Posted by: Rob Lester | June 8, 2010

A truly unbelievable fish story—the coelacanth

In May of 2007 an Indonesian fisherman caught a coelacanth—a fish thought to be over 350 million years old and extinct for 65 million years.  Coelacanths are supposed to be a transitional creature with its “lobed fins” evolving into legs of land-dwelling animals.  No fossil evidence has been found of coelacanths for 65 million years (according to paleontologists).  So we shouldn’t be surprised they confidently pronounced this fish to be extinct.  The odd thing is that coelacanth fossils are found alongside dinosaur fossils, proving they lived together.  Evolutionists laugh at the suggestion of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time, also pointing to the lack of human and dinosaur fossils in the same geologic layer.  Yet we know humans and coelacanths exist together right now even without fossils of the two in the same layer (see photo above).  This just proves how careful one must be when interpreting fossil evidence.  It also proves that what Darwinist scientists “know” with certainty one day may be disproven the next day by an Indonesian fisherman who doesn’t have the academic training to know what he caught does not (or should not) exist.  There is one source of information which is never wrong and has never been disproven—the Bible.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Your blog says you encourage critical thinking, however, I can tell you have a definate stance. You seem rather derogatory towards science.. so you are not fostering critical thinking if you are biased. If you choose a side, your writing will reflect that.

    Speaking of your writing, this is not necessarily accurate. The reason there are no coelacanth and human fossils are because they don’t live in the same enviornment. If that diver and coelacanth died, were buried, and then fossilized then they would be uncovered sometime in the future which would show they lived at the same time. As for coelacanth and dinosaur fossils, it’s not because they were found in the same layers. It’s because the layers they are found in were dated to be the same time. That being said, that doesn’t mean there are more recent coelacanth fossils up through the ice age. Have you tried recovering deep ocean fossils? It’s not easy. You can only recover those that have been uplifed out of the ocean. There may be millions of coelacanth fossils we haven’t found yet because paleontologists simply can’t get to them. In terms of human and dinosaur fossils being found in the same layer, if there are ever any fossils like this (that haven’t been faked) then science would revise the hypothesis. Science isn’t rigid. Hypotheses are put forth until they are disproven. The thing is, too many people have found “human and dinosaur fossils together” which are obvious fakes. Paleontologists can tell the difference between rock and plaster. Fakers just haven’t figured that out yet.

    This is the issue with creationist vs scientific views. Often one side doesn’t care to truly understand the other. As I read this article I can see where there is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. First of all, scientists propose ideas based on the quanitfiable evidence that they can see before them and then propose ideas based on this. It is a very direct way of interpreting the world. However, when new evidence or technology for analyzing evidence arises, scientists review and revise their stance to the the current way of thinking (which is what I meant when I said science isn’t rigid). It’s not that they were necessarily wrong. They were right with what they were given. Deriding historical science for changing as our society progresses would be the same as mocking technology for progressing and learning from past errors. Let me put it to you this way, in the past if someone wanted to travel from one location to another they would either walk or go by horseback. Now we know we can travel much quicker and more efficiently using vehicles… however no one argues that because people used to think horseback was the most efficient that they were wrong and therefore untrustworthy.

    Additionally, pretty much everything we know about modern medicine is due the ability for scientists to analyze data and reframe their thinking and improve thier hypotheses. The ability for someone to take what they think they know, and change that opinion because they learned something new is a gift. That shows they are not stubborn and care about more than simply being right. So do evolutionary trees and organismal relationships change over time? Sure. We learn something new everyday and it takes a big person to admit that they may need to think about something differently.

    On the topic of religion, evolution doesn’t interfere with religion. I don’t know why people get hung up on that. In fact, almost every biologist I’ve ever met is very devout. I bet you probably go to church with a few. I have heard that one problem is the amount of time the Earth has been around (geologically) vs the story of Genesis. Well, I can tell you that argument is pointless. If one were to overlap the geologic time scale one would see the order of events match up almost perfectly. People say the Big Bang couldn’t have happened. Well, if you read scientific articles, scientists say the event happened, but no one knows how it started. Who’s to say that the Big Bang wasn’t set in motion by God? Seems plausible to me. First there was nothing, then God willed matter into existence, BOOM!

    Another main issue seems to be that scientists say creation took millions of years, creationists say 7 days. Who ever said that God follows OUR 7 day week schedule. God is an omnipotent ever present being. His day could equal millions of our years. Not to mention the fact that our definition of a day is based on the Earth. I doubt God, in his infinite wisdom, would base his schedule on one of the many planets and universes he has created. It wouldn’t make any sense. It would make more sense for his way of measuring time to be different than ours. Not to mention how imperfect our mode of time measurement is. We have longer days part of the year, shorter days part of the year, and leap years. God’s time scale would be perfect, and all encompassing. Besides, if we base our day on the rising and setting of the sun… how did he measure time before he created the sun? (Which was day 4 if I remember correctly.)

    My point is, we don’t know. We’ll never know until we meet him. In that respect, both belief and science are ok. They are basically two sides of the same coin. Belief needs no evidence. You BELIEVE it in your heart and no amount of evidence can ever deride that if you truly believe. Science attempts to explain what we don’t know the best way we can with what we are given to observe. No one ever said what we were given to observe is perfect. If you read a REAL scientific article, not some Yahoo News spot reporting on an article mind you.. the real straight from the scientist source, you’d see every scientific article HAS to have a discussion outlining the potential issues with the study. Scientists straight up say what may be wrong with their analysis so other scientists can help to improve it. You will never find and article that says “this disproves the Bible”. You know why? Because that isn’t the point of science. Science CANNOT disprove belief. There is no way to disprove what someone believes in the very fibers of thier soul, and no scientist have ever tried to. Again, they just put forth ideas from what they see and observe.

    This being said, I am a scientist. I was raised by a religous family. I study evolution, and am a proponent of it, and yet it has has no adverse affect on my religion. Why? Because I am willing to look at the facts and understand beyond face value. I can see both sides and think critically. I see no problem being a scientist and believing in God regardless of what anyone says one way or the other. If someone can’t allow others to interpret their world as they see fit without feeling threatened, then it seems more like the person who is threatened should do more soul searching. Besides God has put so much evidence of his work on our world, it would be insulting to him if we were to simply ignore it.

    Who’s to say he isn’t working through scientists to teach us about his work?

    • M:
      Thank you for you comment. I appreciate the time it must have taken to write all that out. I feel blessed that you thought my post warranted such a detailed response. I must state clearly that I am not “anti-science.” This is a common misunderstanding of creationists. The prejudice goes like this: Science has proven Darwinist evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt; creationists reject evolution; therefore, since I am a creationist I must be against science. This is a false syllogism. What I am opposed to is opinions and assumptions which are presented as fact. This is routinely done in evolutionary science articles and many of my posts are written to expose this scientific misconduct. I believe in testable, repeatable, and observable science. Evolution is none of these things. Here is a post which illustrates this agenda-driven pseudoscience perfectly:
      https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/real-science-versus-tabloid-%e2%80%9cscience%e2%80%9d/

      You seem to put a lot of faith (no pun intended) in paleontologists to discover “fakes.” But they have been fooled repeatedly by fossils which appear to back up the theories they are so desperate to prove! Archaeoraptor is the latest embarassment for evolutionists who stubbornly insist that dinosaurs evolved into birds. See the below links:
      https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/archaeoraptor-a-teachable-moment-and-cautionary-tale/
      https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/dino-to-bird-bird-to-dino-whatever/

      You mention some other issues such as the Big Bang and I have written several posts about these topics. I would encourage you to search the archives and read what I’ve said rather than listing them again here. This will get you started:
      https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/black-hole-is-%e2%80%9ctoo-old%e2%80%9d-for-big-bang/

      I am not trying to win anyone to my way of thinking. I am merely thinking through some news stories and scientific theories which I don’t think are getting fair anaylsis. Readers just come along for the ride. I get passionate because I feel that to take the meaning out of the first part of God’s word necesssarily discredits the rest. I wrote a post about this:
      https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/a-literal-genesis-another-purpose-statement/

      Lastly, you mention a few times that I should read “real” science articles instead of internet news pages. I routinely read DiscoveryNews.com, NYTimes.com, and others but I also read aggressively evolutionist sources like Nature, PhysOrg, PlosOne, and CERN. Like a good researcher should, I ALWAYS try to reach the original source study and cite the abstract whenever possible. I try to be responsible about providing links and sources for my readers to do their own research rather than simply swallow what I wrote.

      Thanks again for reading the blog and taking time to comment.

  2. The idea that evolution isn’t based on evidence and requires some sort of ‘faith’ because it isn’t static is absolutely mind numbing. Especially when it comes from someone who believes everything from some book which is not only morally corrupt but WRONG when it comes to anything related to knowledge/science. Ever heard of the word oxymoron or ironic. That would be it!

    • Jordan,
      Thank you for reading the blog and taking the time to comment. I want to adress the parts of your comment in turn. First, you accuse me of saying evolution is not based on evidence. Actually, creation and evolution use the same evidence (fossil record, geology, etc.). The difference is in the interpretation of that evidence (or lack of). Atheists and evolutionists accuse creationists of using an “argument from ignorance” or invoking the “god of the gaps” when (in the atheist’s opinon) there is not sufficient evidence to support one’s theory and it must be assumed (such as a Divine Being creating the universe). Evolutionists are guilty of this same logical fallacy regarding the unobserved and assumed macroevolution of one kind changing into another. Second, you use the logical fallacy known as the “ad hominem argument.” You dismiss my valid questioning of alleged scientific certainty in the article by pointing to my belief in the Bible. My belief in the Bible (or lack of belief) does not change the fact that what evolutionists claimed they once knew with certainty was, in fact, wrong. If you were to ask me, I would explain to you my reasons for accepting the Bible as truth. My reasons are based solely on hard evidence (manuscripts, historical record, etc.) and logic (e.g. Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, etc.). Notice that in the article I did not personally attack the beliefs (or unbelief) of the scientists who asserted the coelacanth was extinct. I merely pointed out their human fallibility which you and I also possess. It is a common tactic for evolutionists to attack the person rather than the facts when the facts are not on their side. Third, you ridicule my faith in the Bible which you view as a “morally corrupt” book. The atheist has no basis to call anything moral/immoral, right/wrong, or good/evil apart from the Bible. According to Darwinism, there is no right or wrong; there is only survival. If I can steal, rape, rob, or kill to advance my own genes, then I am merely more successful than you. Yet EVERY society on earth possesses some degree of right and wrong. Though they may differ in the details, some things such as rape, violence to children, and cowardice are universally frowned upon in all societies. Where did this intrinsic morality come from? It could not come from Darwinism because those things serve the drive to survive. Although morality is regulated in the specifics by each society, it could not have been generated solely by society’s needs. Animals are not moral. Humans are not animals. Morals can only come from a moral being–a Divine Creator who is the source of our inborn morality. So, by claiming that the Bible is “WRONG” you are invoking biblical morality to make that claim. I have indeed “heard of the word oxymoron or ironic” and each would apply to your own accusation! Fourth, if you would search through other posts on this blog you would find evidence that proves the Bible’s accuracy on scientific knowledge which is often in stark contrast with the “scientific knowledge” of that time (e.g. geocentricity, germ theory, etc.). Here is a link to the category “Bible science” in this blog
      https://preachrr.wordpress.com/category/bible-science/
      Here is just one of those articles:
      https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/is-the-earth-just-%e2%80%9changing-around%e2%80%9djob-267/

      My intent with this blog was to expose the evidence and let readers draw their own conclusions. I do take the liberty of offering my own opinions, but it is my blog after all. Thank you again for your comment. May the Lord guide you in your quest for truth.

  3. Evolution is not assumed.. it is based on the evidence of fossil evidence. I’m not sure what you have to say in the examples of all previous human relatives.
    IE. Homo Sapiens idaltu, Homo Rudolfensis etc.
    I’m not entirely sure what you would need to see in the fossil record to show you one kind changing into another?

    The question in regards to science being wrong is not valid in any way. Science is not static. It will always change to what evidence or techniques allow us to gain.
    It’s kind of like evolution. So I am starting to wonder if just how you envision this overall idea of change overtime is incomprehensible for you?

    Intrinsic morality can come from a will to survive. I’m not sure how one would progress far in life if they were to murder, kill, rape neighbors? Makes sense that I will more likely survive by not doing those things no?

    The rest of your babble is just nonsense, it doesn’t deserve any response.

    Word

  4. Jordan,
    I appreciate courteous discussion, but not factless insults. I will afford you the same respect you offered me and let your “nonsense” speak for itself. God bless.


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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: