https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis/''"America is on a path to national suicide and moral insanity. All of this is a result of the Church's and the culture's rejection of the truth and authority of the Word of God." Dr. Terry Mortenson.''
Mortenson made those comments in a tub-thumping book published in October 2016.
They seem to think it's STILL true on 6 October 2018.Well, having just listened to the international news (including a speech by Chuck Schumer about that superficial FBI investigation prior to the Supreme Court vote on whether to confirm Kavanaugh - who may or may not be guilty of past sexual misconduct) I would agree with them. On 8 November 2016, with the help of many evangelical Christians, a known pathological liar and egotist filled with malice to all apart from his voting base (and one of two undemocratic despots around the world such as Putin, Assad and Kim) was elected to the position of President of the United States.
Meanwhile an email received from AiG is flagging THIS:
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fo ... us-fossils 'Disharmonious Fossils.'
According to the email: ''Evolutionists love to tout the fossil record as evidence for their theory. No less an authority for evolution than Richard Dawkins has said, “All the fossils that we have ever found have always been found in the appropriate place in the time sequence. There are no fossils in the wrong place.” Dawkins’s statement is emphatic and confident. However, Dawkins is wrong.'' (Dawkins was speaking in 2009:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-book ... 2120091005)
Having read the new AiG article by this Harry F Sanders III, I see that whilst it quotes Dawkins it fails to address fully what Dawkins stated (and clearly meant) in that Reuters article. He made the point, in response to a question, that ''no fossils have been found in the wrong place'' (for the theory of evolution). Sanders' response is that ''Fossils are often found where they are not expected, and these finds cause evolutionists to frequently revise their timelines.'' Which they have been able to do WITHOUT needing to ditch the theory - ie in the grand scheme of things the occasional revisions required to timelines have not led to the falsification of the theory.
That is the case with this example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788615/ (Angiosperms appeared in the fossil record after Gymnosperms.)
On the next example, which concerns Confuciusornis remains found within the stomach of a dinosaur, Sanders states ''Yet this largely modern-looking bird was found inside a dinosaur fossil over 100 million years old. An essentially modern bird should not have been found there, according to the evolutionary timeline.'' So one small portion of the evolutionary timeline to be revised? Not a problem. (Like the dinosaur, the bird in question is now - unbiblically - extinct.)
The next example simply shows that (back in 2005) scientists learnt more about the mammals (now mostly or totally extinct) that were alive in the Mesozoic era. The creationist tries to claim that evolutionists were 'upset'.
The next example flags this paper (also from 2005), one which has been discussed previously by the likes of AiG and Naturalis Historia:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03150Sanders reports that in their abstract the paper's authors suggested ''at least duck, chicken and ratite bird relatives were coextant with non-avian dinosaurs'' (initially this was controversial among biologists). Sanders then argues: ''Modern birds thus existed with the dinosaurs they are supposed to have evolved from''. But Sanders does not tell us what dinosaur(s) eg Vegavis iaai is believed to have been descended from (assuming scientists have found evidence that has led them to propose a relevant hypothesis). Of course we now know that SOME birds (most of which are now extinct) co-existed with SOME (maybe most) later species of dinosaur. Not a problem for evolutionary timescales in general.
Sanders then references this paper from 2018:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03295-9Sanders suggests that Enantiornithes was like a modern bird (and was thus not ancient or primitive) because it was flightless upon hatching and also lacked teeth - like modern (by that I mean non extinct which is not the case with Enantiornithes) birds. However, having checked, Enantiornithes in general did have teeth and also claws on their wings, and are thought to have died out at the same time as the dinosaurs. As for that Nature paper, it mostly focused on bone development in a juvenile Enantiornithine. I could not see any mention in the Discussion section of whether this bird had, or would have later developed, teeth. I did spot this sentence: ''the largely cartilaginous sternum of MPCM-LH-26189 hints at functional limitations in terms of flying ability, which should not be taken as evidence of altriciality given that semiprecocial and many precocial species are able to walk at an early age, but are unable to fly until almost fully grown''.
The article lists other examples of 'disharmony' that I don't have the time to investigate further.
Sanders complains ''The evolutionary story is like elastic: it is constantly stretched to fit new finds''. Well - creationists do that too. Or else they 'ignore' evidence - as Sanders accuses evolutionists of sometimes doing.
And then the LYING starts:
''The major problem with evolutionists’ handling of the fossil record comes from their worldview. Instead of questioning their belief when a fossil is found in an unexpected place, they impose their worldview on the record and then make adjustments to their “just-so stories.” Thus, no piece of fossil evidence, no matter how damaging to the evolutionary tale cannot be explained'' and ''True science makes testable predictions, part of the scientific method referred to as falsifiability. In order for something to be scientific, there has to be a way for it to be disproved. If the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record can accommodate any discovery, then their evolutionary fable is never falsifiable''. It has accommodated any discovery (and refuted creationist accusations) SO FAR.
''Evolutionists will only change their minds when they change their worldview.'' Yes - only if they have a RELIGIOUS conversion of some sort. After that they MIGHT (some don't) change their worldview (essentially have a second religious conversion) when it comes to the topics of BIOLOGY and EARTH HISTORY. They might join the ranks of those who falsely claim: ''Evolutionists use their worldview to interpret the fossil record to support their worldview in a dizzying round of circular reasoning.'' I do not know whether Sanders was ever an evolutionist - but some creationists who use to be evolutionists, but then had in essence TWO conversions (or one if they were already a theistic evolutionist), use this sort of wild argumentation against their former self (even if they sincerely accepted evolution perhaps). As for circular reasoning - creationists do that MORE than evolutionists. 'True science by definition is biblical - and this particular science confirms the Bible.'