A couple questions.

by Ryan Daniel
(Plano, Texas, USA)

Could you please then explain the evidence that seems to refute, or at least take into question, evolution? I am not saying it proves creation, I mearly would like evolution to be taught as I see it, a theory. The evidence I refer to are polystratus fossils, including petrified trees, as well as foot prints of humans and other mammals that were not supposed to exist in the same time period existing in the same layers of stratus. I have also hear that we can see light from stars that we should not yet be able to see, what about that? Again, not disproving evolutation, or proving creation, just questions that brings the idea of evolution being fact into question. Please e-mail me at radaniel@mail.smu.edu.

Comments for A couple questions.

Click here to add your own comments

Jan 17, 2012
Good Questions; Wrong Page
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)


There's nothing wrong with your questions. Those are exactly the sort of legitimate questions that should be asked.

They have been asked, though, and I'm not dodging them. They are covered in the Creation Evidence section of this site. Not all of them are. I have not gotten to polystrate fossils yet. (And as you may know, I'm just finishing radiation and chemotherapy for acute leukemia, so my ability to work is greatly hindered at the moment! See http://yippee-leukemia.blogspot.com to follow the progress.)

Others are covered, however.

The issues you bring up are easily answered. Polystrate fossils are not that common, and there are none that are impossible to explain. And there's been no verifiable human footprints found in strata where they should not be. None of those have even proven to be difficult.

Even what you can't find on my site is usually easily found on the internet. You just have to have the actual location of the claimed footprints, and you can always find how the story played out and who really found what.

Aug 26, 2012
Polystrate Fossils
by: Ben

If you don't mind, I'll chip in on this one.

It's really rather amazing that Creationists cite polystrate fossils as evidence for the great Flood--because they were the key piece of evidence that led to Flood geology being abandoned back in the 1800's, before Darwin ever came along.

Are polystrate fossils a problem for "evolution?" Well, they have nothing to do with evolution, but presumably we're talking about an old Earth, here. No, they're not. The forces which form polystrate fossils are well known, and easily observed today. Go to a river delta that floods regularly, or a swampy area, and you'll see trees that gradually get buried under multiple layers of sediment. No mystery here.

However, polystrate fossils ARE a very big problem for Flood geology, for a couple of reasons.

Creationists like to claim that polystrate fossils are trees that were uprooted by the Flood. However, many polystrate fossils still have their system of fine rootlets intact--something that just doesn't happen with uprooted trees. This means that those trees grew where they are now...and those rootlets extend through many layers of "Flood sediment." If Creationists are right, then those trees had to take root and grow to maturity during the Flood!

We also see polystrate fossils with new sets of roots halfway up the trunk. Now, again, for normal geology, this is not a problem--we know how it happens. A tree gets partially buried, but not TOTALLY buried, and then puts out a new set of roots close to the new surface of the ground and goes right on growing. But how are these fossils explained by Flood geology?

The answer, of course, is that they aren't. Creationists don't talk about them at all, and they hope very much that nobody will bring them up...because, as always, they don't seek to explain the evidence, but rather to explain AWAY the evidence.

Feb 01, 2013
cosmic distances
by: Anonymous

Hello, Ryan!

This is to address that last argument, “that we can see light from stars that we should not yet be able to see.” That is an Evolutionist argument against Young Earth Creationism, not a Creationist argument. The argument is that we see stars which are millions of lightyears away, therefore, the Universe must be millions of years old. If the world were created only six thousand years ago, as Bishop Ussher calculated, we could only see stars six thousand lightyears away.

The Creationists have a few answers to this argument. In 1981, Schadewald devised the “Fall of Man hypothesis.” According to this hypothesis, the speed of light was at first infinite, but became finite when Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

The same year, Barry Setterfield made a similar proposal. He did not contend that the speed of light was infinite, but he calculated a figure which is much faster than the speed of light today.

In his 1988 debate with Duane Gish, geologist Ian Plimer took the figure suggested by Setterfield, plugged it into the E-equals-M-C-squared formula, and found that Adam and Eve could not have given birth to their children without triggering an explosion.

There is also the “Gosse hypothesis,” named after Philip Henry Gosse. According to this writer, God created the world with tree rings and all other evidence of past life already intact. In 1980, a writer named Freske applied the Gosse hypothesis to the current question by writing that God created the stars with the light already in transit.

The “small universe hypothesis” comes from a misunderstanding. In 1898, a cult leader named Cyrus Reed Teed proposed that the world is round, but that we are all living on the inside rather than the outside. The inside of this world is hollow, with the sun, moon, stars, and other planets on the inside. (Believe it or not, this whirlybird attracted four thousand followers.)

In 1953, Moon & Spencer wrote a satirical article on Teed’s proposal. They assumed that Teed’s writings were true and calculated that the universe is only 15.7 lightyears in diameter.

Creationist propagandist Duane Gish read this article and took it seriously. In 1980, he suggested this calculation in a debate with John W. Patterson of Iowa State University.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to lying-for-jesus.