Fossils by Faith
Fossils are real artifacts you can hold in your hand. The stories behind them are not. How does science connect the one with the other? Sometimes, it requires faith in incredible stories.
- Stay, sis: Darwin portrayed a world in flux, with natural selection continually sifting and amplifying minute changes over time. Why, then did Science Daily title an article, “Rare Insect Fossil Reveals 100 Million Years of Evolutionary Stasis”? Sure enough, the article claims that a certain splay-footed cricket in rock alleged to be 100 million years old “has undergone very little evolutionary change since the Early Cretaceous Period, a time of dinosaurs just before the breakup of the supercontinent Gondwana.” But is a phrase like evolutionary stasis an explanation, or just a term providing protection from falsification?
- Goldilocks and the 3 Dinos: According to PhysOrg, computer models show that dinosaurs can only leave footprints in strata that are “just right” for the mass of the animal. “Now we can use this ‘Goldilocks’ effect as a baseline for exploring more complicated factors such as the way dinosaurs moved their legs, or what happens to tracks when a mud is drying out.” But even if the model allows the scientist to tweak all the parameters in a computer, what happened to good old-fashioned field experiments?
- Titanoceratops the granddaddy: Analysis of a partial skeleton from New Mexico “could be the new granddaddy of horned dinosaurs,” National Geographic News teased. It’s a big one, the biggest horned dinosaur found in North America, dated at 74 million years old, but hold on; they gave this bone a new name when they are not sure it isn’t a member of a previously-identified species called Pentaceratops. No sooner was it given a titanic name but paleontologists were describing its Darwinian pedigree: “If indeed a new species, Titanoceratops’ discovery could also mean that triceratopsins—members of a family of giant horned dinosaurs—evolved their gigantic sizes evolved [sic] at least five million years earlier than previously thought, the study says.”
It’s not clear why this specimen had anything to do with ancestry. Does the smaller evolve from the larger? Sometimes, perhaps, but clearly, much of Darwin’s story had to get things bigger than the last universal common ancestor, a cell. A Yale paleontologist remarked, “It’s pretty surprising—I would have not have thought something this big and this advanced was living in this time period.” But have faith: “I would like it to be real,” a paleontologist at Cleveland Natural History Museum said, struggling with his doubts. Another brother helped his unbelief: “After all, Triceratops must have had ancestors in this earlier time, and this individual does show specialized traits that we see in the Triceratops complex.”
If paleontologists unfamiliar with the consensus views on age, origin, ancestry and evolutionary mechanisms were to examine these fossils, it’s interesting to consider what stories they might come up with.
Pardon, your assumptions are showing. Did you catch the slips? The specimen must have ancestors during this earlier time – says who? Darwin, that’s who. The evidence may not show it, and claiming it may require willing suspension of disbelief, but the Bearded Buddha asks for unfeigned faith. But then why not apply the same faith to Titanoceratops (if such a species even existed) that was applied to the splay-footed cricket, saying it showed “incredible stasis” for 100 million years?
Evolutionists have come up with the perfect crime. No evidence will ever convict Darwin, because he bought out the police, the researchers, the politicians, the teachers, and the judges. Will any magistrate in his totalitarian regime ever pay attention to a citizen’s arrest of these scientist impersonators? (see 09/30/2007 commentary). If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Tell the unvarnished truth to whoever will listen, that’s what.