Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Oct 02, 2015 11:15 am

Smaug;1487082 wrote: Unfortunately, your post seems to indicate that you still consider the Mars 'Sphinx', the Mars 'face' and various other 'statues' pareidolia; would you consider the huge statues and the Sphinx in Egypt as pareidolia also? To me, they are clearly artificial, not some vague 'man-in-the-moon' face, though they ARE ancient, as you would expect them to be, if they are relics of a long-extinct civilization. Why should Mars not have had intelligent life aeons ago, if water was abundant, and the atmosphere a good mix of life-sustaining gasses?

Nevertheless, we are all perfectly entitled to our points of view, and it is my hope that conclusive proof of:

1. Life on Mars will emerge.

2. Intelligent life on Mars, past OR present will emerge.

I feel that we are at 'the tip of the iceberg' in regard to discoveries on Mars. I eagerly await further discoveries in this field!

A few years ago a rock was found containing signs of life that supposedly came from Mars. That has been found to be false, but it raised the hopes of many that life existed outside of earth. I predict no life will be found on Mars or anywhere else because God revealed He created life on Earth and nowhere else.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:55 pm

At this point life on another planet is at best guess work. My mind is open to either situation. That is just he same for me regarding the fossil record on the evolution of man I am quite comfortable with the knowledge of the evolving nature of reality. It happened and is still hapening.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 3:55 pm

Ted;1487122 wrote: At this point life on another planet is at best guess work. My mind is open to either situation. That is just he same for me regarding the fossil record on the evolution of man I am quite comfortable with the knowledge of the evolving nature of reality. It happened and is still hapening.

Design of Man: No Evolutionary Evidences

Man has either slowly evolved from a primal slime billions of years ago—or he has been created in God’s image. The list of evidences that were supposed to validate man’s evolutionary ascent from “lower life forms has been expunged by decades of good scientific research. From teeth to toes, the edifice of “human evolution has clearly been disintegrating.

For instance, dentists with a Darwinian philosophy may suggest removing wisdom teeth because of the “evolution of the human jaw. Although some molars may indeed need extraction, it demonstrably has nothing to do with evolution.1

Many evolutionists point to chronic back problems as evidence that humans recently stood upright from tetrapod ancestors. But not only does the human spinal column appear designed for an upright posture, back troubles most directly correlate to bad habits, injury, or other abuses. Evolution has exactly nothing to do with back pain.2

Evolutionists continue to maintain that embryonic development in the womb mirrors an evolutionary past when humans had gill slits like a fish or a yolk sac like a chicken. Such unscientific suggestions are the result of the infamous “biogenetic law of German zoologist Ernst Haeckel. Evolutionists have allowed this poor science to fester, even though the “recapitulation theory has long since been thoroughly discredited.3

Many secular schools still teach the unscientific concept that structures such as tonsils, adenoids, and the appendix are useless vestiges of an evolutionary past.4 But in 2010, four evolutionists called the adenoids and tonsils “large collections of immunologically active lymphoid tissue.5 They are dynamic parts of immune systems! In 2009, an evolutionary immunologist stated:

If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution.6

There is no fossil evidence that man evolved from some subhuman creature. As one science writer put it, “The last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans remains a holy grail in science,7 employing a metaphor that implies a vain search for an elusive treasure, or anything of great value—with essentially no chance of it being found. Discoveries of supposed evolutionary evidences inevitably result in confusion. A Newsweek subtitle is typical: “Discovery of the fossil of an unknown human ancestor shakes up ideas of human evolution.8

Recently discovered footprints look surprisingly human and creation scientists suggest the unthinkable—perhaps they were actually made by humans.9 Other writers dance around the truth:

Created around 1.5 million years ago, these are the oldest footprints that look like those made by modern humans. A team of scientists...discovered these precious fossilized prints in dried mud in 2009....By the looks of it, the fossilized foot impressions seem identical to the ones we make when walking across the sand.10

Evolutionists cannot accept that people made these prints and instead—with no scientific reason—believe the footprints were made by a subhuman ancestor, Homo erectus.

Scripture clearly teaches in Genesis 1 that plants and animals were created by God “after their kind—as was man, uniquely made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27).

Design of Man: No Evolutionary Evidences | The Institute for Creation Research

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:08 am

Definitely a case of "None So Blind".

No fossils? What are these then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

It was stated that a extra terrestrial rock containing life forms was found, stating that it hadn't, as originally thought, come from Mars. First of all, who said that it had come from Mars? Who said that it hadn't? Then comes the other obvious question - if the rock didn't come from Mars, where did it come from? It's extra terrestrial. It has traces of life in it. According to your / Brown's own claims, this could not possibly be so because of there not being any life anywhere else.

Your / Brown's reference to the fossilised footprint actually goes to prove the case FOR evolution, and negates what he is trying to say to deny it.

Based on size of the footprints and their modern anatomical characteristics, the authors attribute the prints to the hominid Homo ergaster, or early Homo erectus as it is more generally known. This was the first hominid to have had the same body proportions (longer legs and shorter arms) as modern Homo sapiens. Various H. ergaster or H. erectus remains have been found in Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa, with dates consistent with the Ileret footprints.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141102.htm

You see - it is evidence of the progression of the evolution of man towards modern day human.

Before blindly accepting Brown's word at face value, you really should do a little research of your own before making yourself look even more stupid than you already appear.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:29 am

Pahu;1487085 wrote: A few years ago a rock was found containing signs of life that supposedly came from Mars. That has been found to be false, but it raised the hopes of many that life existed outside of earth. I predict no life will be found on Mars or anywhere else because God revealed He created life on Earth and nowhere else.

The universe/multiverse is VAST beyond comprehension, yet some of us blithely assume that we are alone?

Here's a theory for all you 'we are alone' merchants...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Who wrote the Bible, then? MAN! (The very same creature who thought the world was flat....)

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:32 am

FourPart;1487138 wrote: Definitely a case of "None So Blind".

No fossils? What are these then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

Those are a bunch of bones, but no evidence of evolution.

It was stated that a extra terrestrial rock containing life forms was found, stating that it hadn't, as originally thought, come from Mars. First of all, who said that it had come from Mars? Who said that it hadn't? Then comes the other obvious question - if the rock didn't come from Mars, where did it come from? It's extra terrestrial. It has traces of life in it. According to your / Brown's own claims, this could not possibly be so because of there not being any life anywhere else.

The rock probably came from Earth at the beginning of the Flood. For details go here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:

Your / Brown's reference to the fossilised footprint actually goes to prove the case FOR evolution, and negates what he is trying to say to deny it.

Based on size of the footprints and their modern anatomical characteristics, the authors attribute the prints to the hominid Homo ergaster, or early Homo erectus as it is more generally known. This was the first hominid to have had the same body proportions (longer legs and shorter arms) as modern Homo sapiens. Various H. ergaster or H. erectus remains have been found in Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa, with dates consistent with the Ileret footprints

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141102.htm

You see - it is evidence of the progression of the evolution of man towards modern day human.

Before blindly accepting Brown's word at face value, you really should do a little research of your own before making yourself look even more stupid than you already appear.

Claiming that footprint is 1.5 million years ago is based on flawed dating techniques. It is just a human footprint recently fossilized.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:53 am

Smaug;1487170 wrote: The universe/multiverse is VAST beyond comprehension, yet some of us blithely assume that we are alone?

Here's a theory for all you 'we are alone' merchants...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural.

Panspermia is an evidence free notion that life originated somewhere else in the universe and came here. Since a whole, functioning cell could not possibly emerge spontaneously from non-living matter, many evolutionists believe that simpler viruses were the first step towards the development of life. Researchers in Finland conducted a test on the survivability of viruses inside bacterial spores, which some scientists hypothesize may have travelled through space on meteoroids to seed life on earth. What the study discovered, however, is that life springing from space-borne viruses was highly unlikely.

The question of life’s beginnings has been vexing to Darwin’s supporters. After a lifetime of speculating on naturalistic scenarios for the origin of life on earth, famous Russian evolutionist A. I. Oparin in 1961 deferred to the next generation to supply the critical answers to the question of origins. Since then, the insurmountable odds against spontaneous generation have forced some scientists to acknowledge God as the creator of life. Others, apparently desperate to maintain belief in naturalism, have insisted on panspermia—the proposal that life was transported to earth from somewhere in outer space.

Of course, this hypothesis solves nothing because any life-friendly environment elsewhere in the universe would be subject to the same laws of chemistry and physics that prevent the spontaneous formation here of even the simplest biochemicals found in living cells and viruses.

Viral Life from Outer Space? Not Likely. | The Institute for Creation Research

Who wrote the Bible, then? MAN! (The very same creature who thought the world was flat....)

Bible writers did not think Earth was flat. In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.

Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle (×—×•×’—chuwg) can also mean “round or “sphere.

With the exception of the Ten Commandments, which God wrote with His finger, the Bible was written by men inspired by God. Those men revealed scientific facts that just recently been discovered. They also accurately predicted future events:

The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

King James Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecy

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:35 pm

When the first contact with another species from the myriad planets capable of supporting life occurs, then it will be 'game over' for anyone naive enough to believe that we are alone in the unimaginably vast panoply of planetary systems out there....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:49 pm

Pahu;1487195 wrote: Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural.

Panspermia is an evidence free notion that life originated somewhere else in the universe and came here. Since a whole, functioning cell could not possibly emerge spontaneously from non-living matter, many evolutionists believe that simpler viruses were the first step towards the development of life. Researchers in Finland conducted a test on the survivability of viruses inside bacterial spores, which some scientists hypothesize may have travelled through space on meteoroids to seed life on earth. What the study discovered, however, is that life springing from space-borne viruses was highly unlikely.

The question of life’s beginnings has been vexing to Darwin’s supporters. After a lifetime of speculating on naturalistic scenarios for the origin of life on earth, famous Russian evolutionist A. I. Oparin in 1961 deferred to the next generation to supply the critical answers to the question of origins. Since then, the insurmountable odds against spontaneous generation have forced some scientists to acknowledge God as the creator of life. Others, apparently desperate to maintain belief in naturalism, have insisted on panspermia—the proposal that life was transported to earth from somewhere in outer space.

Of course, this hypothesis solves nothing because any life-friendly environment elsewhere in the universe would be subject to the same laws of chemistry and physics that prevent the spontaneous formation here of even the simplest biochemicals found in living cells and viruses.

Viral Life from Outer Space? Not Likely. | The Institute for Creation Research

Bible writers did not think Earth was flat. In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.

Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle (×—×•×’—chuwg) can also mean “round or “sphere.

With the exception of the Ten Commandments, which God wrote with His finger, the Bible was written by men inspired by God. Those men revealed scientific facts that just recently been discovered. They also accurately predicted future events:

The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

King James Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecy

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

The mistake in your logic is that the universe, or life had to have not existed at sometime, and that it began from nothing.

Only idiots think that.

All of the matter and energy in the Universe has always existed in some form or another.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:58 pm

When the first contact with another species from the myriad planets capable of supporting life occurs, then it will be 'game over' for anyone naive enough to believe that we are alone in the unimaginably vast panoply of planetary systems out there....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

A simpler 'formula' was also postulated years ago, and it runs something like this; ( I can't remember who

postulated the theory below, or when it was first broached, though I fancy it MAY have been NASA, and it was used to try and calculate the number of planets supporting life in our galaxy, just one of thousands, possibly millions of galaxies in this universe.... )

In every 1000 planets, 1 may be capable of supporting simple life.

Gather 1000 of those planets capable of supporting simple life, and 1 actually supports simple life.

Now gather 1000 planets supporting simple life, and 1 may actually support more developed life.

Now gather 1000 of these planets supporting developed life, and 1 may support advanced life.

If either of these theories are correct, we are definitely not alone. Think of a beach, with it's grains of sand,

and on 1 of the grains micro-organisms are living. Is it likely that it's the only grain of sand on which micro-organisms are living?

You can be sure it's not! And I would hazard a guess that same logic applies to planets with life developing, or developed already.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:15 am

LarsMac;1487260 wrote: The mistake in your logic is that the universe, or life had to have not existed at sometime, and that it began from nothing.

Only idiots think that.

All of the matter and energy in the Universe has always existed in some form or another.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:18 am

Smaug;1487261 wrote: When the first contact with another species from the myriad planets capable of supporting life occurs, then it will be 'game over' for anyone naive enough to believe that we are alone in the unimaginably vast panoply of planetary systems out there....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

A simpler 'formula' was also postulated years ago, and it runs something like this; ( I can't remember who

postulated the theory below, or when it was first broached, though I fancy it MAY have been NASA, and it was used to try and calculate the number of planets supporting life in our galaxy, just one of thousands, possibly millions of galaxies in this universe.... )

In every 1000 planets, 1 may be capable of supporting simple life.

Gather 1000 of those planets capable of supporting simple life, and 1 actually supports simple life.

Now gather 1000 planets supporting simple life, and 1 may actually support more developed life.

Now gather 1000 of these planets supporting developed life, and 1 may support advanced life.

If either of these theories are correct, we are definitely not alone. Think of a beach, with it's grains of sand,

and on 1 of the grains micro-organisms are living. Is it likely that it's the only grain of sand on which micro-organisms are living?

You can be sure it's not! And I would hazard a guess that same logic applies to planets with life developing, or developed already.

All based on evidence free speculation.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:03 am

In quantum physics that matter can and does wink in and out of existence all of the time. It is indeed amazing but the proof is there.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Oct 06, 2015 11:05 am

Ted;1487271 wrote: In quantum physics that matter can and does wink in and out of existence all of the time. It is indeed amazing but the proof is there.

Can the universe come into existence from nothing?

Paul Davies writes: "...the application of quantum mechanics is normally restricted to atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles. Quantum effects are usually negligible for macroscopic objects. Recall that at the heart of quantum physics lies Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that all measurable quantities (e.g., position, momentum, energy) are subject to unpredictable fluctuations in their values. This unpredictability implies that the microworld is indeterministic: to use Einstein's picturesque phraseology, God plays dice with the universe. Therefore, quantum events are not determined absolutely by preceding causes. Although the probability of a given event (e.g., the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus) is fixed by the theory, the actual outcome of a particular quantum process is unknown and, even in principle, unknowable.

“By weakening the link between cause and effect, quantum mechanics provides a subtle way for us to circumvent the origin-of-the-universe problem. If a way can be found to permit the universe to come into existence from nothing (emphasis mine) as the result of a quantum fluctuation, then no laws of physics would be violated. In other words, viewed through the eyes of a quantum physicist, the spontaneous appearance of a universe is not such a surprise, because physical objects are spontaneously appearing all the time--without well-defined causes--in the quantum microworld. The quantum physicist need no more appeal to a supernatural act to bring the universe into being than to explain why a radioactive nucleus decayed when it did." (Paul Davies, The Mind of God. N.Y.: Touchstone books, 1992)

The microworld is indeterministic, but in no way does it follow that quantum events are not determined absolutely by preceding causes. The link between cause and effect is in no way weakened and cannot be so weakened by science, at least without destroying the very possibility of science. And so there is no subtle way at all to circumvent the origin of the universe problem.

First, the nature of cause and effect is a metaphysical question, that is, a question for the philosophy of being. Science cannot question the principle of causality without threatening its very foundation. Nor can empiriological science begin to tell us what it means for one thing to cause another, that is, for something to cause or bring about an effect. As Hume demonstrated very clearly, from a strictly empirical point of view, cause and effect have no objective basis whatsoever. The cause and effect relationship is not perceived. It follows that either it is not real in the extramental sense, or there is a knowledge that is over and above sensation.

We would argue that there is a knowledge that is over and above sensation, namely intellection. Cause and effect is known, not perceived. All knowledge begins with the senses, but it does not end there; knowledge ends in intellection. This is so because knowledge begins and ends with real being.

To cause an effect is to impart being. And it is existential judgment that apprehends being. Now, from nothing comes nothing. For it is not possible to get being from non-being (nothing). And nothing is not a "potency", for "nothing" does not have "ability", and "ability" is a potentiality (an indeterminacy). Potentiality or ability is not nothing. It is intelligible—not in itself, but intelligible nonetheless. So it is not true that from nothing comes something. Nothing is nothing pure and simple. The universe, or anything for that matter, cannot have been the effect of nothing or non-being, for nothing simply "is not", and to effect is to impart being. But nothing has no being to impart, nor is it anything from which "is" may emerge.

Now, if there is nothing, then there is no fluctuation, quantum or otherwise. As Parmenides knew long ago, non-being or nothing is unthinkable. It cannot be made an object of thought. So if we refer to quantum fluctuation, we refer to something, not nothing. Furthermore, if quantum fluctuation is going to have any intelligible value whatsoever, there will have to be a subject of that fluctuation. What is it that is fluctuating?

Moreover, act proceeds from potency. But nothing reduces itself from potentiality to actuality except by something already in act. The act of all acts is the act of existing. But nothing can bring itself into being from non-being. In order to "bring itself into" anything, it would have to first exist or be. Activity (second act) presupposes a first act, that is, an existing being capable of acting. And not only is it not possible for potentiality to reduce itself to actuality absolutely, but also relatively. An already existing thing that is in potentiality to a certain mode of being cannot reduce itself to that actual mode of being. A thing cannot give to itself what it does not have, that is, what it is in potency to receive. If it could, it would have it actually and not potentially. But a cause imparts being or a mode of being to that which is in potentiality to receive that particular mode of being. For instance, what is potentially moving is made to be actually moving by something already in the act of moving. To deny this is as absurd as denying that nothing can bring itself into being. To reiterate, what is in potentiality towards a particular mode of being cannot impart to itself what it does not have, namely that particular mode of being, such as motion, a particular quantity, an accidental quality, etc. If it could impart a mode of being to itself that it does not have, then it is not true that it does not have it. And if it is not true that it does not have it, then it is not true that it is in potentiality towards it.

Physical objects may very well be spontaneously appearing all the time, but not knowing the cause is hardly the same thing as not having a cause. This is Cartesianism at its worst. For this would amount to an absolute identification of logical being with real being. But the fact is that physicists seek to know the cause of spontaneously appearing objects because they, as human beings who have pre-scientific knowledge, know that nothing cannot impart being; for nothing has no potentiality whatsoever, because potentiality is a mode of being. Facts are not good enough for scientists. They want reasoned facts. What is the reason for this fact? Not knowing the cause of something is no basis at all for concluding that there isn't one.

Moreover, scientific knowledge is precisely demonstrative knowledge. A conclusion is demonstrated, for instance, that there is no ether, or that we cannot know the position and velocity of an electron at the same time, or that space is curved, etc. But a demonstrated conclusion is an effect of a cause, namely the middle term of a syllogism. That is why a weakening of cause and effect can only weaken science, which depends upon an ability to draw conclusions. For instance, take William Harvey's (d. 1657) demonstration of the circulation of the blood:

A fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction is moved circularly

The blood is such a fluid

Therefore, the blood is moved circularly.

The middle term in the above syllogism is A fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction. So, we ask: What is the reason for concluding that the blood is moved circularly? The reason or cause (or the cause being/because) is the middle term. In other words, the answer is because any fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction is moved circularly.

So, any weakening of cause and effect can only end in a weakening of the scientific process. Science is precisely a "knowing", and to know is to know reasoned facts or causes. To reason to a conclusion requires a knowledge of causes. For science is a search for causes, and conclusions of arguments proceed from causes (middle terms).

Davies argues that the quantum physicist need not appeal to a supernatural act to bring the universe into being. But it is this word "supernatural" that is a problem here. In a sense this is true, one need not appeal to a supernatural act. But it does not follow that one need not appeal to God, who is Ipsum Esse. For God is intimately involved in every natural process, because to cause an effect is to impart being, and God is the First Cause of all that is, because God's essence is to be. Beings do indeed cause effects, but not without the primal causality of that Being whose nature is to be. For nothing reduces itself from potentiality to actuality except by something already in act. We, as actually existing beings, can impart being upon that which is in potentiality to receive the particular mode of being in question, but none of us can bring something into being from nothing. A habens esse cannot surpass the very limits of its nature, and a thing acts according to its nature. But being (esse) is accidental, so to speak, that is, existence is outside of essence (with respect to those beings whose essence is not to be, but to be some kind of thing). There is a real distinction between essence and existence. So as a moving being I can impart motion upon another thing that is potentially moving, but in order to do that I must first be (for me to be actually moving requires that I first be), and so too the potentially moving thing that is in a state of potentiality. Throughout the motion by which I impart moving existence upon a thing, it is Ipsum Esse who must continue to preserve me and the moving thing being moved by me into existence, otherwise I cannot impart motion to the potentially moving thing. And so as a cause of an effect, I am never more than a secondary cause.

Moreover, change involves two terminals: the terminal from which (terminus a quo) a change commences, and a terminal towards which (terminus ad quem) the change moves and at which it terminates.

But nothing cannot be a terminus, because it is nothing. That is why creation (the bringing of something into being, by God, from nothing) is not change. The notion of creation from nothing, without God (Ipsum Esse) of course, leaves us with nothing. So, we have the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing, according to Davies. It cannot be a change, since nothing is not a terminus. And there is no cause to this spontaneous appearance. So there is a potentiality that is actualized, but it is not "somehow" actualized because there is no cause. We cannot ask "how" or "why". To ask "why" is to seek the cause, and there is no cause. But quantum fluctuation is put forth as an agent cause. This is inconsistent. So what then, is the existential status of this quantum fluctuation? What is it? If it is nothing, it cannot be the cause. If it is something, then the universe did not proceed from nothing. Fluctuation is also a term whose meaning, like the meanings of all our words, is derived from our pre-scientific experience. Something fluctuates. The word itself means "change". Fluctuation implies a substrate and a terminus a quo. Something is changing, and the terminus ad quem of that change is the end of the change. Now, is there a cause of this quantum fluctuation? If not, then we posit a change that is not caused, that is, a fulfillment or a realization (actualization) of a potentiality without a prior act. But this too would mean getting something from nothing. There is no cause of the fluctuation, and so we cannot seek to know why there was a fluctuation. Now, if nothing precedes the fluctuation (which is to say that the fluctuation has no substrate), then the fluctuation has nothing for its terminus a quo (for it has no substrate). But nothing cannot be the terminus a quo, because nothing means non-being. It is absurd to posit nothing as being a term "from which".

Finally, one can apply this type of irrationality to anything, that is, to any situation. What is to prevent a person, suspected of robbing a bank, from simply claiming that the money found in his apartment just spontaneously appeared? What grounds does anyone have for maintaining that such a notion is irrational on one level but not on another? In short, the notion of something coming from nothing is irrational and arbitrary.

http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/F00027452 ... othing.htm

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:30 pm

Pahu;1487270 wrote: All based on evidence free speculation.

I'm disappointed yet unsurprised, Pahu, that you can dismiss the Drake equation in such an offhand manner. Seriously talented mathematicians and scientists have spent much time working on this equation that you so casually dismiss, in favour of unproveable, unscientific mumbo-jumbo by Walt Brown and other apocryphal sources, that you believe implicitly!

Have you made any attempt to understand this, admittedly, complex equation? If not, what gives you the right to dismiss it as unscientific speculation? Can you not see the improbability that you, Walt Brown, and all the other 'we are alone' votaries are correct? That this universe/multiverse somehow 'magically' appeared, 'full-fledged', out of nowhere?

Still, you're entitled to your beliefs, though that's all they can ever be.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:42 pm

Smaug;1487279 wrote: I'm disappointed yet unsurprised, Pahu, that you can dismiss the Drake equation in such an offhand manner. Seriously talented mathematicians and scientists have spent much time working on this equation that you so casually dismiss, in favour of unproveable, unscientific mumbo-jumbo by Walt Brown and other apocryphal sources, that you believe implicitly!

Have you made any attempt to understand this, admittedly, complex equation? If not, what gives you the right to dismiss it as unscientific speculation? Can you not see the improbability that you, Walt Brown, and all the other 'we are alone' votaries are correct? That this universe/multiverse somehow 'magically' appeared, 'full-fledged', out of nowhere?

Still, you're entitled to your beliefs, though that's all they can ever be.

The only rational explanation for the existence of the universe is before it existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:01 pm

Pahu;1487280 wrote: The only rational explanation for the existence of the universe is before it existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural.

Something cannot form out of nothing-the elements must have been present, in whatever form, in much the same way as heat may be present as LATENT heat, or moisture present in the atmosphere, even though here are no clouds, or rain visible.

Energy cannot be destroyed, it can only change it's form. Unless you've found a flaw with Einstein? Unless you're a

Nobel class mathematician or physicist, I would say that's unlikely, and I view your dismissal of the Drake equation

in a similar light.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:01 pm

Pahu;1487267 wrote: The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Evidence free supposition on your part. You keep bringing up Entropy. You don't really seem to grasp the concept very well, at all.

Two words: Closed system.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 4:29 am

Pahu;1487267 wrote: The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Here is the definition of 'Entropy', Pahu. Applied to thermodynamic systems, as opposed to 'supernatural', or 'magical' ones!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 5:04 am

Pahu;1487267 wrote: The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Here is the definition of 'Entropy', Pahu. Applied to thermodynamic systems, as opposed to 'supernatural', or 'magical' ones!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

As to thermodynamics, here's a 'sneak-peek' at aspects of the second law....(There are 4 laws)

Second Law of Thermodynamics

To be honest, unless you thoroughly understand entropy and thermodynamics, and their relationship to one another, you should be wary of using them in an attempt to validate these unproveable arguments!

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Here you appear to be getting into the realms of Quantum Fluctuation, which is, in turn, linked to Heisberg's uncertainty principle. Again, unless you are a Nobel class physicist, or very highly qualified in this field (and I severely doubt that), I would be wary of using these in an attempt to legitimise your (and Walt Brown's) assertions!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Might I respectfully suggest that you read these links, and if you fail to understand these concepts, and the equations therein, in the interests of credibility, cease using them! I certainly don't claim to understand, by any means, all of the physics I've included in this post, but I understand enough to know that I could never use them to promote the dubious and apocryphal theorems that you seem to believe in.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 1:35 pm

Smaug;1487282 wrote: Something cannot form out of nothing-the elements must have been present, in whatever form, in much the same way as heat may be present as LATENT heat, or moisture present in the atmosphere, even though here are no clouds, or rain visible.

Energy cannot be destroyed, it can only change it's form. Unless you've found a flaw with Einstein? Unless you're a

Nobel class mathematician or physicist, I would say that's unlikely, and I view your dismissal of the Drake equation

in a similar light.

Einstein's findings only apply to an existing universe. Before the universe existed there was nothing including energy. From absolutely nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:12 pm

My bet is that you either:

1. 'Cop out' from answering post#2172 in a proper, reasoned, physics-based, scientific manner.

2. Trot out the same unsubstantiatable 'it was supernatural' explanation, as you might when hearing an unexpected bump in the night!

3. Don't even bother to read, or think about the physics/laws linked in post#2172, preferring instead to 'swerve' the issue entirely.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:44 am

Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram

The theory of stellar evolution was developed by arranging (on paper) different types of stars according to their color and absolute brightness—what is called a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. A physical rationale was then devised for how stars changed from one portion of the diagram to another. Supposedly, a star’s age was determined by its place on the diagram. However, astronomers recognize that all stars in each massive star cluster formed at about the same time, because the stellar wind from the first stars to form would have blown out of the tight cluster the raw material needed to form all the other stars in the cluster. Despite the same age for stars in a given cluster, the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram sometimes gives drastically different ages.

[In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 59. Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram >From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown ]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:34 am

LarsMac;1487288 wrote: Evidence free supposition on your part. You keep bringing up Entropy. You don't really seem to grasp the concept very well, at all.

Two words: Closed system.

Entropy and Open Systems

The most devastating and conclusive argument against evolution is the entropy principle. This principle (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) implies that, in the present order of things, evolution in the "vertical" sense (that is, from one degree of order and complexity to a higher degree of order and complexity) is completely impossible.

The evolutionary model of origins and development requires some universal principle which increases order, causing random particles eventually to organize themselves into complex chemicals, non-living systems to become living cells, and populations of worms to evolve into human societies. However the only naturalistic scientific principle which is known to effect real changes in order is the Second Law, which describes a situation of universally deteriorating order.

"This law states that all natural processes generate entropy, a measure of disorder"1

"Entropy, in short, is the measurement of molecular disorder. The law of the irreversible increase in entropy is a law of progressive disorganization, of the complete disappearance of the initial conditions."2

It can hardly be questioned that evolution is at least superficially contradicted by entropy. The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order. Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they don’t know how.

"In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order. The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward."3

"Back of the spontaneous generation of life under other conditions than now obtain upon this planet, there occurred a spontaneous generation of elements of the kind that still goes on in the stars; and back of that I suppose a spontaneous generation of elementary particles under circumstances still to be fathomed, that ended in giving them the properties that alone make possible the universe we know."4

"Life might be described as an unexpected force that somehow organizes inanimate matter into a living system that perceives, reacts to, and evolves to cope with changes to the physical environment that threatens to destroy its organization."5

When confronted directly with this problem (e.g., in creation/evolution debates), evolutionists often will completely ignore it. Some will honestly admit they do not know how to resolve the problem but will simply express confidence that there must be a way, since otherwise one would have to believe in supernatural creation. As Wald says:

"In this strange paper I have ventured to suggest that natural selection of a sort has extended even beyond the elements, to determine the properties of protons and electrons. Curious as that seems, it is a possibility worth weighing against the only alternative I can imagine, Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist."6

[continue]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:36 am

Entropy and Open Systems

[continued]

Some evolutionists try to solve the problem by suggesting that the entropy law is only statistical and that exceptions can occur, which would allow occasional accidental increases in order. Whether this is so, however, is entirely a matter of faith. No one has ever seen such an exception, and science is based upon observation!

"There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances."7

By far the majority of evolutionists, however, attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant. The earth and its biosphere are open systems, with an ample supply of energy coming in from the sun to do the work of building up the complexity of these systems. Furthermore, they cite specific examples of systems in which the order increases, (such as the growth of a crystal out of solution, the growth of a seed or embryo into an adult plant or animal, or the growth of a small Stone Age population into a large complex technological culture) as proof that the Second Law does not inhibit the growth of more highly-ordered systems.

Arguments and examples such as these, however, are specious arguments. It is like arguing that, since NASA was able to put men on the moon, therefore it is reasonable to believe cows can jump over the moon! Creationists have for over a decade been emphasizing that the Second Law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system. The great French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically, as acknowledged by Layzer:

"Borel showed that no finite physical system can be considered closed."8

Creationists have long acknowledged (in fact emphasized) that order can and does increase in certain special types of open systems, but this is no proof that order increases in every open system! The statement that "the earth is an open system" is a vacuous statement containing no specific information, since all systems are open systems.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system."

If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that "open" system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will proceed to decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It is even more futile to refer to inorganic processes such as crystallization as evidence of evolution. Even Prigogine recognizes this:

"The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly-ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred."9

[continue]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:38 am

Entropy and Open Systems

[continued]

Thus the highly specialized conditions that enable crystals to form and plants and animals to grow have nothing whatever to do with evolution. These special conditions themselves (that is, the marvelous process of photosynthesis, the complex information programs in the living cell, even the electrochemical properties of the molecules in the crystal, etc.) could never arise by chance — their own complexity could never have been produced within the constraints imposed by the Second Law. But without these, the crystal would not form, and the seed would never grow.

But what is the information code that tells primeval random particles how to organize themselves into stars and planets, and what is the conversion mechanism that transforms amoebas into men? These are questions that are not answered by a specious reference to the earth as an open system! And until they are answered, the Second Law makes evolution appear quite impossible.

To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently very few) who recognize the critical nature of this problem and are trying to solve it. Prigogine has proposed an involved theory of "order through fluctuations" and "dissipative structures."10

But his examples are from inorganic systems and he acknowledges that there is a long way to go to explain how these become living systems by his theory.

"But let us have no illusions, our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms."11

Another recent writer who has partially recognized the seriousness of this problem is Charles J. Smith.

"The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. I would go further and include the problem of meaning and value."12

Whether rank-and-file evolutionists know it or not, this problem they have with entropy is thus "one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." It is more than a problem, in fact, it is a devastating denial of the evolution model itself. It will continue to be so until evolutionists can demonstrate that the vast imagined evolutionary continuum in space and time has both a program to guide it and an energy converter to empower it. Otherwise, the Second Law precludes it.

It is conceivable, though extremely unlikely that evolutionists may eventually formulate a plausible code and mechanism to explain how both entropy and evolution could co-exist. Even if they do, however, the evolution model will still not be as good as the creation model. At the most, such a suggestion would constitute a secondary modification of the basic evolution model. The latter could certainly never predict the Second Law.

The evolution model cannot yet even explain the Second Law, but the creation model predicts it! The creationist is not embarrassed or perplexed by entropy, since it is exactly what he expects. The creation model postulates a perfect creation of all things completed during the period of special creation in the beginning. From this model, the creationist naturally predicts limited horizontal changes within the created entities (e.g., variations within biologic kinds, enabling them to adapt to environmental changes). If "vertical" changes occur, however, from one level of order to another, they would have to go in the downward direction, toward lower order. The Creator, both omniscient and omnipotent, made all things perfect in the beginning. No process of evolutionary change could improve them, but deteriorative changes could disorder them.

Not only does the creation model predict the entropy principle, but the entropy principle directly points to creation. That is, if all things are now running down to disorder, they must originally have been in a state of high order. Since there is no naturalistic process which could produce such an initial condition, its cause must have been supernatural. The only adequate cause of the initial order and complexity of the universe must have been an omniscient Programmer, and the cause of its boundless power an omnipotent Energizer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, with its principle of increasing entropy, both repudiates the evolution model and strongly confirms the creation model.

Entropy and Open Systems | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:46 am

Smaug;1487298 wrote:

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Here you appear to be getting into the realms of Quantum Fluctuation, which is, in turn, linked to Heisberg's uncertainty principle. Again, unless you are a Nobel class physicist, or very highly qualified in this field (and I severely doubt that), I would be wary of using these in an attempt to legitimise your (and Walt Brown's) assertions!

Nothing is nothing pure and simple. The universe, or anything for that matter, cannot have been the effect of nothing or non-being, for nothing simply "is not", and to effect is to impart being. But nothing has no being to impart, nor is it anything from which "is" may emerge.

Now, if there is nothing, then there is no fluctuation, quantum or otherwise. As Parmenides knew long ago, non-being or nothing is unthinkable. It cannot be made an object of thought. So if we refer to quantum fluctuation, we refer to something, not nothing. Furthermore, if quantum fluctuation is going to have any intelligible value whatsoever, there will have to be a subject of that fluctuation. What is it that is fluctuating?

Nothing can bring itself into being from non-being. In order to "bring itself into" anything, it would have to first exist or be. What is potentially moving is made to be actually moving by something already in the act of moving. To deny this is as absurd as denying that nothing can bring itself into being.

Physical objects may very well be spontaneously appearing all the time, but not knowing the cause is hardly the same thing as not having a cause. This is Cartesianism at its worst. For this would amount to an absolute identification of logical being with real being. But the fact is that physicists seek to know the cause of spontaneously appearing objects because they, as human beings who have pre-scientific knowledge, know that nothing cannot impart being; for nothing has no potentiality whatsoever, because potentiality is a mode of being. Facts are not good enough for scientists. They want reasoned facts. What is the reason for this fact? Not knowing the cause of something is no basis at all for concluding that there isn't one.

Scientific knowledge is precisely demonstrative knowledge. A demonstrated conclusion is an effect of a cause. That is why a weakening of cause and effect can only weaken science, which depends upon an ability to draw conclusions.

So, any weakening of cause and effect can only end in a weakening of the scientific process. Science is precisely a "knowing", and to know is to know reasoned facts or causes. To reason to a conclusion requires a knowledge of causes. For science is a search for causes, and conclusions of arguments proceed from causes.

None of us can bring something into being from nothing. As a moving being I can impart motion upon another thing that is potentially moving, but in order to do that I must first be (for me to be actually moving requires that I first be), and so too the potentially moving thing. And so as a cause of an effect, I am never more than a secondary cause.

Nothing cannot be a terminus, because it is nothing. That is why creation (the bringing of something into being, by God, from nothing) is not change. The notion of creation from nothing, without God of course, leaves us with nothing. So, we have the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing. Quantum fluctuation is put forth as an agent cause. This is inconsistent. So what then, is the existential status of this quantum fluctuation? What is it? If it is nothing, it cannot be the cause. If it is something, then the universe did not proceed from nothing. Fluctuation is also a term whose meaning, like the meanings of all our words, is derived from our pre-scientific experience. Something fluctuates. The word itself means "change". Now, is there a cause of this quantum fluctuation? If not, then we posit a change that is not caused, that is, a fulfillment or a realization (actualization) of a potentiality without a prior act. But this too would mean getting something from nothing. Now, if nothing precedes the fluctuation (which is to say that the fluctuation has no substrate), then the fluctuation has nothing for its terminus a quo (for it has no substrate). But nothing cannot be the terminus a quo, because nothing means non-being. It is absurd to posit nothing as being a term "from which".

Finally, one can apply this type of irrationality to anything, that is, to any situation. What is to prevent a person, suspected of robbing a bank, from simply claiming that the money found in his apartment just spontaneously appeared? What grounds does anyone have for maintaining that such a notion is irrational on one level but not on another? In short, the notion of something coming from nothing is irrational and arbitrary.

[Excerpts from an article by Douglas P. McManaman http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/F00027452 ... othing.htm]

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:07 pm

Seriously. You buy that nonsense?

Again, your creationist gobbledegook, is not science.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:11 am

LarsMac;1487329 wrote: Seriously. You buy that nonsense?

Again, your creationist gobbledegook, is not science.

According to these folk, the world is only about 6 thousand years old! What are fossils, then? And rock strata? And prehistoric clay beds? Clay beds are a useful 'calendar', simply because clay varves accumulate at approximately 1 mm per year, thus making a pretty reliable 'clock', or 'calendar'. The 'dinosaur deniers' are as misguided as the 'holocaust deniers', IMO.....

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:45 am

LarsMac;1487329 wrote: Seriously. You buy that nonsense?

Again, your creationist gobbledegook, is not science.

What nonsense?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:52 am

Smaug;1487348 wrote: According to these folk, the world is only about 6 thousand years old! What are fossils, then? And rock strata? And prehistoric clay beds? Clay beds are a useful 'calendar', simply because clay varves accumulate at approximately 1 mm per year, thus making a pretty reliable 'clock', or 'calendar'. The 'dinosaur deniers' are as misguided as the 'holocaust deniers', IMO.....

Varves: Proof for an Old Earth?

Visit any anti-creationist website and you're certain to find a discussion of varves, tiny laminae thought to be annual deposits within sedimentary strata. In some areas millions of these are found in succession, which are offered as "proof" of long ages. More importantly, many feel that this proves the Bible's account of recent creation to be in error.

Most often mentioned is the Green River Shale in the western U.S., famous for its precisely preserved fossilized fish. Here several million varves are found, one on top of the other, throughout this wide depositional basin. Does this discovery really disprove the biblical chronologies, or is there another explanation? First, let's gather the data.

It is true that under perpetually calm and regular conditions, varves do form in winter-summer couplets, with coarser materials on the bottom. But it's also true that in many natural settings, multiple pseudo-varves have formed quickly due to individual storms or unusual conditions. In many field observations and in laboratory experiments, multiple laminae can form almost instantaneously in simulated bottom-hugging density flows, now widely recognized as frequent throughout the geologic strata. Few knowledgeable geologists still cling to the myth of one varve equals one year.

One major problem has to do with the untold millions of fish fossils entombed within, exquisitely preserved over the extensive area. These fish are complete with eyes, scales, and other fine details. But fish quickly rot and disintegrate unless they are rapidly buried and kept away from scavengers, oxygen, and bacteria. Some appear to have burst from gases formed in their body cavities after death, but no evidence for much time can be adduced. Furthermore, the fish fossils are found in great numbers, which is hardly how fish carcasses behave under normal circumstances. Perhaps during a rapid deposition event one fish might be rapidly buried, but millions? Some of the fish appear to have been caught in life activities, such as in the process of eating another fish, not in a position a dead fish would assume if it quietly floated to the bottom of a lake to slowly await burial and fossilization.

This problem for uniformitarian thinking is compounded by the great numbers of other fossils present in the same formation. Many species of fish are preserved, seemingly from different habitats. Certainly different habitats are implied from the many reptile fossils found, as well as the varied plant fossils, upland species along with sub-tropical species. Many insects are present, as are marine invertebrates. Most remarkable are the multitudes of bird fossils, from shorebirds to forest dwellers to ocean feeders. Truly a remarkable mix of environments! Surely, this was not an everyday event. A rapid burial of organisms from varied life zones over wide portions of the continent is demanded.

Creationists haven't solved all the problems associated with this classic site, but research is continuing. We can be certain it won't be solved by the sterile uniformitarian thinking of the past. However, reasoning from the standpoint of the great Flood of Noah's day and its aftermath holds promise.

Varves: Proof for an Old Earth? | The Institute for Creation Research

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:17 am

And so it goes on....

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:32 am

Pahu;1487193 wrote: Those are a bunch of bones, but no evidence of evolution.
Have you any concept of how a movie works? A single frame gives no evidence of motion. The further apart the frames are, any relationship between them remains vague. However, the more frames that exist in sequence you start to get a moving picture. The same can be said for the bones. Each set of bones found, of which there are many, from all different timescales form different frames from the entire movie.

"A" bunch of bones may not be evidence of evolution, on their own, but when coupled with all the "OTHER" bunches of bones the evidence is clearly supported.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:53 am

Few knowledgeable geologists still cling to the myth of one varve equals one year.
More taking things out of context. I the phrase were "Few knowledgeable geologists still cling to the myth of each varve ONLY possibly equalling one year", that would be acceptable, as freak natural events do happen from time to time. That much is fact. No one can deny it. The same can be said for tree growth. Once in a while, it is possible to have a mild winter & a fairly harsh summer, resulting in 2 growth rings in one year. HOWEVER, that doesn't change the fact that ON THE WHOLE each ring is representative of 1 year. The same can be said for the varves. On the whole each one, just like a tree ring, represents a year, according to the changing seasons. However, there are bound to be occasional exceptions. It is often a case of these exceptions that brings about evolution. When the exception becomes so commonplace that it becomes the rule, life must adapt or die. If there were no changes in the environment, or if there were no competition to survive then there would be no reason to evolve. In the REAL world, though, things are always changing, and competition for survival is fierce.

The best survivors, the strongest predators, and those that evolve fastest (which we actually observe doing so), are humble bacteria. The life span of a single bacterium is so short, that we actually get to witness multiple generations of evolution over a very short timescale.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:00 am

Some very poignant points, FourPart. I would expect that floods could lay down extra clay varves from time to time, but like tree rings, they are a pretty accurate 'clock'. You also make good point about bacteria evolving. (Hence the drive to procure new vaccines).....

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:28 am

FourPart;1487392 wrote: Have you any concept of how a movie works? A single frame gives no evidence of motion. The further apart the frames are, any relationship between them remains vague. However, the more frames that exist in sequence you start to get a moving picture. The same can be said for the bones. Each set of bones found, of which there are many, from all different timescales form different frames from the entire movie.

"A" bunch of bones may not be evidence of evolution, on their own, but when coupled with all the "OTHER" bunches of bones the evidence is clearly supported.

Wrong! The bones are just bones that give no evidence of evolution.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:38 am

FourPart;1487396 wrote:

The best survivors, the strongest predators, and those that evolve fastest (which we actually observe doing so), are humble bacteria. The life span of a single bacterium is so short, that we actually get to witness multiple generations of evolution over a very short timescale.

Here are some facts about bacteria evolution:

Bacteria Evolution?

Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations. In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:

"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."

No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:54 am

Smaug;1487398 wrote: Some very poignant points, FourPart. I would expect that floods could lay down extra clay varves from time to time, but like tree rings, they are a pretty accurate 'clock'. You also make good point about bacteria evolving. (Hence the drive to procure new vaccines).....

It has been found that all trees, even slow-growing ones, respond dynamically to tiny environmental changes, even hourly changes in growing conditions. Scientists have observed that numerous “normal conditions can produce an extra ring or no ring at all. Weather was fingered as the most “guilty culprit. Unusual storms with abundant rainfall interspersed with dry periods can produce multiple rings, essentially one per major storm. Thus, the basic assumption of tree ring dating is demonstrably in error. Can we trust the overlapping calibration curves?

Tree Ring Dating | The Institute for Creation Research

Varves are extremely thin layers (typically 0.004 inch or 0.1 mm), which evolutionists claim are laid down annually in lakes. By counting varves, evolutionists believe that time can be measured. The Green River Formation of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, a classic varve region, contains billions of flattened, paper-thin, fossilized fish; thousands were buried and fossilized in the act of swallowing other fish. [See Figure 7 here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp6612106] Obviously, burial was sudden. Fish, lying on the bottom of a lake for years, would decay or disintegrate long before enough varves could bury them. (Besides, dead fish typically float, deteriorate, and then sink.) Most fish fossilized in varves show exquisite detail and are pressed to the thinness of a piece of paper, as if they had been compressed in a collapsing liquefaction lens.

Also, varves are too uniform, show almost no erosion, and are deposited over wider areas than where streams enter lakes—where most lake deposits occur. Liquefaction best explains these varves.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Testing the Theories

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:14 pm

More wishful thinking.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:55 pm

Fast Binaries

In our galaxy, about 60% of all stars are grouped in closely spaced pairs called binaries. Fortunately, our Sun does not have a binary partner. If it did, temperatures on Earth would vary too much to support life. The mutual gravitational attraction between stars in a binary pair causes them to orbit each other, just as the Moon orbits Earth. The closer paired stars are to each other, the faster they orbit. Their orbits do not change appreciably, even over long periods of time. Two particular stars are so close that they orbit each other every 11 minutes! This implies their centers are about 80,000 miles apart (a). By way of comparison, our Sun, a typical star, is more than 800,000 miles in diameter. Other close binaries are also known (b).

Stellar evolutionists believe stars slowly change from one type to another. However, scientists have never observed such changes, and many stars do not fit this pattern. According to stellar evolution, a typical star’s volume, late in its lifetime, expands to about a million times that of our Sun and finally collapses to become a small star about the size of Earth (a white dwarf) or even smaller (a neutron star). Only such tiny stars could have their centers 80,000 miles apart and still orbit each other. Obviously, these fast binary stars did not evolve from larger stars, because larger stars orbiting so closely would collide. If two stars cannot evolve into a condition that has them orbiting each other every 11 minutes, one wonders whether stars evolve at all.

a. A. R. King and M. G. Watson, “The Shortest Period Binary Star? Nature, Vol.323, 4 September 1986, p.105.

Dietrick E. Thomsen, “A Dizzying Orbit for a Binary Star, Science News, Vol.130, 11 October 1986, p.231.

“Ultrafast Binary Star, Sky & Telescope, February 1987, p.154.

b. Jonathan Eberhart, “Now You See It, Now You Don’t, Science News, Vol.135, 7 January 1989, p.13.

Patrick Moore, The New Atlas of the Universe (New York: Arch Cape Press, 1988), p.176.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:50 pm

1. It doesn't take 20 years to observe 40,000 generations of bacteria - more like 20 hours - if that. That is why they are so virilent. To say that they do not evolve is madness. If that was the case there would be no need for any more research into immunology. As it is, bacteria evolve to survive beyond the human capacity to attack them - hence MRSI. MRSI didn't even EXIST 30 years ago. Why do you think doctors avoid prescribing antibiotics these days? It's because the bacteria that they are being used to fight are adapting / evolving to resist them. That's what evolution's all about. If you focus on observing the ones that remain the same, and use that as an excuse to say that they are not evolving (which seems to be the argument you are using), because they are a specific type of bacteria, then you are missing the whole point of evolution. It's the ones that are changing that are evolving - not the ones that remain unchanged. That is just tunnel vision.

2. You're trying, in vain, to use the exact argument I use about tree rings against me. Either you simply are trying to resist being shown to be a gullible idiot, as per usual, or you simply don't understand the issue. The existence of the seasons is a fact. Surely even you can agree that much. Generally Summer produces fair weather & Winter produces foul. Agreed? This much is reflected in the growth rings of trees. Even kids in primary school learn that much. However, as we are also all aware, there are certain years that come up with weather patterns that are atypical of the season - often due to things like random sun spot activity, or other major influences - such as a comet hitting the earth & causing an ice age. You refer to the weather as being described as a 'culprit'. It's not a culprit. It does what it does. Without its existence, life would take on a totally different perspective. Take, for instance, the recent Tsunamis in Japan. The rapid floods & subsequent drainage have, in many places scoured many natural layers of silt from the river beds. However, to your view of thinking, these missing levels of silt would seem to be evidence that they never existed.

Face it, you are just desperately seeking to find new ways to ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your alias, Walt Brown.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 6:57 am

FourPart;1487578 wrote: 1. It doesn't take 20 years to observe 40,000 generations of bacteria - more like 20 hours - if that. That is why they are so virilent. To say that they do not evolve is madness. If that was the case there would be no need for any more research into immunology. As it is, bacteria evolve to survive beyond the human capacity to attack them - hence MRSI. MRSI didn't even EXIST 30 years ago. Why do you think doctors avoid prescribing antibiotics these days? It's because the bacteria that they are being used to fight are adapting / evolving to resist them.

Adaptation is not evolution. They begin as bacteria and end as bacteria.

Most expressed traits and adaptations are biologically complex responses. These adaptations can be defined as biological interactions at the environmental interface that are regulated by genetic programming and cell physiology. A creationist model of adaptation is based on an organism’s innate physiological capabilities and fault tolerance mechanisms that are genetically programmed by the Creator. Scientifically valid descriptions of adaptation employ recent molecular discoveries in genomics, cell physiology, and phenotypic plasticity to explain how living creatures successfully interface with environmental challenges and fill ecological niches.

Environmental stresses and stimuli cannot exercise the creative causation of highly complex pre-coded genetic information that underlies irreducibly complex systems of adaptation. Organismal interaction with the environment involves highly complex and dynamic physiological and genetic responses to a wide range of physical and chemical sensory cues. These environmental cues are perceived by complex systems of cell sensor networks that interact with an organism’s highly engineered genetic system. While adaptation systems are complex and flexible, they are not evolvable on a grand neo-Darwinian scale. They are pre-engineered, pre-programmed, and irreducibly complex in the strictest sense of the term, and they unequivocally imply the infinite intelligence of our Creator God.

Mechanisms of Adaptation in Biology: Molecular Cell Biology | The Institute for Creation Research

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Oct 18, 2015 3:16 am

Adaptation is exactly what evolution is all about. If you think about it most advanced life forms are really no more than that of one of our basic ancestors - a simple worm. In one end - extract the nutrients - out the other. Life starts with parasitic bacteria invading the system, which would kill the host. Not very beneficial to the ongoing survival of the bacteria. Eventually the host & the bacteria evolved to become symbiotic, relying on each other for survival. Ultimately those bacteria become existent in the conception of the new life form, rather than having to be introduced.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sun Oct 18, 2015 3:35 am

FourPart;1487691 wrote: Adaptation is exactly what evolution is all about. If you think about it most advanced life forms are really no more than that of one of our basic ancestors - a simple worm. In one end - extract the nutrients - out the other. Life starts with parasitic bacteria invading the system, which would kill the host. Not very beneficial to the ongoing survival of the bacteria. Eventually the host & the bacteria evolved to become symbiotic, relying on each other for survival. Ultimately those bacteria become existent in the conception of the new life form, rather than having to be introduced.

In a 'nutshell', FourPart! you are correct about MRSI not existing 30 years ago; how anyone can deny the evolution of lifeforms is utterly beyond reason, IMO. MRSI is a great example of BACTERIAL EVOLUTION, out of seemingly, no-where. The stimulus to this evolution was, doubtless, antibiotics.

That's all that is required for evolution to be 'triggered'; a stimulus!

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:02 am

We have been evolving on this planet for millions of years, yet Pahu seems to think that because bacteria haven't been observed as evolving into anything other than bacteria over the span of a hundred years or so (bacteria previously was unknown about - or, by Pahu's logic, didn't exist).

An amoeba is probably the next evolutionary progression from a bacteria - or perhaps fungi. In fact, fungi & moulds in general are a closer link to bacteria & advanced life than you might think.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:12 am

FourPart;1487691 wrote: Adaptation is exactly what evolution is all about. If you think about it most advanced life forms are really no more than that of one of our basic ancestors - a simple worm. In one end - extract the nutrients - out the other. Life starts with parasitic bacteria invading the system, which would kill the host. Not very beneficial to the ongoing survival of the bacteria. Eventually the host & the bacteria evolved to become symbiotic, relying on each other for survival. Ultimately those bacteria become existent in the conception of the new life form, rather than having to be introduced.

Mechanisms of Adaptation in Biology: Genetic Diversity

Evidence for Creation

God gifted His living creatures with the ability to adapt to new or changing environments. Genetic diversity in adaptation refers to variation within created kinds of organisms. For example, consider the wide variety of dogs—they come in all shapes, colors, and sizes. Humans also exhibit a large amount of variation. Observable variation in the appearance of different kinds of creatures is referred to as phenotype. Phenotypic diversity is largely based on an organism’s genetic makeup (genome). The genome exhibits variation in DNA sequence called genetic diversity.

Genetic diversity is an important feature of adaptation, as evidenced by the fact that animals experience the accumulation and expression of harmful mutations during inbreeding (mating of close relatives). Inbreeding lowers the genetic diversity in a population and makes the creatures less robust and adaptable. Even among some types of plants that have self-fertilizing flowers, significant levels of out-crossing—where pollen is transferred via wind, insects, etc.—still occur and contribute to the enhancement of genetic diversity.

Genetic diversity is related to different parts of an organism’s genome. When genomes are compared within created kinds, certain portions are very stable and remain very similar among individuals, while other parts of the genome are extremely variable. Clearly, genetic variability is part of God’s design for plants and animals, but it is employed as an engineered system with limitations. These systems of genetic variability are just beginning to be understood; they involve not only diversity in actual DNA sequence, but also diversity in heritable chemical modifications to the DNA (methylation) and in the proteins that package the DNA (acetylation). This type of heritable variation is called epigenetic modification. It does not actually change the base sequence of DNA, but influences its function and adds another important aspect to genetic variation.

The difference between simple traits and multigenic inheritance associated with complex traits has caused some confusion among creationists. Simple inheritance generally refers to traits largely controlled by one or just a few regions in the genome. Examples of this type of inheritance include things like eye color, hair color, etc. A recent creationist article on coat color in deer shows how this type of variability functions in nature.1

However, as discussed in the previous article in this series,2 most expressed traits are related to adaptations associated with biologically complex responses. These adaptations involve networks of many genes, referred to as quantitative traits, and are studied by complex DNA mapping experiments across multiple environments. For this type of data, complicated statistical models are employed; they enable the identification of multiple genomic regions and the percentage of variability that mapped points along chromosomes contribute to a certain trait.

Another question surrounding genetic variability is the type of genomic DNA sequence features underlying its function. A variety of creation scientists, including Jean Lightner, Todd Wood, Peter Borger, and others, have presented data and models involving the genetic diversification of created kinds via transposable elements and other types of non-protein-coding DNA. These sequences appear to offer the most opportunities for models of genetic diversity and the diversification of created kinds. Scientists have characterized these portions of the genome as containing an extremely rich storehouse of functional features that regulate many aspects of gene expression.3

Biology researchers at ICR are currently reviewing creationist and secular literature on non-coding DNA to determine new venues of research into the field of genetic diversity and the role it plays in adaptation.

Mechanisms of Adaptation in Biology: Genetic Diversity | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:50 am

Smaug;1487697 wrote: In a 'nutshell', FourPart! you are correct about MRSI not existing 30 years ago; how anyone can deny the evolution of lifeforms is utterly beyond reason, IMO. MRSI is a great example of BACTERIAL EVOLUTION, out of seemingly, no-where. The stimulus to this evolution was, doubtless, antibiotics.

That's all that is required for evolution to be 'triggered'; a stimulus!

Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics?

Often the claim is made in biology classes that evolution has been observed in certain microbes—germs that over time have developed a resistance to antibiotics. For instance, penicillin is generally now less effective than before. Stronger and more focused drugs have been developed, each with initial benefits, but which must continue to be replaced with something stronger. Now, "super germs" defy treatment.

One might ask, have these single-celled germs "evolved"? And does this prove that single-celled organisms evolved into plants and people?

As is frequently the case, we must first distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits (i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!

Here's how it works. In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance. Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.

A new line of research has produced tantalizing results. Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive the stress. This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place, but not true evolution.

Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.

Here's the point. Mutations, adaptation, variation, diversity, population shifts, etc., all occur, but, these are not macroevolutionary changes.

Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics? | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:55 am

FourPart;1487704 wrote: We have been evolving on this planet for millions of years.

Where is evidence supporting your assertion?

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:24 am

Strange really. How come Pahu does such large posts ? Are they his own words ? If they are not, I am wondering about copyright. He doesn't seem to give any credit to anybody.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:28 am

G#Gill;1487740 wrote: Strange really. How come Pahu does such large posts ? Are they his own words ? If they are not, I am wondering about copyright. He doesn't seem to give any credit to anybody.

I always give the link showing who the author is.