Search This Blog

Thursday, July 10, 2008

K-D: THE CREATION OF THE WORLD Part 7

The second of these conclusions also stands or falls with the assumptions on which they are founded, viz., with the three propositions: (1) that each of the fossiliferous formations contains an order of plants and animals peculiar to itself; (2) that these are so totally different from the existing plants and animals, that the latter could not have sprung from them; (3) that no fossil remains of man exist of the same antiquity as the fossil remains of animals. Not one of these can be regarded as an established truth, or as the unanimously accepted result of geognosis. The assertion so often made as an established fact, that the transition rocks contain none but fossils of the lower orders of plants and animals, that mammalia are first met with in the Trias, Jura, and chalk formations, and warm-blooded animals in the tertiary rocks, has not been confirmed by continued geognostic researches, but is more and more regarded as untenable.

Even the frequently expressed opinion, that in the different forms of plants and animals of the successive rocks there is a gradual and to a certain extent progressive development of the animal and vegetable world, has not commanded universal acceptance. Numerous instances are known, in which the remains of one and the same species occur not only in two, but in several successive formations, and there are some types that occur in nearly all. And the widely spread notion, that the fossil types are altogether different from the existing families of plants and animals, is one of the unscientific exaggerations of actual facts. All the fossil plants and animals can be arranged in the orders and classes of the existing flora and fauna.

Even with regard to the genera there is no essential difference, although many of the existing types are far inferior in size to the forms of the old world. It is only the species that can be shown to differ, either entirely or in the vast majority of cases, from species in existence now. But even if all the species differed, which can by no means be proved, this would be no valid evidence that the existing plants and animals had not sprung from those that have passed away, so long as natural science is unable to obtain any clear insight into the origin and formation of species, and the question as to the extinction of a species or its transition into another has met with no satisfactory solution. Lastly, even now the occurrence of fossil human bones among those of animals that perished at least before the historic age, can no longer be disputed, although Central Asia, the cradle of the human race, has not yet been thoroughly explored by palaeontologists.

3 comments:

Warwick said...

Eric, Dave Lankshear seems to have left the building. That's truly sad as big Dave declared it as fact that we are receiving funding from YEC's in the USA. I asked him to explain or admit he was a fibber but he just up and left.

I don't think he invented this story, just uncritically accepted it, as he uncritically accepts other L/A,T/E fairy stories.

I have to admit I am a little disappointed as some USAYEC funding would be nice. These AngloNasties get your hopes up then dash them to the ground.

Healyhatman said...

Numerous instances are known, in which the remains of one and the same species occur not only in two, but in several successive formations, and there are some types that occur in nearly all

Yes because evolutionary biologists totally say that when one species evolves into a new species, they all do it at the same time and the ancestors disappear.

Show me rabbits in the Cambrian.

Ktisophilos said...

Even if we found one, your ilk would try to explain it away as a ‘reworking’ or some such. But we have other things that are just as good, e.g. the Precambrian fossils of advanced plants that were not supposed to have evolved by then.