The logic of the illogical

Fact Check: Did Bill Nye Tell A Huge Lie About The Fossil Layers?

 

Michael Snyder
The Truth
February 7, 2014

 

Did you get a chance to see the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye “the Science Guy” the other night?  It was definitely entertaining.  Unfortunately, it didn’t do much to clarify the issues that millions of Americans tuned in to learn more about. 

 

 

In fact, viewers got a lot of information from Bill Nye that simply is not true.  For example, Bill Nye made it sound like science has discovered fossil layers all over the earth that are neatly stacked on top of one another with less evolved creatures in the earlier layers and more advanced creatures in the upper layers.  He also made the incredible claim that you cannot find a single fossil which is in the wrong layer.  This is such an elementary mistake, and exhibits such a complete ignorance of what the fossil record actually shows, that he should have been laughed off the stage.  This is exactly the kind of extreme anti-intellectualism that Nye was supposedly trying to warn people about.  Sadly, our society has been so “dumbed down” that there are lots of people out there that will actually believe him.

 

During the debate, Bill Nye said that if we could find “just one” fossil that was out of place that we could change the world.

 

Well, apparently he is either completely ignorant or he purposely told a huge lie to the American people.

 

According to Dr. Donald Burge, the curator of vertebrate paleontology at the College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum, mammal fossils are found in nearly every dinosaur dig that he has ever been associated with…

 

“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”

 

By the way, Dr. Burge is an evolutionist.

 

Not only that, a whole host of modern creatures have been found in “dinosaur rock layers”.  The following is an excerpt from an article by Calvin Smith

 

To the surprise of many, ducks,1 squirrels,2 platypus,3beaver-like4 and badger-like5 creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with beescockroaches,frogs and pine trees. Most people don’t picture a T. rexwalking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!

 

In fact, a total of 432 different mammal species have been identified in rock layers containing dinosaurs.

 

So does that mean that mammals have been around for tens of millions of years?

 

No, what it could mean is that the way that evolutionists have been dating the dinosaurs is fundamentally flawed.

 

Most people do not realize this, but T-Rex bones have actually been discovered that still contain soft tissue inside of them.

 

If those bones truly were “millions of years old” that would be impossible.

 

And carbon dating also provides strong evidence that the evolutionary timeline is seriously messed up.

 

Due to the rate that it decays, there should be absolutely no measurable radioactive carbon left in any fossils that are “greater than 100,000 years old”.

 

No matter how much radioactive carbon was there in the first place, it should be completely gone from anything that was once living after 100,000 years.

 

But we find it in all of the ancient fossils that we dig up that get tested.  We even find it in coaldiamonds and in dinosaur bones.

 

If Bill Nye wants to believe in the theory of evolution that is his choice.  But he should quit calling it “science”.  Those that choose to believe in the theory of evolution are choosing to have blind faith in an ancient pagan religious philosophy despite what the scientific evidence actually demonstrates.

 

If the theory of evolution was actually true, there should be millions upon millions of transitional fossils in the rock layers that show the development of one species into another species.

 

Instead, we find just the opposite.

 

But don’t take my word for it.  Just check out what one of the most famous evolutionists in the entire world has to say about the matter

 

The most famous paleontologist in the world, Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould, said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” (Note” “extreme rarity” is Harvard-speak for “nada, zilch, zippo.”)

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (36)

  1. SEC

    not to mention the fossils found in Texas of human footprints fossilized in and trailing dinosaur footprints.

    February 07, 2014
    1. EZWAYZ

      truth is freedom

      February 07, 2014
      1. SEC

        What I find truly mind boggling is the denial and contortions some go through rather than concede to truth they’d prefer not to acknowledge.

        February 07, 2014
        1. EZWAYZ

          what, and admit to morality instead of moral relativity?

          February 08, 2014
          1. SEC

            Something like that, ayup!

            February 08, 2014
  2. cjb321

    Very informative. It’s getting so that everyone thinks they are an expert even if they are not!

    February 08, 2014
    1. EZWAYZ

      I know I’m not…I think

      February 08, 2014
      1. cjb321

        I’m an expert at knowing I’m not an expert. Is that what you’re trying to say. lol

        February 08, 2014
        1. EZWAYZ

          Yeah! I think so that as…

          February 08, 2014
  3. Neighsayer

    Wow. You almost said it yourself at the start, that the layers have probably not all stayed exactly where they were laid down all the world over, and for a minute there, I thought you might be making an actual argument, and then you say, as your proof, that 432 fossils of other creatures were found where by evolutionary theory they shouldn’t have been.

    As is often the case with the arguments of those who choose one patently unscientific book in the history of the world to believe in over so many other sources, you give us one number, one piece of a fraction, numerator only.

    432 out of how many cases of fossils where we evolutionists would expect them to be? Out of what denominator?

    Answer? A lot more than 432. And anyway, we all know that dinosaurs and mammals overlapped.

    Rock on, creationists who know science better than the scientists, rock on.

    February 08, 2014
    1. EZWAYZ

      Wow, I thought you might be making an actual argument, when in fact evolutionists use the same numerology to show transitional life forms. But since science is ALWAYS right I guess you believe in global warming too. Enjoy your tan.

      February 08, 2014
      1. Neighsayer

        yes, ‘fraid I do.
        432 out of how many, is all I’m saying. Do all creationists think 400 is a large number?

        Same as global warming – do all creationists think hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 is a small number?

        February 08, 2014
        1. EZWAYZ

          large or small doesn’t matter at the moment, should mammal skeletons be there, at the scientifically “proclaimed” age of the rock the dinosaur bones are found in? (hint: NO).
          .
          Same as global warming. The fraud and collusion used in coming up with the “scientific evidence” for global warming has been exposed.

          February 08, 2014
          1. Neighsayer

            same sort of proportions – a handful of religious climate scientists in opposition to thousands and thousands. But tell me, what’s your big picture theory – how is it that all of our efforts toward warming somehow aren’t working, all of our fires, all of our polluting? How can so much human effort have no effect?

            February 08, 2014
            1. EZWAYZ

              earth to you – the fraud was exposed! which part of that don’t you understand about global warming?!?

              February 08, 2014
          2. Neighsayer

            someone somewhere disagrees is not the same as " . . . the fraud was exposed!" If that were the case, you’d have to agree that the “fraud of capitalism has been exposed” by millions of commies.

            February 08, 2014
            1. EZWAYZ

              The earth is cooling @ http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/
              .
              The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders. @ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/
              .
              How the lie of global warming consensus among scientists came to pass @ http://www.examiner.com/article/how-the-lie-of-global-warming-consensus-among-scientists-came-to-pass
              .

              What hockey stick? The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

              February 08, 2014
            2. EZWAYZ

              there, start educating yourself and skip the propaganda classes.

              February 08, 2014
          3. Neighsayer

            I’ll look at them sometime. I’ve got a busy day today, though.

            February 08, 2014
            1. EZWAYZ

              Fine look at them if you want too when you have the time but like I said, global warming has been long exposed as a fraud.

              February 08, 2014
          4. Neighsayer

            from the first link:

            " . . . the 2500 scientists were only associated with the IPCC. They did not endorse the IPCC’s position. Some even vehemently disagreed."

            - “some,” huh? That’s very persuasive. Numbers, science is about numbers.

            about the second link:

            - was straight from the tabloid “the Daily Mail” too liberal? - a few overly specific weather predictions looking years into the future do not take much away from the general trend. Some people, some governments want something specific to take to their accountants, and someone at the IPCC gives it to them . . . that’s either a legitimate complaint on your part – a single-case legitimate complaint, as a best case, or entrapment in the worst case. Someone probably asked for a specific, scary prediction. - if anyone thinks the IPCC can give exact dates and events like that, then yes, one person lied to the one fool who thinks they know these sorts of details.

            from the third link:

            " . . . global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more."

            - first, 10 years is short game, the warming trend is ten times that long. - second, now who’s making predictions, and you believe this one? Is it in the Bible or something? - the Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank famous for fighting the battle against the harms of second-hand tobacco smoke, and they seem ready to take on any topic that might involve regulation or the protection of people’s health. I’ll take my chances with the IPCC, thank you.

            February 10, 2014
          5. Neighsayer

            So what’s your theory about global warming – science is not real, things only happen by God’s will?

            So God wills all the other science – including atomic bombs and Zyklon-B – to work, but not this one thing?

            - this is the sort of consensus all technological things get, BTW.

            February 10, 2014
            1. EZWAYZ

              the fraud is really the warming is a bunch of bunk designed by left wing politicians to get money off of carbon banks and carbon taxes. Just a money making scheme.

              February 10, 2014
          6. Neighsayer

            One more thing – no-one’s going to like you if you just ignore our questions, you know.

            February 10, 2014
            1. EZWAYZ

              I didn’t think anyone liked me anyone – at least on the left wing

              February 10, 2014
  4. ObjectiveQualia

    It’s been known that mammals and dinosaurs have coexisted for a very long time. Nothing in evolution states they couldn’t live together along with birds, reptiles and other animals and plants. When Bill Nye or any other evolutionist states that “if we could find “just one” fossil that was out of place” they would change their mind they mean finding animals in geologic periods where they were never found before. If you could find a mammal or a dinosaur fossil in Precambrian rock then you would turn evolution on its head.
    .
    Carbon dating isn’t used on most fossils as it has a half life of 5,730 years. This means every 5,730 years half of the carbon 14 decays. The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years. This is why there are many other radiometric dating methods that reach much farther back. When multiple radiometric and other dating methods agree then the age of whatever is being tested is confirmed.
    .
    That’s an excellent quote mine of Stephen Jay Gould to bad it’s so common Stephen actually addressed it. "Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common — and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species – found as of 1981 – that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.
    .
    Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am — for I have become a major target of these practices.
    .
    I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record — geologically “sudden” origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) — reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond"

    February 10, 2014
    1. Neighsayer

      OQ, is it not also true that most species, living and extinct, are transitional? Other than seeming unchanging lines like crocs and sharks and such, isn’t everything else in constant transition? Isn’t it a meaningless expression, are species not necessarily static anyways?

      February 10, 2014
      1. ObjectiveQualia

        Transitional species is really only useful when talking about the fossil record. Fossilization is so rare that you will find gaps between two different organisms like fish and tetrapods for example. So when a fossil is found bridging one of these gaps calling it transitional is useful. All species change even the “living fossils” like coelacanth are different from their ancient ancestors.

        February 10, 2014
        1. Neighsayer

          OK, cool. Thanks. We had one of those preserved in the aquarium in my city . . .

          February 10, 2014
        2. Neighsayer

          I’ve just read an article that described a fossil find of a creature – juramaia sinensis – that pushes back the earliest date so far of placental mammals by 25 million years – to 160 million years back, and the article talks about “Jurassic mammals.”

          That’s quite an overlap.

          February 13, 2014
          1. EZWAYZ

            indeed. there are also polystrate fossils of fishes, a whale and trees whose fossils are encased within more than one (poly) layer of rock (strata), thus “polystrate” or many layers.

            February 13, 2014
    2. EZWAYZ

      Finding animals in a different geologic period wouldn’t change anyone’s mind much as it would just imply a longer time. Pre-Cambrian might do it but finding evidence of human hand prints, foot prints, and tools along side dinosaur foot prints or in rock “before the time of man” hasn’t done it.
      .
      By this point I’d hope everyone would admit Carbon dating is sketchy on a good day.
      .
      Probably the most valuable thing about Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium” was the admission of stasis in the fossil record, which implies a paucity of transitional forms as per the quote. His further “elaborations” went back and forth from the 70’s through the 80’s depending on which elaboration one cares to quote. As a matter of fact his BBF Dawkins rode him pretty hard about that.

      February 11, 2014
      1. ObjectiveQualia

        Actually it would change people’s minds. As it is, we don’t find any mammals, dinosaurs, birds, trees etc. until well after the cambrian. If you were to find a fossilized mammal in cambrian or precambrian rock, then it would go against evolution as a mammal predating it’s reptile ancestors couldn’t have evolved.
        .
        All dating has its limitations these are known and accounted for. This is why there is more than one type of radiologic dating used on samples not just carbon dating and carbon dating isn’t used at all on samples over 100,000 years old. If want to disagree with radiometric dating as a whole, then you would have to explain how radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating, rubidium-strontium dating, fission track dating and uranium-lead dating among many others somehow don’t accurately predict the age of any sample.
        .
        Fossilization is a very rare process as I’m sure you know. Transitional species typically in small populations, where rapid changes in the environment can provide a stronger evolutionary drive. The fact that we have any transitional species at all is remarkable. Although finding transitional species is not required to prove evolution or the age of the earth.

        February 11, 2014
        1. EZWAYZ

          Mutations are usually viewed as the major source of the variation that natural selection selects to cause evolution. GoldGoldschmidt (1942) who postulated an early punctuated equilibrium theory, observed mutations in fruit flies for many years. The changes, he lamented, were almost all small so that if a thousand mutations were combined in a single fruit fly, a new species would not result but, at most, only a weird fruit fly which probably would not survive birth (Goldschmidt, 1952, p. 94). They didn’t get any further with similar experiments on bacteria – ie: no evolution.
          .
          more recent studies like Lukas F. Keller and Donald M. Waller. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17: 230-241, suggest that the only “sorting” (punctuated equilibrium) consistently resulting from decreases in population numbers is extinction…or in their words -
          .
          “This work reveals that levels of inbreeding depression vary across taxa, populations and environments, but are usually substantial enough to affect both individual and population performance. Data from bird and mammal populations suggest that inbreeding depression often significantly affects birth weight, survival, reproduction and resistance to disease, predation and environmental stress. Plant studies, based mostly on comparing populations that differ in size or levels of genetic variation, also reveal significant inbreeding effects on seed set, germination, survival and resistance to stress. Data from butterflies, birds and plants demonstrate that populations with reduced genetic diversity often experience reduced growth and increased extinction rates. Crosses between such populations often result in heterosis. Such a genetic rescue effect might reflect the masking of fixed deleterious mutations. Thus, it might be necessary to retain gene flow among increasingly fragmented habitat patches to sustain populations that are sensitive to inbreeding.”

          February 11, 2014
        2. EZWAYZ

          I posted those two quotes because punctuated equilibrium really doesn’t appear to solve the stasis problem although as I said, the theory does admit it is a problem.

          February 11, 2014
  5. Neighsayer

    EZ – you talk about a sort of a conspiracy theory, carbon taxes and such, maybe you feel the study money is a factor, but if it’s about money – the real money is the oil revenue that would be lost if people scaled back and used less energy, trying to lessen their carbon, and the fact that governments make a huge part of their revenue on petroleum taxes.


    If it’s about money, then what about the really big money, petroleum and petroleum tax revenues? Are you really thinking that the carbon tax will cost us more an make the government more money than the existing arrangement, oil?


    also, I don’t dislike people because of their politics, I dislike people because they disrespect me, when they treat me as though I’m not worth their time and don’t answer questions. There are self-confessed Tea Partiers I like here, because they’re affable and treat me nice, and I’d hate a liberal troll who treated me as though I’m not worth talking to, and who only talked at me.

    February 10, 2014