James Darwin, who was only trained in the ministry and stole much of the written material his father had collected, then based everything upon a
theory which he knew little about. Even so, he acknowledged life required a Creator (a proper noun in his book) and it was the Origin of the Species,
not the Origin of Life he wrote about. Many of the supposed missing-links were from Darwin thugs who had murdered New Zealand aborigines since their
skulls fit the pattern they were looking for. The very ones displayed in the Smithsonian Institution are those of the murdered pygmies. How far will
scientists go? Apparently far enough to extort evidence to fit a theory, even to the point of killing innocent people. All the missing links are
still missing. If they haven’t been found, when and why not?! I believe it is because they are not there.
Just because the man believed in a creator doesn't disprove his own theory. Why would he write a book and spend his life developing a theory that he
doesn't believe is true? It doesn't make sense. In fact, he denies that he was an Atheist by description, but rather an Agnostic:
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and
more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.
Darwin 1887, p. 304.
I would suggest reading
this wikipedia article to find out what an Agnostic is, and the varying levels
therein
Time for a Darwin quote of my own.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert
that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
Many dinosaur remains are still not completely turned in to rock. More than half of the fossil is still original bone, not stone! Some even have
chemicals from the living animals (proteins and amino acids which were not thought to be able to survive millions of years)! Some fish fossils still
have a fishy smell when first uncovered. Some of the plants buried during the Flood are not fossilized either. In New Jersey, large amounts of wood
from trees that were growing at the same time as dinosaurs can be found in the dirt (Cretaceous clay).
They are preserved, but not turned to stone at all. In England, fragile plant hairs and tiny details of the plant's cells can be seen. The plants are
not turned into rock. They are just flattened and blackened. These types of discoveries are not surprising but the rule and not the exception.
First of all, "The Flood" didn't happen. If it did there would be fossils present pretty much wherever you looked because everything would have
been buried in sediment. The fact is, fossils only come from fossil sites, and you can't find fossils anywhere you go. Very specific things need to
happen to create a fossil, and the chances you will find a fossil by digging on your front yard are slim to none. Fossils aren't present in the same
way that would happen if "The Flood" were real.
Secondly, the "original bone" to which you are referring (I'll do the reference for you since you don't want to take the time to do so, it's
here) has not been witnessed by any reputable palaeontologist. John
Horner and Phil Currie are not reputable upstanding members of the palaeontological world. No other paleontologist have been able to see if what they
found was truly dinosaur bones, or if they were of other origin. Perhaps if they let someone do some tests, they could find out.
If you want to talk about
Mary Schweitzer, then forget about it. While science generally
agrees with her, it is a simple fact that the method of preservation isn't precisely known. That's the thing with science, as I said earlier. A
discovery is made, we define it to understand it the best we can, and we modify theories so they are more appropriate.
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly
survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few
thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s
data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”
Source
There have been discoveries of unfossilized mammoth and mastodon (two different animals) bones because they are encased in ice, which doesn't allow
for a lot of cellular degeneration to happen. It is recorded that the people who found these "unfossilized dinosaur bones" were digging around in
the permafrost, so it is highly likely that they uncovered mastodon or mammoth bones. The claims they made in 1998 have not been validated yet.
Source.
The blackened and flattened fossils you refer to are known as
Psuedofossils, and are not
actually fossils at all.
High quality fossils can occur through
Permineralization.
Permineralization occurs after burial, as the empty spaces within an organism (spaces filled with liquid or gas during life) become filled with
mineral-rich groundwater and the minerals precipitate from the groundwater, thus occupying the empty spaces. This process can occur in very small
spaces, such as within the cell wall of a plant cell. Small scale permineralization can produce very detailed fossils. For permineralization to occur,
the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process. The degree to which the remains are decayed
when covered determines the later details of the fossil. Some fossils consist only of skeletal remains or teeth; other fossils contain traces of skin,
feathers or even soft tissues. This is a form of diagenesis.
[edit on 24-8-20
[edit on 24-8-2008 by OnionCloud]