Trefil explains the basis for this frustration in his fourth chapter entitled, “Five Reasons Why Galaxies Can’t Exist.”

“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.

“A completely satisfactory theory of galaxy formation remains to be formulated.” Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980), p. 22.

“The theory of the formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems of astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution.” Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantom Books, Inc., 1977), p. 68.

Fifty cosmologists attended a conference on galaxy formation. After summarizing much observational data, two of the most respected authorities optimistically estimated the probability that any existing theory on galaxy formation is correct is about 1 out of 100. [See P. J. E. Peebles and Joseph Silk, “A Cosmic Book,” Nature, Vol. 335, 13 October 1988, pp. 601–606.]

c. Hodge, p. 123.

d. Harold S. Slusher, “Clues Regarding the Age of the Universe,” ICR Impact, No. 19, January 1975, pp. 2–3.

Steidl, pp. 161–187.

e. “In its simplest form, the Big Bang scenario doesn’t look like a good way to make galaxies. It allows too little time for the force of gravity by itself to gather ordinary matter—neutrons, protons and electrons—into the patterns of galaxies seen today. Yet the theory survives for want of a better idea.” Peterson, “Seeding the Universe,” p. 184.

“It [the Great Wall, composed of tens of thousands of galaxies] is far too large and too massive to have formed by the mutual gravitational attraction of its member galaxies.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall,” Science, Vol. 2 46, 17 November 1989, p. 885. [See also Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, “Mapping the Universe,” Science, Vol. 246, 17 November 1989, pp. 897–903.]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences22.html#wp1257493

[Pahu]

Stellar Nursery, or Is the Emperor Naked?

The popular media frequently claim that stars are actually seen evolving and that pictures of these stellar nurseries prove it. Impressive pictures of the Eagle Nebula are usually shown. Many people accept the claim without asking themselves, “Do the pictures contain anything that shows stars are evolving?” Of course not. If stars were evolving, other physical measurements could confirm it.  Where are those measurements?  Silence.

This willingness to accept what others tell us reminds one of the tale in which citizens told their naked emperor he was nicely dressed. Rather than believing or reporting what their eyes clearly told them, people preferred to accept what others said—or at least not object. Better not disagree or even ask questions; it could be embarrassing.

Why do some astronomers say stars are evolving? Until recently, the atmosphere prevented astronomers from seeing infrared radiations from space. Then in the late 1960s, satellites outside the atmosphere made infrared sky surveys that showed some surprisingly warm clouds of dust and gas in our galaxy. Several things could cause this heating. Perhaps a dim star (a brown dwarf) is behind the cloud, maybe something nearby exploded, or a star is dying as it is being pulled into a massive black hole. Those who struggled to understand how stars evolved had a different interpretation: “Gravity is collapsing the cloud, raising its temperature. In thousands of years, it will become a star.” Still other interpretations are possible.

NASA’s claim in 1995 that these pictures showed hundreds to thousands of stars forming was based on the speculative “EGG-star formation theory.” It has recently been tested independently with two infrared detectors that can see inside the dusty pillars. Few stars were there, and 85% of the pillars had too little dust and gas to support star formation. “The new findings also highlight how much astronomers still have to learn about star formation.” [Ron Cowen, “Rethinking an Astronomical Icon: The Eagle’s EGG, Not So Fertile,” Science News, Vol. 161, 16 March 2002, pp. 171–172.]

What prevents stellar evolution? Just as the Sun’s gravity does not pull planets into the Sun, gravity does not pull gas and dust into a tight ball that then ignites as a star. Each cloud of dust and gas in space has a specific amount of kinetic and potential energy, angular momentum, and magnetic energy that must be removed for even a slight collapse. Evidence of that removal is missing. Furthermore, any collapse would only increase the cloud’s temperature and pressure, which, in turn, would expand the cloud.

If someone tells you that the emperor is well dressed, ask questions, and insist on seeing real evidence.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences21.html#wp3218497

[Pahu]

Corals and Caves

Estimated old ages for the Earth are frequently based on “clocks” that today are ticking at extremely slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were thought to have always been very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show that no known coral formation need be older than 3,400 years (a). A similar comment can be made for growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites in caves (b).

Water from an underground spring was channeled to a spot on a river bank for only one year. In that time, limestone built up around sticks lying on the bank. Limestone deposits can form rapidly if the groundwater’s chemistry is favorable. Just because stalactites and stalagmites are growing slowly today does not mean they must be millions of years old. Conditions after the flood provided the ideal chemistry for rapidly forming such features.

a. Ariel A. Roth, “Coral Reef Growth,” Origins, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1979, pp. 88–95.

J. Th. Verstelle, “The Growth Rate at Various Depths of Coral Reefs in the Dutch East Indian Archipelago,” Treubia, Vol. 14, 1932, pp. 117–126.

b. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1984), pp. 335–336.

Larry S. Helmick, Joseph Rohde, and Amy Ross, “Rapid Growth of Dripstone Observed,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 14, June 1977, pp. 13–17.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences24.html#wp1628983

[Pahu]

Radiometric Dating: Contradictions and Key Assumption 1

The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (such as the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to “blind tests” (a). In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias.

a.   A blind test requires that the people making the measurements not know (be “blind” to) which of several specimens is the one of interest. For example, to measure a rock’s age by some radiometric technique, similar rocks—of different, but known, ages—must accompany the rock. Only after the measurements are announced are the technicians making the measurements told the history of any specimen. Subtle biases can enter the experimental procedure if persons with vested interests in the test’s outcome make the measurement or influence those who do. Blind tests ensure objectivity.

 A special type of blind test commonly used in medicine is a “double-blind test.” Neither doctors nor patients know who receives the special treatment being tested. A random selection determines which patients receive the special treatment and which receive a placebo—something obviously ineffective, such as a sugar pill. Experienced medical researchers give little credibility to any medicine or treatment that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in a well-designed and rigorously executed double-blind test.

 The Shroud of Turin, claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ, was supposedly dated by a blind test. Actually, the technicians at all three laboratories making the measurements could tell which specimen was from the Shroud. [Personal communication on 19 July 1989 with Dr. Austin Long who participated in the measurements.] The test would have been blind if the specimens had been reduced to unidentified carbon powder before they were given to the testing laboratories.

 Radiometric dates that do not fit a desired theory are often thrown out by alleging contamination. Few ever hear about such tests. If those who object to a blind radiometric date have not identified the contamination before the test, their charges should carry little weight. Therefore, careful researchers should first objectively evaluate the possibility of contamination.

 Humans are naturally biased. We tend to see what we want to see and explain away unwanted data. This applies especially to those proposing theories, myself included. Scientists are not immune to this human shortcoming. Many popular ideas within geology would probably never have survived had a critical age measurement been subjected to a blind test.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences25.html#wp1669832

[Pahu]

Radiometric Dating: Contradictions and Key Assumption 2

Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error—indicating major errors in methodology (b) and understanding (c). One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error.

This is a huge and critical assumption that few have questioned. Several lines of evidence show that radioactive decay rates were once much faster than they are today (d). A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood.

b. John Woodmorappe, “Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, September 1979, pp. 102–129.

Robert H. Brown, “Graveyard Clocks: Do They Tell Real Time?” Signs of the Times, June 1982, pp. 8–9.

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.

c. “For some inexplicable reason, the nuclei of certain elements become unstable and spontaneously release energy and/or particles.” Stansfield, p. 82.

d. Larry Vardiman et al., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 2005).

For earlier work that showed that radioactive decay rates were much faster in the past, see:

 Robert V. Gentry, “Variance of the Decay Constant over Geological Time,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 5, September 1968, pp. 83–84.

Robert V. Gentry, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, 2nd edition (Knoxville, Tennessee: Earth Sciences Associates, 1988), p. 282.

 Paul Ramdohr, “New Observations on Radioactive Halos and Radioactive Fracturing,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory Translation (ORNL-tr-755), 26 August 1965, pp. 16–25.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences25.html#wp1669832

[Old Mike]

Several lines of evidence show that radioactive decay rates were once much faster than they are today (d). A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood

No they do not.
No it cannot. Your references are all to creationist sites.

“For some inexplicable reason, the nuclei of certain elements become unstable and spontaneously release energy and/or particles.” Stansfield, p. 82.

Stansfield may find it inexplicable. Real nuclear scientists have no problem.

[Pahu]

Index Fossils 1

In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above other types of fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction,   helped sort organisms in that order during the flood.

Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.” Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the layer of the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content (a), which, as stated above, assumes evolution.

a. “Ever since William Smith [the founder of the index fossil technique] at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur....Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”  Derek V. Ager, “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, Vol. 100, 10 November 1983, p. 425.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences26.html#wp1655298

[Old Mike]

Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”  Derek V. Ager, “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, Vol. 100, 10 November 1983, p. 425.

Ah, but the beau Derek was writing before Google

A 2 minute search turns up this:

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/datingfossilrecord.html

[Joseph27]

Just look at the links provided in my reply to your previous post.
Do you actually read the stuff you cut and paste, Pahu?

Yes.

Come on dont bluff... there is no way you read it - you simply cut and paste streams of nonsense akin to arguing for the existing of santa...  its a bit silly but you expect that from one who actually takes the time to argue creationism

[Pahu]

Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”  Derek V. Ager, “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, Vol. 100, 10 November 1983, p. 425.

Ah, but the beau Derek was writing before Google

A 2 minute search turns up this:

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/datingfossilrecord.html

The authors of the article, paleontologists John Pojeta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer, make unsupportable assertions about the stability of the breakdown of radioactivity in determining the age of strata:

“The study of the sequence of occurrence of fossils in rocks, biostratigraphy, reveals the relative time order in which organisms lived. Although this relative time scale indicates that one layer of rock is younger or older than another, it does not pinpoint the age of a fossil or rock in years. The discovery of radioactivity late in the 19th century enabled scientists to develop techniques for accurately determining the ages of fossils, rocks, and events in Earth's history in the distant past. For example, through isotopic dating we've learned that Cambrian fossils are about 540-500 million years old, that the oldest known fossils are found in rocks that are about 3.8 billion years old, and that planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.”

The problem, as pointed out in my recent post, “Radiometric Dating: Contradictions and Key Assumption,” is:
 “A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This is a huge and critical assumption that few have questioned. Several lines of evidence show that radioactive decay rates were once much faster than they are today. A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood.”

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences25.html#wp2569480

[Pahu]

Index Fossils 2

Evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular (b), many discoveries, such as living coelacanths (c-g), were unexpected.

b. “It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.” R. H. Rastall, “Geology,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10, 1954, p. 168.

“Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?” Larry Azar, “Biologists, Help!” BioScience, Vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714.

“A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?  “... the fossils do not form the kind of pattern that would be predicted using a simple NeoDarwinian model.”   Thomas S. Kemp, “A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,” New Scientist, Vol. 108, 5 December 1985, p. 66.

“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.” J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47.

“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” Ibid., p. 53.

Although O’Rourke attempts to justify the practices of stratigraphers, he recognizes the inherent problems associated with such circular reasoning.

“But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.” Kitts, p. 466.

“It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology.” Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record,   3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993), p. 98.

“The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity.” David M. Raup, “Geology and Creationism,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 21.

In a taped, transcribed, and approved 1979 interview with Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland asked Fisher how he dated certain fossils. Answer: “By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found.” When Sunderland asked if this was not circular reasoning, Fisher replied, “Of course; how else are you going to do it?” “The Geologic Column: Its Basis and Who Constructed It,” Bible-Science News Letter, December 1986, p. 6.

“The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity.” Bobb Schaeffer, Max K. Hecht, and Niles Eldredge, “Phylogeny and Paleontology,” Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1972), p. 39.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences26.html#wp1655298

[Pahu]

Index Fossils 3

Thought to be extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth [SEE la kanth] was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia (c). How could two groups of coelacanths, separated by 6,000 miles, survive for 70,000,000 years but leave no fossils?

Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs (d). Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged, land animal. Millions of students have been erroneously taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people (Was your ancestor a fish?).

c. Peter Forey, “A Home from Home for Coelacanths,” Nature, Vol. 395, 24 September 1998, pp. 319–320.

Since the above discovery near Indonesia in 1998, most coelacanths are being caught off the coast of northern Tanzania, 500 miles north of what was thought to be their old habitats. [See Constance Holden, “Saving the Coelacanth,” Science, Vol. 316, 8 June 2007, p. 1401.]

d. “Zoologists originally thought that the paired fins of coelacanths and the fossil lobe-fins functioned as true limbs, as props to lever the fish against the solid substrate of the bottom sand or against rocks.” Keith S. Thomson, Living Fossil: The Story of the Coelacanth (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Ltd., 1991), p. 160.

“...much attention has been focused on their fins in the hope that they will tell more about how fins became limbs.” Ommanney, p. 74.

“For the coelacanth was a member of a very ancient class of fishes which was supposed to have disappeared some 70 million years ago. This great group of fishes, called crossopterygians, flourished during that decisive era in the history of the earth—when the fish, taking on legs and lungs, went forth to conquer the continents.”   Jacques Millot, “The Coelacanth,” Scientific American, Vol. 193, December 1955, p. 34.

 Dr. Jacques Millot, who headed many detailed studies of freshly caught coelacanths, still held out hope as of 1955:
“Perhaps their stalked fins permit them to creep along the rocks like seals.” Ibid., p. 38.

This myth was buried only after Dr. Hans Fricke’s team observed coelacanths in their natural habitat in 1987. Their bottom fins have nothing to do with legs or creeping. Why did Millot ignore the facts he knew best? The coelacanth, he thought, solved a big problem. In 1955, Millot wrote:
“One of the great problems of evolution has been to find anatomical links between the fishes and their land-invading descendants...For a long time evolutionists were troubled by this major gap between fishes and the amphibians. But the gap has now been bridged by studies of ancient fishes, and this is where the coelacanth comes in.”   Ibid., pp. 35–36.

Later (1987), after studying live coelacanths, the scientific world learned that Millot was wrong. The coelacanth did not bridge this gap. Therefore, the fish-to-amphibian problem is back.

“He [J. L. B. Smith] was able to report [in the journal Nature] that, like the lungfishes, the fish had an air bladder or lung (on the basis of the taxidermist’s report of the discarded viscera), which was a median rather than paired structure.” Thomson, Living Fossil, p. 39. [It is now recognized that the discarded “bag” was not a lung, but an oil-filled swimming bladder.  W.B.]

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences26.html#wp1655298

[Old Mike]

You simply do not understand the theory of evolution. Some of the common ancestors of today's coelacanths were subjected to environmental and other pressures which resulted in their surviving descendents differing slightly from their parents. Over long periods of time these changes resulted in us. Other individuals found themselves in an environment to which they were ideally suited. With no pressure to change, they did not. Nature invented the saying “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”
The continued existence of coelacanths which were not represented in the fossil record shows just how fragmentary that record is. It emphasizes the fact that if we have not yet found fossil “missing links” it does not mean that those links did not exist.

[Joseph27]

"As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive, and as consequently there is frequently occurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner slightly profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate in its new and modified form.'

[Pahu]

Index Fossils 4

J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs” and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all (e). Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours (f).

Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution (g). If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.

e. “The brain of a 90-pound coelacanth weighs less than 50 grains [0.11 ounces] —that is, no more than one 15,000th of the body weight. No present-day vertebrate that we know of has so small a brain in relation to its size.”   Millot, p. 39.

f. “I confess I’m sorry we never saw a coelacanth walk on its fins.” Hans Fricke, “Coelacanths: The Fish That Time Forgot,” National Geographic, Vol. 173, June 1988, p. 838.

“...we never saw any of them walk, and it appears the fish is unable to do so.” Ibid., p. 837.

g. “Few creatures have endured such an immense span of time with so little change as coelacanths. The cutaway drawing of a present-day specimen seems almost identical with the 140-million-year-old fossil found in a quarry in southern West Germany....Why have coelacanths remained virtually unchanged for eons...30 million generations?” Fricke, p. 833. [Answer: They were fossilized a few thousand years ago, at the time of the flood.]

“Throughout the hundreds of millions of years the coelacanths have kept the same form and structure. Here is one of the great mysteries of evolution—that of the unequal plasticity of living things.”   Millot, p. 37.

“The coelacanths have changed very little since their first known appearance in the Upper Devonian.” A. Smith Woodward, as quoted by Thomson, Living Fossil, p. 70.

“What is even more remarkable is that in spite of drastic changes in the world environment, the coelacanths are still much the same organically as their ancestors....In the meantime, research is continuing...and will try to penetrate the secret of the adaptability which has enabled them to live through many geological eras under widely differing conditions without modifying their constitution.” Millot, p. 39.

“...the coelacanths have undergone little change in 300 million years...”   Ommanney, p. 74.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences26.html#wp1655298