Does the fossil record reveal the evolution of flight? Dr. Steve Falling

Dr. Steve Falling earned his B.S. in Chemistry from the University of California, Davis, and his Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry in 1979 from the University of California, Berkeley. He retired from Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport, Tennessee, after 31 years of research, development, and production of complex organic chemicals. He has 49 U.S. patents, numerous foreign patents, and several scientific publications.
Steve is interested in the fossil record and how it contradicts Darwinian evolution. As an organic chemist, he sees the impossibility of molecules-to-man evolution. He especially loves nature photography and outdoor activities where he can enjoy God’s creation. His emphasis is on pointing out nature’s evidence of the Creator and showing the flaws of evolutionary explanations. Steve is a board member of Canopy Ministries and a member of the Creation Research Society.
Help us welcome Dr. Falling or another #CFSVirtuallyThere2025 presentation! . . . And be sure to invite your friends!!
tinyurl.com/cfsarchives
/ creationfellowshipsantee
canopyministri...

[@deepcosmiclove]

Nobody can explain the evoution of feathers except that 'they must have evolved from scales."

[@frosted1030]

Ham presents an interesting model.. too bad it instantly fails any basic review and can never make it to peer review. Why? There wasn't a worldwide flood during the time humans have been around. If there was, where did all that water come from and go? Magic? LOL Also.. mixing of the salt and freshwater would have destroyed the sea life. Also, we don't find a mix of dead things buried in rock, we find fossilised remains in specific strata. Should this have been rapid, you would expect to find it all mixed up, we don't. In Ham's concept of a model the lightest things would have been at the top layers.. and we don't. Everything about that is garbage thinking from someone that doesn't know any of the sciences he pans.
You should know that evolutionary biology doesn't hinge on the fossil record, that's only one of the MANY supporting fields. So why is it creationists never take on biology and try to destroy the whole field? Or physics or chemistry? None of these scientific fields support your fables, they are just as disruptive as evolutionary biology. Maybe don't take on the glacier with your tiny little imaginary needle. You will not make a dent, never have.