Science Disproves Evolution

[Ahso!]

Scott Lively Warns That SCOTUS Could Unleash The Antichrist By September 2015 | Right Wing Watch

Radical anti-gay activist Scott Lively is warning that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, it could literally bring about the end of the world and the rise of the Antichrist by September of this year.

As Lively sees it, if gay marriage becomes legal we can all "expect some sort of severe judgment to fall on America in conjunction with this process" but the "coming calamity will almost certainly be a part of some larger act of God’s punishment on the entire world, most likely the Great Tribulation prophesied by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse," signaling the End Times.

He warns that gay marriage will unleash the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, which will take the form "gay theology," war, famine, and a "massive harvest of the grim reaper" of the souls of all who have died in the chaos. That, in turn, will give rise to the Antichrist by late September, which will result in full-scale persecution of Christians and the end of the worldHow about this nut-case, Pahu, you on board with his prediction? Why don't you pray about it and get back to us.

[Ahso!]

Jesus was a pacifist and most likely homosexual and God was a lunatic retard.

[Ahso!]

On account that neither one ever existed and has ever been proven.

[Ahso!]

Why not! The Christian storybook (aka, the bible) makes little to no sense whatsoever.

[Ahso!]

Just read the thread. This lunatic redefines everything from Evolution to god and the bible to suit his agenda and then disproves his own crap. :wah::wah::wah::yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[Pahu]

Three geologists stand at the foot of Mt. Rushmore. The first geologist says, "This mountain depicts perfectly the faces of four U.S. Presidents, it must be the work of a master sculptor." The second says, "You are a geologist, you should know that all mountains were created by natural forces, such as volcanoes and plate movements, the details were then sculpted by erosion from water and wind. How could you possibly think this was the work of an intelligent sculptor? Only a person completely ignorant of geophysics could think those faces were designed."

The third geologist says to himself, "I don't want to be seen as ignorant, but the faces in this mountain sure do look like they were designed." So he thinks a moment and says to the second geologist, "Of course you are right, these faces were sculpted by natural forces such as erosion. Only an ignorant person would think they were designed." Then he turns to the first and says, "But what a magnificent result, there obviously must have been a master sculptor standing by and watching."

[Pahu]

FourPart;1475344 wrote: How often must we go through this little song & dance.


Probably as long as you dogmatically insist on ignoring the facts and continue to cling to your erroneous and disproven mythology.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1475442 wrote:

Three geologists stand at the foot of Mt. Rushmore. The first geologist says, "This mountain depicts perfectly the faces of four U.S. Presidents, it must be the work of a master sculptor." The second says, "You are a geologist, you should know that all mountains were created by natural forces, such as volcanoes and plate movements, the details were then sculpted by erosion from water and wind. How could you possibly think this was the work of an intelligent sculptor? Only a person completely ignorant of geophysics could think those faces were designed."

The third geologist says to himself, "I don't want to be seen as ignorant, but the faces in this mountain sure do look like they were designed." So he thinks a moment and says to the second geologist, "Of course you are right, these faces were sculpted by natural forces such as erosion. Only an ignorant person would think they were designed." Then he turns to the first and says, "But what a magnificent result, there obviously must have been a master sculptor standing by and watching."


Actually, all three of them could simply ask the park ranger how the faces came to be there. He would hand them the brochure to read for themselves.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1475344 wrote:

The evidence is in fossil records, demonstrating the gradual progress from lower species to higher level of species over milions of years in a smooth line.


Where is your evidence for that evidence free assertion? Here are the facts:



Gould on Transitions




“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, p. 23.

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.

In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent, Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.

Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.

Gould admitted that “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods. ... I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]

“Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, p. 23.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.

[continue]

[Pahu]

Gould on Transitions

[continued]

“New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region. Ibid., p. 12.

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For, Discover, October 1989, p. 65.

“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

“Stephen Jay Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed—we have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now. Chien, p. 2.

“It was puzzling for a while because they [evolutionary paleontologists] refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist now—that’s more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now. Ibid., p. 3.

“I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself.

“I have been reluctant to admit it - since beguiling is often forever - but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.

(Gould S.J., "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p120)

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1475442 wrote:

Three geologists stand at the foot of Mt. Rushmore. The first geologist says, "This mountain depicts perfectly the faces of four U.S. Presidents, it must be the work of a master sculptor." The second says, "You are a geologist, you should know that all mountains were created by natural forces, such as volcanoes and plate movements, the details were then sculpted by erosion from water and wind. How could you possibly think this was the work of an intelligent sculptor? Only a person completely ignorant of geophysics could think those faces were designed."

The third geologist says to himself, "I don't want to be seen as ignorant, but the faces in this mountain sure do look like they were designed." So he thinks a moment and says to the second geologist, "Of course you are right, these faces were sculpted by natural forces such as erosion. Only an ignorant person would think they were designed." Then he turns to the first and says, "But what a magnificent result, there obviously must have been a master sculptor standing by and watching."What we have is EVIDENCE in the way of photos showing before and after and also Rushmore being carved, just like the EVIDENCE we have proving Evolution. What we don't have (and what you've failed at) is any EVIDENCE for any God.

[Ahso!]

Grand tree of life study shows a clock-like trend in new species emergence and diversity -- ScienceDaily

Temple University researchers have assembled the largest and most accurate tree of life calibrated to time, and surprisingly, it reveals that life has been expanding at a constant rate.

"The constant rate of diversification that we have found indicates that the ecological niches of life are not being filled up and saturated," said Temple professor S. Blair Hedges, a member of the research team's study, published in the early online edition of the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution. "This is contrary to the popular alternative model which predicts a slowing down of diversification as niches fill up with species."

[Pahu]

FourPart;1475344 wrote:

Changing in species to adapt to their environment in the shorter term has even been observed, as in my earlier examples of the Speckled Moth, evolving to camouflage itself with the pollution that made it's native Silver Birch trees black, and then, as pollution was cleaned up & the trees reverted to their original colour how they evolved back / re-evolved to their former colouring. This is the basis of most evolution. Change or die. If your theories were true, the moth could never have change its colouring in the first place.


If that is the basis of most evolution, it fails:

The ‘textbook story’ of England’s famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) goes like this. The moth comes in light and dark (melanic) forms. Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-coloured covering lichen (plus soot).

The lighter forms, which had been well camouflaged against the light background, now ‘stood out,’ and so birds more readily ate them. Therefore, the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.

The shift in moth numbers was carefully documented through catching them in traps. Release-recapture experiments confirmed that in polluted forests, more of the dark form survived for recapture, and vice versa. In addition, birds were filmed preferentially eating the less camouflaged moths off tree trunks.

The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ‘He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.’1

Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution.

Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not ‘evolution in action.’

However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day.

Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromones—in each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:

‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. ¦ In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’2

The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).3

And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree.4 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’5,6

Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones—the opposite of textbook predictions!7

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.

He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5

Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘proof’ of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.8

Goodbye, peppered moths - creation.com

[Ahso!]

Timeline of evolution

This timeline of the evolution of life outlines the major events in the development of life on the planet Earth.

Dates given are estimates based on scientific evidence.

In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation.

Its occurrence over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world.

Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years.

[Ahso!]

Genetically speaking, mammals are more like their fathers -- ScienceDaily

You might resemble or act more like your mother, but a novel research study reveals that mammals are genetically more like their dads. Specifically, the research shows that although we inherit equal amounts of genetic mutations from our parents -- the mutations that make us who we are and not some other person -- we actually 'use' more of the DNA that we inherit from our dads.

[Ahso!]

Mutation



In biology, mutations are changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA).

Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during the processes such as meiosis or hypermutation.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1475344 wrote:

Referring to your definition of Evolution. You know full well that your argument against Evolutionists refers to the Biological aspect of things. Your Wiki link mentions nothing of this.


Originally Posted by Pahu:

Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities.[1]

Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers and theoretical physicists. Modern cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which attempts to bring together observational astronomy and particle physics.[2]

[From Wikipedia]

This is the fundamental difference between Evolutionists & Creationists. Creationists don't understand anything. They don't want to understand anything. They are told a primitive fairy story that some God suddenly says "It Is That Way Because I Say So", and that's good enough for them. Case Solved.


When God speaks the case is closed. I have proved He exists and is the author of the Bible where He reveals the truth.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, see patterns in life & strive to understand why. They ask questions why & seek to find the answers.


Unless those answers prove God exists and is responsible for those patterns in life. They cut themselves from the truth.

All of your comments reveal a dogmatic desire to cling to myth rather than the facts of science. Pathetic!

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Pahu]

FourPart;1475344 wrote:

The very internet you are using relies on satellites which would not have been possible if man had kept to the accusations that even to aim for heavier than air flight would be against God's ordnance. Then when it came to Space Flight, than it would be invading God's Domain.


Where does the Bible say anything about heavier than air flight being against God's ordnance or Space Flight invading His Domain? Here some facts you may have missed:

Evolution: The Anti-science

Some evolutionists have argued that science isn’t possible without evolution. They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work. They claim that those who hold to a biblical creation worldview are in danger of not being able to understand science!

Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible. Here’s why:

The Preconditions of Science

Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.4

Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future. For example, astronomers can successfully compute the positions of the planets, moons, and asteroids far into the future. Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist. The problem for evolutionism is that such regularity only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.

Science Requires a Biblical Worldview

The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion.5 Furthermore, God is consistent6 and omnipresent.7 Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.

Moreover, God is beyond time (2 Peter 3:8) and has chosen to uphold the universe in a consistent fashion throughout time for our benefit. So, even though conditions in the past may be quite different than those in the present and future, the way God upholds the universe (what we would call the “laws of nature) will not arbitrarily change.8 God has told us that there are certain things we can count on to be true in the future—the seasons, the diurnal cycle, and so on (Genesis 8:22). Therefore, under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.

These Christian principles are absolutely essential to science. When we perform a controlled experiment using the same preset starting conditions, we expect to get the same result every time. The “future reflects the past in this sense. Scientists are able to make predictions only because there is uniformity as a result of God’s sovereign and consistent power. Scientific experimentation would be pointless without uniformity; we would get a different result every time we performed an identical experiment, destroying the very possibility of scientific knowledge.

[continue]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Pahu]

Evolution: The Anti-science

[continued]

Can an Evolutionist Do Science?

Since science requires the biblical principle of uniformity (as well as a number of other biblical creation principles), it is rather amazing that one could be a scientist and also an evolutionist. And yet, there are scientists that profess to believe in evolution. How is this possible?

The answer is that evolutionists are able to do science only because they are inconsistent. They accept biblical principles such as uniformity, while simultaneously denying the Bible from which those principles are derived. Such inconsistency is common in secular thinking; secular scientists claim that the universe is not designed, but they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way. Evolutionists can do science only if they rely on biblical creation assumptions (such as uniformity) that are contrary to their professed belief in evolution.9

How Would an Evolutionist Respond?

The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Genesis 8:22). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How might an evolutionist respond if asked, “Why will the future reflect the past?

One of the most common responses is: “Well, it always has. So, I expect it always will. But this is circular reasoning. I’ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity.10 But how do I know that in the future there will be uniformity—unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? Whenever we use past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, we are assuming uniformity. So, when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he’s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity—a circular argument.

An evolutionist might argue that the nature of matter is such that it behaves in a regular fashion;11 in other words, uniformity is just a property of the universe. This answer also fails. First, it doesn’t really answer the question. Perhaps uniformity is one aspect of the universe, but the question is why? What would be the basis for such a property in an evolutionary worldview? Second, we might ask how an evolutionist could possibly know that uniformity is a property of the universe. At best, he or she can only say that the universe—in the past—seems to have had some uniformity.12 But how do we know that will continue into the future unless we already knew about uniformity some other way? Many things in this universe change; how do we know that the laws of nature will not?

Some evolutionists might try a more pragmatic response: “Well, I can’t really explain why. But uniformity seems to work, so we use it. This answer also fails for two reasons. First, we can only argue that uniformity seems to have worked in the past; there’s no guarantee it will continue to work in the future unless you already have a reason to assume uniformity (which only the Christian does). Yet, evolutionists do assume that uniformity will be true in the future. Second, the answer admits that uniformity is without justification in the evolutionary worldview—which is exactly the point. No one is denying that there is uniformity in nature; the point is that only a biblical creation worldview can make sense of it. Evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent: that is, if they assume biblical creationist concepts while denying biblical creation.

[continue]

[Pahu]

Evolution: The Anti-science

[continued]

Theistic Evolution Won’t Save the Day



Some evolutionists might argue that they can account for uniformity just as the Christian does—by appealing to a god who upholds the universe in a law-like fashion.13 But rather than believing in Genesis creation, they believe that this god created over millions of years of evolution. However, theistic evolution will not resolve the problem. A theistic evolutionist does not believe that Genesis is literally true. But if Genesis is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Genesis 8:22 is literally true. This verse is where God promises that we can count on a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Without biblical creation, the rational basis for uniformity is lost.

It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.

Evolution Is Irrational

In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.

Scholarly analysis presupposes that the human mind is not just chemistry. Rationality presupposes that we have the freedom to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. Evolutionism undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science.

Conclusions

Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not be possible because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. Evolutionists are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent; professing to believe in evolution, while accepting the principles of biblical creation.

Footnotes

• Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. This was also the title of his 1973 essay first published in the American Biology Teacher, Vol. 35, p. 125–129. Back

• The National Academy of Sciences issued a book called Science, Evolution, and Creationism which stated that evolution is a “critical foundation of the biomedical and life sciences . . . and that evolutionary concepts “are fundamental to a high-quality science education. (See The Creation/Evolution Battle Resumes.) Back

• The National Academy of Sciences also published a document called “Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998) with a similar theme. In the preface (p. viii) the authors indicate that biological evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things. They chose to publish the document in part “because of the importance of evolution as a central concept in understanding our planet. Back

• Uniformity should not be confused with “uniformitarianism. Uniformity simply insists that the laws of nature are consistent and do not arbitrarily change with time or space, though specific conditions and processes may change. Uniformitarianism is the (unbiblical) belief that present processes are the same as past processes; it asserts a consistency of conditions and rates over time and is summed up in the phrase, “The present is the key to the past. Back

• The “ordinances of heaven and earth are specifically mentioned in Jeremiah 33:25. Back

• 1 Samuel 15:29; Numbers 23:19 Back

• Psalm 139:7–8 Back

• Granted, God can use unusual and extraordinary means on occasion to accomplish an extraordinary purpose—what we might call a “miracle. But these are (by definition) exceptional; natural law could be defined as the ordinary way that God upholds the universe and accomplishes His will. Back

• Why would someone who professes to believe in evolution also accept creation-based concepts? Although they may deny it, evolutionists are also made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27). In their heart-of-hearts, they know the biblical God (Romans 1:19–20), but they have deceived themselves (James 1:22–24). They have forgotten that the principles of science come from the Christian worldview. Back

• In granting this assumption, I’m actually being very generous to the evolutionist. I could have been very thorough and asked, “How do we really know that even in the past nature has been uniform? One might argue that we remember that the past was uniform. But since the memory portions of our brain require that the laws of chemistry and physics are constant over time, you would have to assume that the past is uniform in order to argue that we correctly remember that the past is uniform! Any non-Christian response would be necessarily circular. Back

• The atheist Dr. Gordon Stein used essentially this response in the famous 1985 debate with Christian philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen on the existence of God. Back

• Again, I’m being generous here. Even this response is begging the question, since the evolutionist would have to assume uniformity in the past in order to argue that his memories of the past are accurate. Back

A “day-age creationist might also try to use this argument. But it also fails for the same reason. Day-age creationists do not believe that Genesis really means what it says (that God literally created in six ordinary days). So, how could we trust that Genesis 8:22 really means what it says? And if Genesis 8:22 does not mean what it says, then there is no reason to believe in uniformity. Therefore, the day-age creationist has the same problem as the evolutionist. Neither can account for science and technology within his own worldview. Back

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ti-science

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[FourPart]

That single post has confirmed everything I said. Thank you. You have admitted defeat.

[FourPart]

Pahu;1475457 wrote: Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones—the opposite of textbook predictions!7




That is hilarious. Talk about grasping at straws.

The historical FACTS...



Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Pahu]

Faint Young Sun




If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.5 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25–30% less heat during its first 600 million years than it radiates today (a). (A drop in the Sun’s radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.) Had this happened anytime in the past, let alone for 600 million years, the ice’s mirror like surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun’s radiation into outer space, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If it had, all agree that life could not have evolved.

Evolutionists first tried to solve this “faint young Sun problem by assuming Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it (b). Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age (c).

A second approach assumes that Earth’s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases, and at high concentrations methane produces a haze that would have cooled Earth’s surface rather than warming it (d). Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic (e).

A third approach assumes that Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable (f).

Evolutionists have never explained in any of these approaches how such drastic changes could occur in almost perfect step with the slow increase in the Sun’s radiation. Until some evidence supports such “special pleadings, it does not appear that the Sun evolved (g).

If the Sun, a typical and well-studied star, did not evolve, then why presume other stars did?

a. Gregory S. Jenkins et al., “Precambrian Climate: The Effects of Land Area and Earth’s Rotation Rate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, 20 May 1993, pp. 8785–8791.

This paper acknowledges that if the Earth rotated almost twice as fast as it does today, this problem would be lessened—but not solved. Still required are a flooded Earth and an atmosphere with 30–300 times more carbon dioxide than today.

b. Let’s assume an old Earth and at least a fifth of the atmospheric carbon dioxide needed to prevent a runaway ice age had been present throughout the Earth’s first 2,750,000,000 years. That carbon dioxide would have combined with weathered rocks to produce large amounts of the mineral siderite (FeCO3). Siderite is missing from ancient soils, showing that the concentrations of carbon dioxide needed to prevent a frozen Earth were never present. [See Rob Rye et al., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations before 2.2 Billion Years Ago, Nature, Vol. 378, 7 December 1995, pp. 603–605.]

“There is no direct evidence to show that carbon dioxide levels were ever a thousand times higher. Gregory Jenkins, as quoted by Tim Folger, “The Fast Young Earth, Discover, November 1993, p. 32.

c. William R. Kuhn, “Avoiding a Permanent Ice Age, Nature, Vol. 359, 17 September 1992, p. 196.

d. “The methane greenhouse effect is limited, however, because organic haze starts to form [chemically] at CH4/CO2 ratios higher than ~0.1, and this creates an anti-greenhouse effect that cools the surface if the haze becomes too thick. James F. Kasting, “Faint Young Sun Redux, Nature, Vol. 464, 1 April 2010, p. 688.

e. In 1972, Carl Sagan and George H. Mullen first proposed that the early Earth had lots of heat-trapping methane and ammonia. They had no evidence for early methane and ammonia; they simply were looking for something that might have warmed the Earth, so there would have been no runaway deep freeze and life could have evolved. At the time of Sagan’s death (1996), he was still looking.

f. “Despite all of these proposed warming mechanisms, there are still reasons to think that the faint young Sun problem is not yet solved. Ice albedo feedback has been neglected in all of these one-dimensional climate calculations. Kasting, p. 688.

g. For a frank admission of these and other “special pleadings, see Carl Sagan and Christopher Chyba, “The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases, Science, Vol. 276, 23 May 1997, pp. 1217–1221.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[FourPart]

Pahu;1475762 wrote:

If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.5 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25–30% less heat during its first 600 million years than it radiates today


Where do you get this idea from? No true scientists have ever claimed that the sun is getting hotter. On the contrary, as with all stars it is gradually burning out.

(a). (A drop in the Sun’s radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.) Had this happened anytime in the past, let alone for 600 million years, the ice’s mirror like surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun’s radiation into outer space, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If it had, all agree that life could not have evolved.

Evolutionists first tried to solve this “faint young Sun problem by assuming Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it (b). Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age (c).





More utter garbage. Using your logic, the furthest planets from the Sun would be the coldest & the closest the hottest. Makes sense? Why, then, is the hottest planet in the Solar System Venus? Because it has an atmosphere made up primarily of CO2, which allows Infra Red, but doesn't release it. This is how Global Warming is affecting the Earth right now because of Man's continued destruction of the atmosphere. This has been proved - or are you a denier of Global Warming as well?

The radiant energy from the sun is (reasonably) constant, despite it's gradually diminishing. What makes the changes to planetary temperature is the condition of the atmosphere.

A second approach assumes that Earth’s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases, and at high concentrations methane produces a haze that would have cooled Earth’s surface rather than warming it (d). Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic (e).


As has happened on other planets.

A third approach assumes that Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable (f).


Apart from the 'no continents' bit, which I will let ride, as that could just be extremely poor definition descriptively, as there was one single continent which separated over billions of years, and continues to do so. This much continues to be observed in the form of earthquakes. The way countries & continents clearly fit together like a global jigsaw is further evidence of this fact. It is because of this that a Land Bridge was formed. Once sections of land were separated, different species of animals went on to evolve in there own individual ways, which is why there are so many various species around the world, ideally suited to their different environments which are clearly descended from the same root species. A lion is very different to a tiger, but they are both clearly cats, yet they are from different continents. They are also genetically compatible as it is possible for them to reproduce with each other, resulting in a Liger or a Tigon, depending on the parentage. This would not happen in the wild these days as they are naturally from different continents (oh, because it can't happen naturally, it must be supernatural - I forgot). More evidence for Evolution.

Evolutionists have never explained in any of these approaches how such drastic changes could occur in almost perfect step with the slow increase in the Sun’s radiation. Until some evidence supports such “special pleadings, it does not appear that the Sun evolved (g).


As already stated, scientists would never even try to explain the increase in the Sun's Radiation, as it doesn't exist. It is a DEcrease.

If the Sun, a typical and well-studied star, did not evolve, then why presume other stars did?


You are the one making the presumptions by making up your own facts, which are not only false, they are the opposite of what is known to be so.

a. Gregory S. Jenkins et al., “Precambrian Climate: The Effects of Land Area and Earth’s Rotation Rate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, 20 May 1993, pp. 8785–8791.

This paper acknowledges that if the Earth rotated almost twice as fast as it does today, this problem would be lessened—but not solved. Still required are a flooded Earth and an atmosphere with 30–300 times more carbon dioxide than today.




And what is the problem with that?

b. Let’s assume an old Earth and at least a fifth of the atmospheric carbon dioxide needed to prevent a runaway ice age had been present throughout the Earth’s first 2,750,000,000 years. That carbon dioxide would have combined with weathered rocks to produce large amounts of the mineral siderite (FeCO3). Siderite is missing from ancient soils, showing that the concentrations of carbon dioxide needed to prevent a frozen Earth were never present. [See Rob Rye et al., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations before 2.2 Billion Years Ago, Nature, Vol. 378, 7 December 1995, pp. 603–605.]




It wasn't CO2 that caused the Ice Age, but a massive dust cloud, generally accepted to be 95% certainty from an asteroid strke. The same sort of effect happens on a regular basis, although on a much smaller scale with erupting volcanoes, belching tonnes of dust into the atmosphere, as well as no small amount of toxic gases, which combine with the moisture in the atmosphere to cause Acid Rain. Mind you, in previous posts you have also denied the existence of volcanoes.

“There is no direct evidence to show that carbon dioxide levels were ever a thousand times higher. Gregory Jenkins, as quoted by Tim Folger, “The Fast Young Earth, Discover, November 1993, p. 32.

c. William R. Kuhn, “Avoiding a Permanent Ice Age, Nature, Vol. 359, 17 September 1992, p. 196.

d. “The methane greenhouse effect is limited, however, because organic haze starts to form [chemically] at CH4/CO2 ratios higher than ~0.1, and this creates an anti-greenhouse effect that cools the surface if the haze becomes too thick. James F. Kasting, “Faint Young Sun Redux, Nature, Vol. 464, 1 April 2010, p. 688.

e. In 1972, Carl Sagan and George H. Mullen first proposed that the early Earth had lots of heat-trapping methane and ammonia. They had no evidence for early methane and ammonia; they simply were looking for something that might have warmed the Earth, so there would have been no runaway deep freeze and life could have evolved. At the time of Sagan’s death (1996), he was still looking.

f. “Despite all of these proposed warming mechanisms, there are still reasons to think that the faint young Sun problem is not yet solved. Ice albedo feedback has been neglected in all of these one-dimensional climate calculations. Kasting, p. 688.

g. For a frank admission of these and other “special pleadings, see Carl Sagan and Christopher Chyba, “The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases, Science, Vol. 276, 23 May 1997, pp. 1217–1221.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Once again a combination of false claims, misinterpretations & cherry picking.

One of the very first things any child in primary school learns is that plants feed on light & CO2 in order to excrete Oxygen as a waste product (indeed, the primary ingredient of CO2). Therefore, in a high CO2 environment plant life will thrive - just as it did in the early days of the earth's evolution. In this way the CO2 levels gradually decreased, making the atmosphere far more amenable to the furtherment of life.

Incidentally, plants & trees etc only provide a small proportion of the total photo-synthesised Oxygen on the planet. The vast majority is generated by the algae in the oceans.

These are indisputable facts, observed, reproduced & recorded under labratory conditions, yet you follow your God, the Almight Dolt Brown, like a bleating sheep believing every bit of twaddle he spouts, never thinking to question anything he says. Have you ever wondered why the primary source for confirmation of his 'facts' is his very own cult company? It's like me saying "These Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants have been proved to exist", and then linking to one of my own websites which confirm the claim (which, of course is true). It is this consistency of falsehoods & unfounded claims of testimonies that shows him up, time after time to be the Snake Oil Fraud that he clearly is. He's making a fortune off the backs of gullible idiots like you.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1475812 wrote:

Why, then, is the hottest planet in the Solar System Venus? Because it has an atmosphere made up primarily of CO2, which allows Infra Red, but doesn't release it. This is how Global Warming is affecting the Earth right now because of Man's continued destruction of the atmosphere. This has been proved - or are you a denier of Global Warming as well?


Global warming seems to be a fact. The cause is debatable. Mars is also experiencing global warming. The cause seems to be the sun, not man. Here are some facts:

In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.

By HARRISON H. SCHMITT AND WILLIAM HAPPER

Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.

Using energy from sunlight—together with the catalytic action of an ancient enzyme called rubisco, the most abundant protein on earth—plants convert carbon dioxide from the air into carbohydrates and other useful molecules. Rubisco catalyzes the attachment of a carbon-dioxide molecule to another five-carbon molecule to make two three-carbon molecules, which are subsequently converted into carbohydrates. (Since the useful product from the carbon dioxide capture consists of three-carbon molecules, plants that use this simple process are called C3 plants.) C3 plants, such as wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and many forage crops, evolved when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than today. So these agricultural staples are actually undernourished in carbon dioxide relative to their original design.

At the current low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, rubisco in C3 plants can be fooled into substituting oxygen molecules for carbon-dioxide molecules. But this substitution reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis, especially at high temperatures. To get around the problem, a small number of plants have evolved a way to enrich the carbon-dioxide concentration around the rubisco enzyme, and to suppress the oxygen concentration. Called C4 plants because they utilize a molecule with four carbons, plants that use this evolutionary trick include sugar cane, corn and other tropical plants.

Although C4 plants evolved to cope with low levels of carbon dioxide, the workaround comes at a price, since it takes additional chemical energy. With high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, C4 plants are not as productive as C3 plants, which do not have the overhead costs of the carbon-dioxide enrichment system.

That's hardly all that goes into making the case for the benefits of carbon dioxide. Right now, at our current low levels of carbon dioxide, plants are paying a heavy price in water usage. Whether plants are C3 or C4, the way they get carbon dioxide from the air is the same: The plant leaves have little holes, or stomata, through which carbon dioxide molecules can diffuse into the moist interior for use in the plant's photosynthetic cycles.

The density of water molecules within the leaf is typically 60 times greater than the density of carbon dioxide in the air, and the diffusion rate of the water molecule is greater than that of the carbon-dioxide molecule.

So depending on the relative humidity and temperature, 100 or more water molecules diffuse out of the leaf for every molecule of carbon dioxide that diffuses in. And not every carbon-dioxide molecule that diffuses into a leaf gets incorporated into a carbohydrate. As a result, plants require many hundreds of grams of water to produce one gram of plant biomass, largely carbohydrate.

Driven by the need to conserve water, plants produce fewer stomata openings in their leaves when there is more carbon dioxide in the air. This decreases the amount of water that the plant is forced to transpire and allows the plant to withstand dry conditions better.

Crop yields in recent dry years were less affected by drought than crops of the dust-bowl droughts of the 1930s, when there was less carbon dioxide. Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.

We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.

Mr. Schmitt, an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was an Apollo 17 astronaut and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico. Mr. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton University and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.

Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide - WSJ

[Pahu]

[QUOTE=FourPart;1475812]

Apart from the 'no continents' bit, which I will let ride, as that could just be extremely poor definition descriptively, as there was one single continent which separated over billions of years, and continues to do so.


Where is evidence supporting your assertion?

The way countries & continents clearly fit together like a global jigsaw is further evidence of this fact.


Continents don't fit together as neatly as you think.

For centuries, beginning possibly with Francis Bacon in 1620, many have noticed the approximate jigsaw fit of the continents bordering the Atlantic. It is only natural that bold thinkers, such as Alfred Wegener in 1915, would propose that the continents were once connected as shown in Figure 50, and somehow they broke apart and moved to their present positions. But would continents, including their broad but submerged continental shelves, really fit together as shown in textbooks? Distances are distorted when a globe is flattened into a two-dimensional map. Therefore, to answer this question, I formed two plates on a globe, matching the true shape and curvature of the continents. [See Figure 51.]





Figure 50: Continental Fit Proposed by Edward Bullard. Can you identify four distortions in this popular explanation of how the continents once fit together? First, Africa was shrunk in area by 35%. Second, Central America, southern Mexico, and the Caribbean Islands were removed. Third, a slice was made through the Mediterranean, and Europe was rotated counterclockwise and Africa was rotated clockwise. Finally, North and South America were rotated relative to each other. (Justifications are not given for these rotations.) Notice the rotation of the north-south and east-west lines. Overlapping areas are shown in black.

The classical fit (Figure 50), proposed by Sir Edward Bullard, appears at first glance to be a better fit of the continents than my plates. However, notice in Figure 50’s description the great “latitude Bullard took in juggling continents. Were these distortions made to improve the fit? Few, if any, textbooks inform us of these distortions.



Figure 51: Poor Fit. Notice that the fit of the actual continents is not as good as Bullard proposed. [See Figure 50.]

Instead of fitting the continents to each other, notice in Figure 52 how well they each fit the base of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The hydroplate theory proposes that:

a. These continents were once in the approximate positions shown in Figure 52.

b. They were connected by rock that was rapidly eroded and transported worldwide by erupting subterranean water.

c. As these eroded sediments were deposited, they trapped and buried plants and animals. The sediments became today’s sedimentary rock, and buried organisms became fossils.

d. The continents quickly slid on a layer of water (rapid continental drift) away from the rising Mid-Atlantic Ridge and toward the subsiding Pacific floor. They came to rest near their present locations.

Details and evidence will be given later in this chapter.



Figure 52: Best Fit. By far the best fit of these continents is against the base of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge—not as shown in Figure 51. The distortions of Figure 50 are unnecessary and deceptive.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to

[Pahu]

FourPart;1475812 wrote:

Once sections of land were separated, different species of animals went on to evolve in there own individual ways, which is why there are so many various species around the world, ideally suited to their different environments which are clearly descended from the same root species. A lion is very different to a tiger, but they are both clearly cats, yet they are from different continents. They are also genetically compatible as it is possible for them to reproduce with each other, resulting in a Liger or a Tigon, depending on the parentage. This would not happen in the wild these days as they are naturally from different continents (oh, because it can't happen naturally, it must be supernatural - I forgot). More evidence for Evolution.


The main problem with evolution is the lack of transitional species. Is enough fossil and strata evidence available to enable us to definitively arrive at answers?

Yes there is! According to Kier, there are over 100 million fossils housed in museums and other collections! Geologists have been digging them out of the ground since the early 19th century.

If the evidence supporting evolutionary claims existed, it ought to have been discovered by now!

By the present time, the transitional forms (the halfway species between one species and the other it evolved into) ought to have been found. But such evidence does not exist.

Gish says that evolutionists maintain that it takes 100 million years to evolve a fish. Therefore, there ought to be thousands of transitional forms, halfway between the fish and what it evolved from.

For example, evolutionists teach that a land animal, such as a cow, went into the ocean and changed into a whale. (Don't laugh; that is what they believe.) But that would mean we ought to have thousands of halfway species between the two—but such creatures are not to be found in the fossil record or in the oceans today.

FOSSILS AND STRATA - 1

You are the one making the presumptions by making up your own facts, which are not only false, they are the opposite of what is known to be so.


I have stated the facts. Your denials are the opposite of what is known to be so.

It wasn't CO2 that caused the Ice Age, but a massive dust cloud, generally accepted to be 95% certainty from an asteroid strke.


Partially true. An ice age requires cold continents and warm oceans. Indeed, even the Arctic Ocean was a warm 73°F (23°C) soon after the Mid-Oceanic Ridge formed. While standard climate models, even making use of liberal assumptions, fail to explain this discovery, the flood does.

Sliding hydroplates generated frictional heat, as did movements within the earth resulting from the rising of the Atlantic floor and subsiding of the Pacific Ocean floor. Floods of lava spilling out, especially onto the Pacific floor, became vast reservoirs of heat that maintained elevated temperatures in certain ocean regions for centuries—the ultimate and first “El Niño. Warm oceans produced high evaporation rates and heavy cloud cover.

Temperatures drop about 3.5°F for every 1,000 feet of elevation increase. Therefore, after the flood, the elevated continents and lower sea level produced colder continents. Also, volcanic debris in the air and heavy cloud cover shielded the continents from much of the Sun’s rays. Finally, lowered sea levels meant warmer oceans.

At higher latitudes and elevations, such as the newly elevated and extremely high mountains, this combination of high precipitation and low temperatures produced immense snow falls—perhaps 100 times those of today. Large temperature differences between the cold land and warm oceans generated high winds that rapidly transported moist air up onto the elevated, cool continents where heavy snowfall occurred, especially over glaciated areas. As snow depths increased, glaciers flowed downhill in periodic spurts, much like an avalanche. During summer months, rain caused some glaciers to melt partially and retreat, marking the end of that year’s “ice age.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery

Mind you, in previous posts you have also denied the existence of volcanoes.


I have never denied the existence of volcanoes.

These are indisputable facts, observed, reproduced & recorded under labratory conditions, yet you follow your God, the Almight Dolt Brown, like a bleating sheep believing every bit of twaddle he spouts, never thinking to question anything he says. It is this consistency of falsehoods & unfounded claims of testimonies that shows him up, time after time to be the Snake Oil Fraud that he clearly is. He's making a fortune off the backs of gullible idiots like you.


Remember, when you deny the truth of Brown's conclusions you are denying the hundreds of scientists who confirm those conclusions such as:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:



American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Geology

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[Ahso!]

[FourPart]

Pahu;1475844 wrote:

Remember, when you deny the truth of Brown's conclusions you are denying the hundreds of scientists who confirm those conclusions such as:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:



American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Geology

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts
So you claim - or more to the point, so your Master Dolt Brown claims. However, despite frequent challenges to do so you have yet to come up with one direct link to any of these names EVER having said anything to confirm his lunatic theories.

By the way, Stephen Hawking also published a paper in support of the Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants in New Scientist.

[FourPart]

Just for the hell of it (I really must get a life) I looked at the very first posts in this thread. They consist of exactly the same pasted clips, and the same wild claims with no evidence to support them. When challenged to quantify his claims he merely pastes some more totally unrelated twaddle. The reason he can't quantify the arguments is that he can't think for himself & his only programming comes from Dolt Brown, who is unlikely to put anything in his own comic to state the truth of things.

Quite frankly, I can't believe that anyone can really be this stupid. Brown is obviously just a charlatan in it for the money, exploiting the feeble minded, such as Pahu, but to blindly believe the unfounded claims on just another idiot is unbelieveable.

Pahu constantly refers to there having to be the missing links between levels of evolution (which do exist, and there are more being found every day), but he seems to be living proof of the evolutionary mental state between when man still walked on all fours to when they started to walk on 2 feet - although I'm not certain at which end of that scale he comes under, but definitely subhuman - by quite some way. Living Proof.