Media Quacks Up Over Duck
In yet another contrived attempt to abolish God and His handiwork in creation, another find has been reported—or I should say, misreported that another “missing link” has been discovered.
In the June issue of “Science” it was reported that a fossilized duck was found in the Cretaceous strata in China making it 110 million years old. Still it appears that this “duck” for all intents and purposes looks like a modern duck. This happens quite frequently among fossil hunters on a predetermined quest to find support for the evolutionary theories of Darwin long debunked by other staunch evolutionists. (The late Stephen J. Gould for example)
As a side bar, have you ever wondered how the fossils and their strata are aged? It’s really intriguing--If you want to know how old a fossil is, you ask, “What strata was it found in?” “Early cretaceous? Oh, that makes it 110 million years old.”
But if you don’t know what strata you’re in you say, “Oh! These are thus and such fossils which are 110 million years old, therefore we’re in the early cretaceous strata.” Do you follow that? It’s called circular reasoning. Not exactly hard science…
What is unique about it though is that this time, it isn’t the discovering scientists themselves who have gone over the top with exaggerated pronouncements, but the media themselves.
FoxNews.com’s touted headline read—“Missing Link in Bird Evolution Found.” MSNBC called it a “big missing link,” and yet even National Geographic, which normally can’t make sweeping evolutionary announcements fast enough, avoided using the words “missing link.”
Problem is, the actual paper in the journal Science never called the discovery a “missing link.” Even the journal’s summary states, “this Early Cretaceous bird has many derived features,” and “It was also well adapted for an aquatic-amphibian lifestyle—the fossils even show what appears to be webbing in the feet.” Sounds like modern bird to an honest observer.
What is also interesting is that this isn’t even a “new” discovery; this discovery just happens to be a better example and appears “earlier” in the strata than originally thought.
Still those who are determined to annihilate God from existence will find comfort in this fossilized duck. Too bad for them; they don’t even realize they’re quacking up.
In the June issue of “Science” it was reported that a fossilized duck was found in the Cretaceous strata in China making it 110 million years old. Still it appears that this “duck” for all intents and purposes looks like a modern duck. This happens quite frequently among fossil hunters on a predetermined quest to find support for the evolutionary theories of Darwin long debunked by other staunch evolutionists. (The late Stephen J. Gould for example)
As a side bar, have you ever wondered how the fossils and their strata are aged? It’s really intriguing--If you want to know how old a fossil is, you ask, “What strata was it found in?” “Early cretaceous? Oh, that makes it 110 million years old.”
But if you don’t know what strata you’re in you say, “Oh! These are thus and such fossils which are 110 million years old, therefore we’re in the early cretaceous strata.” Do you follow that? It’s called circular reasoning. Not exactly hard science…
What is unique about it though is that this time, it isn’t the discovering scientists themselves who have gone over the top with exaggerated pronouncements, but the media themselves.
FoxNews.com’s touted headline read—“Missing Link in Bird Evolution Found.” MSNBC called it a “big missing link,” and yet even National Geographic, which normally can’t make sweeping evolutionary announcements fast enough, avoided using the words “missing link.”
Problem is, the actual paper in the journal Science never called the discovery a “missing link.” Even the journal’s summary states, “this Early Cretaceous bird has many derived features,” and “It was also well adapted for an aquatic-amphibian lifestyle—the fossils even show what appears to be webbing in the feet.” Sounds like modern bird to an honest observer.
What is also interesting is that this isn’t even a “new” discovery; this discovery just happens to be a better example and appears “earlier” in the strata than originally thought.
Still those who are determined to annihilate God from existence will find comfort in this fossilized duck. Too bad for them; they don’t even realize they’re quacking up.
posted by PB at 11:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home