FourPart;1494499 wrote: Nobody was there to observe the beginning - or not. There is no evidence one way or the other.
We do not have to have been there to know the universe had a beginning, which is a self evident fact based on the observation and experience that everything has a beginning.
It is equally likely that the Universe has always been there,
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.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1494520 wrote: On the contrary, all the facts are the result of the facts of science.
My dear fellow, those are not facts. Those are observations and assertions, based on no scientific data, whatsoever.
My dear fellow, those are not facts. Those are observations and assertions, based on no scientific data, whatsoever.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
A wonderful thread Pahu , simply enduring and well done. Yesterday on another site, I used some of the sites you posted, they fit in very well with what I was discussing .
Thank you for this thread and enduring with its growth; keep continuing.
Peace.
Thank you for this thread and enduring with its growth; keep continuing.
Peace.
Science Disproves Evolution
Mickiel;1494532 wrote: A wonderful thread Pahu , simply enduring and well done. Yesterday on another site, I used some of the sites you posted, they fit in very well with what I was discussing .
Thank you for this thread and enduring with its growth; keep continuing.
Peace.
Well thanks for the encouragement. I didn't think I had any friends, just antagonists. I am glad you are able to use some of the material.
Thank you for this thread and enduring with its growth; keep continuing.
Peace.
Well thanks for the encouragement. I didn't think I had any friends, just antagonists. I am glad you are able to use some of the material.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1494533 wrote: Well thanks for the encouragement. I didn't think I had any friends, just antagonists. I am glad you are able to use some of the material.
Oh, you have friends here. Me, for one. I just like to argue with you. I mean, isn't that why you post this stuff, to get folks to discuss different opinions?
Oh, you have friends here. Me, for one. I just like to argue with you. I mean, isn't that why you post this stuff, to get folks to discuss different opinions?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
To be more precise, he doesn't argue anything. He merely pastes from Brown
As for something being self evident when there is no evidence one way or the other is a contradiction. Either Time is finite or it isn't. Is there a beginning or an end to Time? Time is a component of the Universe. Just because you can't comprehend something always having existed doesn't mean it hasn't done so. As for entropy - we've already been there & shown your / Brown's use of it is totally invalid as not only are the circumstances defined incorrect, but the usage of the term is false.
The age old question has always been of what did the Big Bang come from is always the objection raised by Creationists, as they know it is an answer that nobody can be certain of, yet when the same argument is used against them it's an entirely different matter. When asked where did God come from it's always a case that either God created himself, or that God has always existed. There is no evidence for either of these claims to be true, yet they insist that this is the case, but when they are faced with the claim that the Universe has always existed, or that it created itself (came from nothing) - oh, no - that's not possible. Science, however, doesn't just stop there. It comes up with potential solutions.
For example, Black holes are known to exist. They have been observed - or more to the point, their effect on surrounding systems has been observed, as Black Holes, by definition, emit no light to observe directly. It is known that they engulf anything & everything - Matter, Energy & Time. Are these Black Holes finite or not? If they are, then what happens to the contents once they are full, once they have engulfed the entire contents of the Universe - Entropy of a kind, if you will?
Given this, what if my previous example regarding the theory that once filled to capacity - once they have absorbed the entire Universe they then explode, spewing everything outward again - a new Big Bang, creating a new Universe.
Does this mean that this is the Beginning of the Universe? Or is it just the beginning of a new Universe?
If it is just the beginning of a new Universe, then if time were finite, then it would have only performed this action a finite number of times. But why so? Within the boundaries of infinity, Time has no meaning. The whole thing would be a complete cycle. No beginning. No end. There is no intelligence to it happening. It just happens because it happens.
When a spark meets with a mixture of Hydrogen & Oxygen the mathematical probability of such a reaction instigating a perfect ratio of 1 part of Hydrogen to 2 parts of Oxygen to make water must be virtually impossible. However, as we all know, it happens all the time. Furthermore, it doesn't even matter whether or not the initial quantities of Hydrogen & Oxygen were originally in the required proportions, it will only ever use the 2:1 ratio & ignore anything left over. That resulting compound is the basic foundation of all life, as we know it, yet it is not something that requires intelligence. It happens because it happens.
The Theory of infinite recurrence of Big Bangs has not, by any means, been demonstrated to be a fact. It is merely a Scientific Theory that fits with the evidence available. It would be foolish to make the positive assertion of something being factual when there is insufficient evidence to do so. Science accepts this to be so. Creationists, on the other hand, make up their little stories, with absolutely no evidence or explanation for anything & expect it to be taken at face value as being 'fact'.
As for facts being the result of the facts of Science, as you put it, that pretty much sums it up. Facts of Science are simply facts. Any 'facts' being the result of the facts means that they are different to the facts & can, therefore, no longer be considered facts. Put simply, if something is known to be True then it is True. If something else comes about that is said to be a result of that Truth, but is different to that Truth, then it cannot be considered True. It is, therefore, False.
I have a dog (Scientific Fact)
My dog is white (Scientific Fact)
Other dogs are white (Scientific Fact)
All dogs are white, and have always been so (Creationist's Result of Scientific Fact)
As for something being self evident when there is no evidence one way or the other is a contradiction. Either Time is finite or it isn't. Is there a beginning or an end to Time? Time is a component of the Universe. Just because you can't comprehend something always having existed doesn't mean it hasn't done so. As for entropy - we've already been there & shown your / Brown's use of it is totally invalid as not only are the circumstances defined incorrect, but the usage of the term is false.
The age old question has always been of what did the Big Bang come from is always the objection raised by Creationists, as they know it is an answer that nobody can be certain of, yet when the same argument is used against them it's an entirely different matter. When asked where did God come from it's always a case that either God created himself, or that God has always existed. There is no evidence for either of these claims to be true, yet they insist that this is the case, but when they are faced with the claim that the Universe has always existed, or that it created itself (came from nothing) - oh, no - that's not possible. Science, however, doesn't just stop there. It comes up with potential solutions.
For example, Black holes are known to exist. They have been observed - or more to the point, their effect on surrounding systems has been observed, as Black Holes, by definition, emit no light to observe directly. It is known that they engulf anything & everything - Matter, Energy & Time. Are these Black Holes finite or not? If they are, then what happens to the contents once they are full, once they have engulfed the entire contents of the Universe - Entropy of a kind, if you will?
Given this, what if my previous example regarding the theory that once filled to capacity - once they have absorbed the entire Universe they then explode, spewing everything outward again - a new Big Bang, creating a new Universe.
Does this mean that this is the Beginning of the Universe? Or is it just the beginning of a new Universe?
If it is just the beginning of a new Universe, then if time were finite, then it would have only performed this action a finite number of times. But why so? Within the boundaries of infinity, Time has no meaning. The whole thing would be a complete cycle. No beginning. No end. There is no intelligence to it happening. It just happens because it happens.
When a spark meets with a mixture of Hydrogen & Oxygen the mathematical probability of such a reaction instigating a perfect ratio of 1 part of Hydrogen to 2 parts of Oxygen to make water must be virtually impossible. However, as we all know, it happens all the time. Furthermore, it doesn't even matter whether or not the initial quantities of Hydrogen & Oxygen were originally in the required proportions, it will only ever use the 2:1 ratio & ignore anything left over. That resulting compound is the basic foundation of all life, as we know it, yet it is not something that requires intelligence. It happens because it happens.
The Theory of infinite recurrence of Big Bangs has not, by any means, been demonstrated to be a fact. It is merely a Scientific Theory that fits with the evidence available. It would be foolish to make the positive assertion of something being factual when there is insufficient evidence to do so. Science accepts this to be so. Creationists, on the other hand, make up their little stories, with absolutely no evidence or explanation for anything & expect it to be taken at face value as being 'fact'.
As for facts being the result of the facts of Science, as you put it, that pretty much sums it up. Facts of Science are simply facts. Any 'facts' being the result of the facts means that they are different to the facts & can, therefore, no longer be considered facts. Put simply, if something is known to be True then it is True. If something else comes about that is said to be a result of that Truth, but is different to that Truth, then it cannot be considered True. It is, therefore, False.
I have a dog (Scientific Fact)
My dog is white (Scientific Fact)
Other dogs are white (Scientific Fact)
All dogs are white, and have always been so (Creationist's Result of Scientific Fact)
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1494558 wrote:
As for something being self evident when there is no evidence one way or the other is a contradiction.
The fact the the sun exists is self evident. No further evidence is necessary. The same applies to the beginning of the universe.
Either Time is finite or it isn't. Is there a beginning or an end to Time? Time is a component of the Universe.
Time is nothing more than our measurement of change. The past does not exist. It is just a memory. The future does not exist. All that exists is now.
Just because you can't comprehend something always having existed doesn't mean it hasn't done so.
Exactly! God exists, as I have proven, and He has revealed He has always existed and always will.
As for entropy - we've already been there & shown your / Brown's use of it is totally invalid as not only are the circumstances defined incorrect, but the usage of the term is false.
Information theory tells us that the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. The universe is an isolated system, so according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.
A further consequence of the second law is that the universe must have begun in a more organized and complex state than it is today—not in a random, highly disorganized state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory. Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being.
“The more orthodox scientific view is that the entropy of the universe must forever increase to its final maximum value. It has not yet reached this: we should not be thinking about it if it had. It is still increasing rapidly, and so must have had a beginning; there must have been what we may describe as a ‘creation’ at a time not infinitely remote. Jeans, p. 181.
“A final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of increase in entropy have great philosophical implications. The question that arises is how did the universe get into the state of reduced entropy in the first place, since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy? ... The author has found that the second law tends to increase his conviction that there is a Creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe. Gordon J. Van Wylen, Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959), p. 169.
“The time asymmetry of the Universe is expressed by the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy increases with time as order is transformed into disorder. The mystery is not that an ordered state should become disordered but that the early Universe apparently was in a highly ordered state. Don N. Page, “Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry, Nature, Vol. 304, 7 July 1983, p. 39.
“There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state. Ibid., p. 40.
“The real puzzle is why there is an arrow of time at all; that is, why the Universe is not simply a thermodynamic equilibrium at all times (except during the inevitable local fluctuations). The theory of nonequilibrium systems [such as those described by Ilya Prigogine] may tell us how such systems behave, given that there are some; but it does not explain how they come to be so common in the first place (and all oriented in the same temporal direction). This is ‘time’s greatest mystery’, and for all its merits, the theory of nonequilibrium systems does not touch it. What would touch it would be a cosmological demonstration that the Universe was bound to be in a low-entropy state after the Big Bang. Huw Price, “Past and Future, Nature, Vol. 348, 22 November 1990, p. 356.
The age old question has always been of what did the Big Bang come from is always the objection raised by Creationists, as they know it is an answer that nobody can be certain of...
It is a valid objection. All the matter of the universe had to have come from nothing, since it had a beginning before which there was nothing. Since something can not create itself from nothing by any natural cause, the cause logically had to have been supernatural.
...yet when the same argument is used against them it's an entirely different matter. When asked where did God come from it's always a case that either God created himself, or that God has always existed.
Because you are comparing the material universe with a spiritual God.
There is no evidence for either of these claims to be true, yet they insist that this is the case, but when they are faced with the claim that the Universe has always existed, or that it created itself (came from nothing) - oh, no - that's not possible. Science, however, doesn't just stop there. It comes up with potential solutions.
All those are evidence free potential solutions. The fact is that it is impossible for the universe or anything else to create itself from nothing.
Given this, what if my previous example regarding the theory that once filled to capacity - once they have absorbed the entire Universe they then explode, spewing everything outward again - a new Big Bang, creating a new Universe.
Does this mean that this is the Beginning of the Universe? Or is it just the beginning of a new Universe?
If it is just the beginning of a new Universe, then if time were finite, then it would have only performed this action a finite number of times. But why so? Within the boundaries of infinity, Time has no meaning. The whole thing would be a complete cycle. No beginning. No end. There is no intelligence to it happening. It just happens because it happens.
Your imagination is working overtime trying to explain the appearance of the universe from nothing by some other cause than God.
The Theory of infinite recurrence of Big Bangs has not, by any means, been demonstrated to be a fact. It is merely a Scientific Theory that fits with the evidence available.
Where is that evidence?
It would be foolish to make the positive assertion of something being factual when there is insufficient evidence to do so. Science accepts this to be so.
Then why do you foolishly make the positive assertion of something being factual when there is insufficient evidence to do so.
Creationists, on the other hand, make up their little stories, with absolutely no evidence or explanation for anything & expect it to be taken at face value as being 'fact'.
Creationists base their evidence on the facts of science.
As for facts being the result of the facts of Science, as you put it, that pretty much sums it up. Facts of Science are simply facts. Any 'facts' being the result of the facts means that they are different to the facts & can, therefore, no longer be considered facts.
Does that sentence make any sense to anyone?
Put simply, if something is known to be True then it is True. If something else comes about that is said to be a result of that Truth, but is different to that Truth, then it cannot be considered True. It is, therefore, False.
I have a dog (Scientific Fact)
My dog is white (Scientific Fact)
Other dogs are white (Scientific Fact)
All dogs are white, and have always been so (Creationist's Result of Scientific Fact)
When have creationists ever made that statement? Your problem is you are unable to accept the facts of science because they conflict with your evidence free, dogmatic denial of the proven fact that God exists.
As for something being self evident when there is no evidence one way or the other is a contradiction.
The fact the the sun exists is self evident. No further evidence is necessary. The same applies to the beginning of the universe.
Either Time is finite or it isn't. Is there a beginning or an end to Time? Time is a component of the Universe.
Time is nothing more than our measurement of change. The past does not exist. It is just a memory. The future does not exist. All that exists is now.
Just because you can't comprehend something always having existed doesn't mean it hasn't done so.
Exactly! God exists, as I have proven, and He has revealed He has always existed and always will.
As for entropy - we've already been there & shown your / Brown's use of it is totally invalid as not only are the circumstances defined incorrect, but the usage of the term is false.
Information theory tells us that the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. The universe is an isolated system, so according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.
A further consequence of the second law is that the universe must have begun in a more organized and complex state than it is today—not in a random, highly disorganized state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory. Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being.
“The more orthodox scientific view is that the entropy of the universe must forever increase to its final maximum value. It has not yet reached this: we should not be thinking about it if it had. It is still increasing rapidly, and so must have had a beginning; there must have been what we may describe as a ‘creation’ at a time not infinitely remote. Jeans, p. 181.
“A final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of increase in entropy have great philosophical implications. The question that arises is how did the universe get into the state of reduced entropy in the first place, since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy? ... The author has found that the second law tends to increase his conviction that there is a Creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe. Gordon J. Van Wylen, Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959), p. 169.
“The time asymmetry of the Universe is expressed by the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy increases with time as order is transformed into disorder. The mystery is not that an ordered state should become disordered but that the early Universe apparently was in a highly ordered state. Don N. Page, “Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry, Nature, Vol. 304, 7 July 1983, p. 39.
“There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state. Ibid., p. 40.
“The real puzzle is why there is an arrow of time at all; that is, why the Universe is not simply a thermodynamic equilibrium at all times (except during the inevitable local fluctuations). The theory of nonequilibrium systems [such as those described by Ilya Prigogine] may tell us how such systems behave, given that there are some; but it does not explain how they come to be so common in the first place (and all oriented in the same temporal direction). This is ‘time’s greatest mystery’, and for all its merits, the theory of nonequilibrium systems does not touch it. What would touch it would be a cosmological demonstration that the Universe was bound to be in a low-entropy state after the Big Bang. Huw Price, “Past and Future, Nature, Vol. 348, 22 November 1990, p. 356.
The age old question has always been of what did the Big Bang come from is always the objection raised by Creationists, as they know it is an answer that nobody can be certain of...
It is a valid objection. All the matter of the universe had to have come from nothing, since it had a beginning before which there was nothing. Since something can not create itself from nothing by any natural cause, the cause logically had to have been supernatural.
...yet when the same argument is used against them it's an entirely different matter. When asked where did God come from it's always a case that either God created himself, or that God has always existed.
Because you are comparing the material universe with a spiritual God.
There is no evidence for either of these claims to be true, yet they insist that this is the case, but when they are faced with the claim that the Universe has always existed, or that it created itself (came from nothing) - oh, no - that's not possible. Science, however, doesn't just stop there. It comes up with potential solutions.
All those are evidence free potential solutions. The fact is that it is impossible for the universe or anything else to create itself from nothing.
Given this, what if my previous example regarding the theory that once filled to capacity - once they have absorbed the entire Universe they then explode, spewing everything outward again - a new Big Bang, creating a new Universe.
Does this mean that this is the Beginning of the Universe? Or is it just the beginning of a new Universe?
If it is just the beginning of a new Universe, then if time were finite, then it would have only performed this action a finite number of times. But why so? Within the boundaries of infinity, Time has no meaning. The whole thing would be a complete cycle. No beginning. No end. There is no intelligence to it happening. It just happens because it happens.
Your imagination is working overtime trying to explain the appearance of the universe from nothing by some other cause than God.
The Theory of infinite recurrence of Big Bangs has not, by any means, been demonstrated to be a fact. It is merely a Scientific Theory that fits with the evidence available.
Where is that evidence?
It would be foolish to make the positive assertion of something being factual when there is insufficient evidence to do so. Science accepts this to be so.
Then why do you foolishly make the positive assertion of something being factual when there is insufficient evidence to do so.
Creationists, on the other hand, make up their little stories, with absolutely no evidence or explanation for anything & expect it to be taken at face value as being 'fact'.
Creationists base their evidence on the facts of science.
As for facts being the result of the facts of Science, as you put it, that pretty much sums it up. Facts of Science are simply facts. Any 'facts' being the result of the facts means that they are different to the facts & can, therefore, no longer be considered facts.
Does that sentence make any sense to anyone?
Put simply, if something is known to be True then it is True. If something else comes about that is said to be a result of that Truth, but is different to that Truth, then it cannot be considered True. It is, therefore, False.
I have a dog (Scientific Fact)
My dog is white (Scientific Fact)
Other dogs are white (Scientific Fact)
All dogs are white, and have always been so (Creationist's Result of Scientific Fact)
When have creationists ever made that statement? Your problem is you are unable to accept the facts of science because they conflict with your evidence free, dogmatic denial of the proven fact that God exists.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Crater Creep
A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure, “creeps in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.
Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should reach their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years (a). Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of “creep, these bodies seem to be relatively young.
a . Glenn R. Morton, Harold S. Slusher, and Richard E. Mandock, “The Age of Lunar Craters, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol.20, September 1983, pp.105–108.
The above study drew upon the work of Z. F. Danes, which was described as follows:
The history of a circular crater in a highly viscous medium is derived from the hydrodynamic equations of motion by Z. F. Danes. The variation in shape of the crater in the course of time is expressed as a function of a time constant, T, that involves viscosity and density of the medium, acceleration of gravity, and radius of the crater lip. Correspondence between theoretical crater shapes and the observed ones is good. However the time constant, T, is surprisingly short if commonly accepted viscosity values are used. Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-A (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p.A127.
Since Danes’ work was published, rocks from the Moon have been returned to Earth and their viscosity has been measured. Their values fall between 1021 to 1022 poises. According to the Geological Survey paper just quoted, “If viscosities of lunar rocks were around 1021 to 1022 poises, the ages of large craters would have to be only 104 to 107 years.
From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1494608 wrote:
Crater Creep
A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure, “creeps in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.
Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should reach their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years (a). Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of “creep, these bodies seem to be relatively young.
a . Glenn R. Morton, Harold S. Slusher, and Richard E. Mandock, “The Age of Lunar Craters, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol.20, September 1983, pp.105–108.
The above study drew upon the work of Z. F. Danes, which was described as follows:
The history of a circular crater in a highly viscous medium is derived from the hydrodynamic equations of motion by Z. F. Danes. The variation in shape of the crater in the course of time is expressed as a function of a time constant, T, that involves viscosity and density of the medium, acceleration of gravity, and radius of the crater lip. Correspondence between theoretical crater shapes and the observed ones is good. However the time constant, T, is surprisingly short if commonly accepted viscosity values are used. Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-A (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p.A127.
Since Danes’ work was published, rocks from the Moon have been returned to Earth and their viscosity has been measured. Their values fall between 1021 to 1022 poises. According to the Geological Survey paper just quoted, “If viscosities of lunar rocks were around 1021 to 1022 poises, the ages of large craters would have to be only 104 to 107 years.
From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
A quick search on the web will show you how little Morton, Slusher and Mandock really know about what they write.
To start with, you can read Danes' work for yourself, right here: https://books.google.com/books?id=FGpXA ... es&f=false
You can also read about the composition of the Moon's surface material right here: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... rface.html
It won't take long to see that these people really have no clue what they are saying.
Crater Creep
A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure, “creeps in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.
Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should reach their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years (a). Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of “creep, these bodies seem to be relatively young.
a . Glenn R. Morton, Harold S. Slusher, and Richard E. Mandock, “The Age of Lunar Craters, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol.20, September 1983, pp.105–108.
The above study drew upon the work of Z. F. Danes, which was described as follows:
The history of a circular crater in a highly viscous medium is derived from the hydrodynamic equations of motion by Z. F. Danes. The variation in shape of the crater in the course of time is expressed as a function of a time constant, T, that involves viscosity and density of the medium, acceleration of gravity, and radius of the crater lip. Correspondence between theoretical crater shapes and the observed ones is good. However the time constant, T, is surprisingly short if commonly accepted viscosity values are used. Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-A (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p.A127.
Since Danes’ work was published, rocks from the Moon have been returned to Earth and their viscosity has been measured. Their values fall between 1021 to 1022 poises. According to the Geological Survey paper just quoted, “If viscosities of lunar rocks were around 1021 to 1022 poises, the ages of large craters would have to be only 104 to 107 years.
From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
A quick search on the web will show you how little Morton, Slusher and Mandock really know about what they write.
To start with, you can read Danes' work for yourself, right here: https://books.google.com/books?id=FGpXA ... es&f=false
You can also read about the composition of the Moon's surface material right here: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... rface.html
It won't take long to see that these people really have no clue what they are saying.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1494577 wrote: The fact the the sun exists is self evident. No further evidence is necessary. The same applies to the beginning of the universe.
By that statement you have just supported what I have said. Yes. The Sun exists. We can see the sun. Therefore we know it exists. It is observable. We cannot observe something, nor has anyone observed anything before the beginning of the Universe, if there even was a beginning. As I have already demonstrated, it's not even a dichotomy of 2 possible options, as in "It has always existed" or "It had a beginning", as the "Always Existed" option has other variations, such as my example of a cycle of Black Holes. There are, no doubt, many other possibilities. Any assumption on what happened beyond a certain time is mainly guesswork & speculation, even when based on advanced mathematics.
Time is nothing more than our measurement of change. The past does not exist. It is just a memory. The future does not exist. All that exists is now.
Wrong. Time is a variable & is not constant. It is dependant on other conditions, such as the speed of light, which is also not a constant. Whenever we look at something we are looking into the past. When we see a star, there is a good chance that the star is no longer there & went super nova millions of years ago simply because of the time the light takes to reach us. When we are talking to someone we are seeing them in a much shorter past, but the past nonetheless. Experiments have been run by having 3 atomic clocks, perfectly synchronised. One being left in one place, whle the other 2 were taken in supersonic jets around the world. On their return they were showing that while the one left at the base had remained constant, one of the others had gained, and the other had lost time. They had, in fact proved that they were in different times - not just man's concept of time.
Exactly! God exists, as I have proven, and He has revealed He has always existed and always will.
Wrong again. There is no proof of anything, for or against. Science does not even discount his existence - it just places it on an infinitely low probability.
Information theory tells us that the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. The universe is an isolated system, so according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.
A further consequence of the second law is that the universe must have begun in a more organized and complex state than it is today—not in a random, highly disorganized state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory. Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being.
1. You shown me anywhere in any of the laws of thermodynamics where it says anything about it requiring an Intelligence.
2. The Universe is not a closed system. It is expanding. That much has been proven. You love to bandy about the word "Entropy" without even understanding its concept.
Anything in pretty colours gets instantly disregarded as crap, as it is your trademark for more pastings. i.e. If it's bollocks, at least make it look pretty.
It is a valid objection. All the matter of the universe had to have come from nothing, since it had a beginning before which there was nothing. Since something can not create itself from nothing by any natural cause, the cause logically had to have been supernatural.
There is no "Had To" about it. I've already explained that much. It could be argued with just as much validity that it was always there. Or that it was always there in a different dimension (as with cyclic Black Holes).
The Higgs Boson demonstrated something coming from nothing. This was observed, recorded & repeated. Therefore you 2nd argument is also proved false as it shows that it can.
Because you are comparing the material universe with a spiritual God.
I am simply making the point that when Scientists & Creationists use the same arguments to make a point, the Creationists deny that it is a valid argument, except to support their own ideas. They can't have it both ways.
All those are evidence free potential solutions. The fact is that it is impossible for the universe or anything else to create itself from nothing.
That is true. I was referring to the way that Creationists come up with their solutions. Evidence free indeed.
Your imagination is working overtime trying to explain the appearance of the universe from nothing by some other cause than God.
Imagination - to a degree. However, it is still based on physical evidence. Something that can be seen. The idea of a God cannot be seen & therefore has no evidence to support it.
Where is that evidence?
As your Bible says - "None so blind as those who refuse to see". The world is full of evidence. Physical evidence in the rocks, in the seas, in the atmosphere, in DNA - anything & everything that we see or touch is evidence. Plus there is Observable Evidence in astronomy. We know of star systems that are millions of Light Years away. We are something like 8½ light minutes away from our Sun. Our sun, compared to most of the others we can see out there is microscopic. Indeed, with some of them, even if we were something like 10,000 Light Years away, we would still be instantly destroyed from the heat. These stars have been shown to be moving away from us. Although we are moving in the same direction, towards them, they are moving faster, thus getting further away. This also demonstrates that they are getting even further away. It also proves that the age of the Universe is much older than you believe. You believe that the Universe is only 6,000 years old, yet there are star systems out there which are infinitely older than that that are so far away that the light is only just beginning to reach us. The fact that we can see this light, and measure its frequency, thus tell the distance of its source, is also evidence of the flaw of the Young Earth philosophy.
Then why do you foolishly make the positive assertion of something being factual when there is insufficient evidence to do so.
The only things I have claimed to be factual are those which have evidence to support it. Anything less is merely a supposition, and on the occasions I have put forward suppositions I have stated them to be such.
Creationists base their evidence on the facts of science.
That is the point. You cannot base evidence on anything. Evidence is evidence - plain & simple. Science takes the evidence & then forms theories based on that evidence - not the other way round. If further evidence doesn't agree with the theories, then Science changes the theories. Unlike Creationism, it is not locked in dogma by refusing to change its views when new evidence comes along. On the contrary, it looks for evidence that might proves previous ideas mistaken so that they can strive to improve their understanding.
Does that sentence make any sense to anyone?
Yes. It's exactly the same as with your saying that evidence is based on evidence. Evidence is evidence, and facts are facts, based on the evidence. You cannot based evidence on evidence, nor can you base facts on facts. Nor can you base Creationist Evidence on Creationist Evidence.
When have creationists ever made that statement? Your problem is you are unable to accept the facts of science because they conflict with your evidence free, dogmatic denial of the proven fact that God exists.
Once again you keep referring to the "Proven Fact the God Exists". What proof? Where is this proof? Your saying that he has revealed himself is not proof. Proof is something that I can see. Something that is based on hard evidence. A fantasy is not hard evidence. The Bible is not hard evidence as it is merely a compendium of fantasies, none of which with any hard evidence.
By that statement you have just supported what I have said. Yes. The Sun exists. We can see the sun. Therefore we know it exists. It is observable. We cannot observe something, nor has anyone observed anything before the beginning of the Universe, if there even was a beginning. As I have already demonstrated, it's not even a dichotomy of 2 possible options, as in "It has always existed" or "It had a beginning", as the "Always Existed" option has other variations, such as my example of a cycle of Black Holes. There are, no doubt, many other possibilities. Any assumption on what happened beyond a certain time is mainly guesswork & speculation, even when based on advanced mathematics.
Time is nothing more than our measurement of change. The past does not exist. It is just a memory. The future does not exist. All that exists is now.
Wrong. Time is a variable & is not constant. It is dependant on other conditions, such as the speed of light, which is also not a constant. Whenever we look at something we are looking into the past. When we see a star, there is a good chance that the star is no longer there & went super nova millions of years ago simply because of the time the light takes to reach us. When we are talking to someone we are seeing them in a much shorter past, but the past nonetheless. Experiments have been run by having 3 atomic clocks, perfectly synchronised. One being left in one place, whle the other 2 were taken in supersonic jets around the world. On their return they were showing that while the one left at the base had remained constant, one of the others had gained, and the other had lost time. They had, in fact proved that they were in different times - not just man's concept of time.
Exactly! God exists, as I have proven, and He has revealed He has always existed and always will.
Wrong again. There is no proof of anything, for or against. Science does not even discount his existence - it just places it on an infinitely low probability.
Information theory tells us that the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. The universe is an isolated system, so according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.
A further consequence of the second law is that the universe must have begun in a more organized and complex state than it is today—not in a random, highly disorganized state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory. Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being.
1. You shown me anywhere in any of the laws of thermodynamics where it says anything about it requiring an Intelligence.
2. The Universe is not a closed system. It is expanding. That much has been proven. You love to bandy about the word "Entropy" without even understanding its concept.
Anything in pretty colours gets instantly disregarded as crap, as it is your trademark for more pastings. i.e. If it's bollocks, at least make it look pretty.
It is a valid objection. All the matter of the universe had to have come from nothing, since it had a beginning before which there was nothing. Since something can not create itself from nothing by any natural cause, the cause logically had to have been supernatural.
There is no "Had To" about it. I've already explained that much. It could be argued with just as much validity that it was always there. Or that it was always there in a different dimension (as with cyclic Black Holes).
The Higgs Boson demonstrated something coming from nothing. This was observed, recorded & repeated. Therefore you 2nd argument is also proved false as it shows that it can.
Because you are comparing the material universe with a spiritual God.
I am simply making the point that when Scientists & Creationists use the same arguments to make a point, the Creationists deny that it is a valid argument, except to support their own ideas. They can't have it both ways.
All those are evidence free potential solutions. The fact is that it is impossible for the universe or anything else to create itself from nothing.
That is true. I was referring to the way that Creationists come up with their solutions. Evidence free indeed.
Your imagination is working overtime trying to explain the appearance of the universe from nothing by some other cause than God.
Imagination - to a degree. However, it is still based on physical evidence. Something that can be seen. The idea of a God cannot be seen & therefore has no evidence to support it.
Where is that evidence?
As your Bible says - "None so blind as those who refuse to see". The world is full of evidence. Physical evidence in the rocks, in the seas, in the atmosphere, in DNA - anything & everything that we see or touch is evidence. Plus there is Observable Evidence in astronomy. We know of star systems that are millions of Light Years away. We are something like 8½ light minutes away from our Sun. Our sun, compared to most of the others we can see out there is microscopic. Indeed, with some of them, even if we were something like 10,000 Light Years away, we would still be instantly destroyed from the heat. These stars have been shown to be moving away from us. Although we are moving in the same direction, towards them, they are moving faster, thus getting further away. This also demonstrates that they are getting even further away. It also proves that the age of the Universe is much older than you believe. You believe that the Universe is only 6,000 years old, yet there are star systems out there which are infinitely older than that that are so far away that the light is only just beginning to reach us. The fact that we can see this light, and measure its frequency, thus tell the distance of its source, is also evidence of the flaw of the Young Earth philosophy.
Then why do you foolishly make the positive assertion of something being factual when there is insufficient evidence to do so.
The only things I have claimed to be factual are those which have evidence to support it. Anything less is merely a supposition, and on the occasions I have put forward suppositions I have stated them to be such.
Creationists base their evidence on the facts of science.
That is the point. You cannot base evidence on anything. Evidence is evidence - plain & simple. Science takes the evidence & then forms theories based on that evidence - not the other way round. If further evidence doesn't agree with the theories, then Science changes the theories. Unlike Creationism, it is not locked in dogma by refusing to change its views when new evidence comes along. On the contrary, it looks for evidence that might proves previous ideas mistaken so that they can strive to improve their understanding.
Does that sentence make any sense to anyone?
Yes. It's exactly the same as with your saying that evidence is based on evidence. Evidence is evidence, and facts are facts, based on the evidence. You cannot based evidence on evidence, nor can you base facts on facts. Nor can you base Creationist Evidence on Creationist Evidence.
When have creationists ever made that statement? Your problem is you are unable to accept the facts of science because they conflict with your evidence free, dogmatic denial of the proven fact that God exists.
Once again you keep referring to the "Proven Fact the God Exists". What proof? Where is this proof? Your saying that he has revealed himself is not proof. Proof is something that I can see. Something that is based on hard evidence. A fantasy is not hard evidence. The Bible is not hard evidence as it is merely a compendium of fantasies, none of which with any hard evidence.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1494631 wrote: The Sun exists. We can see the sun. Therefore we know it exists. It is observable. We cannot observe something, nor has anyone observed anything before the beginning of the Universe, if there even was a beginning.
Is not the universe something we can see? Why do you object to the logical conclusion it had a beginning before which there was nothing from which it appeared, which is not possible by any natural cause? That only logically leaves a supernatural cause.
Time is a variable & is not constant. It is dependant on other conditions, such as the speed of light, which is also not a constant. Whenever we look at something we are looking into the past.
Which no longer exists. Time is nothing more than our measurement of change. The past does not exist. It is just a memory. The future does not exist. All that exists is now.
There is no proof of anything, for or against.
Is not there proof the universe exists?
1. You shown me anywhere in any of the laws of thermodynamics where it says anything about it requiring an Intelligence.
2. The Universe is not a closed system. It is expanding. That much has been proven.
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. The only way it can increase is by the addition of intelligence.
The Higgs Boson demonstrated something coming from nothing. This was observed, recorded & repeated.
How has Higgs Boson demonstrated something coming from nothing?
The idea of a God cannot be seen & therefore has no evidence to support it.
Except His creation, which can be seen. Have you seen those who built your computer? Do they exist?
As your Bible says - "None so blind as those who refuse to see". The world is full of evidence. Physical evidence in the rocks, in the seas, in the atmosphere, in DNA - anything & everything that we see or touch is evidence. Plus there is Observable Evidence in astronomy.
Exactly! All that is evidence for the existence of God.
We know of star systems that are millions of Light Years away. It also proves that the age of the Universe is much older than you believe. You believe that the Universe is only 6,000 years old, yet there are star systems out there which are infinitely older than that that are so far away that the light is only just beginning to reach us. The fact that we can see this light, and measure its frequency, thus tell the distance of its source, is also evidence of the flaw of the Young Earth philosophy.
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
You cannot base evidence on anything. Evidence is evidence - plain & simple. Science takes the evidence & then forms theories based on that evidence - not the other way round. If further evidence doesn't agree with the theories, then Science changes the theories.
Except in evolution.
Unlike Creationism, it is not locked in dogma by refusing to change its views when new evidence comes along. On the contrary, it looks for evidence that might proves previous ideas mistaken so that they can strive to improve their understanding.
Except in evolution. Scientists have even lied in order to "prove" evolution is true.
Once again you keep referring to the "Proven Fact the God Exists". What proof? Where is this proof? Your saying that he has revealed himself is not proof.
How is God revealing Himself not proof He exists?
Proof is something that I can see. Something that is based on hard evidence. A fantasy is not hard evidence. The Bible is not hard evidence as it is merely a compendium of fantasies, none of which with any hard evidence.
Is not the universe something you can see and is therefor hard evidence for the existence of God since the universe appeared from nothing? Here are facts showing the Bible to be a reliable record of history among others:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
The Bible and Archaeology: How Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Record | United Church of God
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. 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.
Is not the universe something we can see? Why do you object to the logical conclusion it had a beginning before which there was nothing from which it appeared, which is not possible by any natural cause? That only logically leaves a supernatural cause.
Time is a variable & is not constant. It is dependant on other conditions, such as the speed of light, which is also not a constant. Whenever we look at something we are looking into the past.
Which no longer exists. Time is nothing more than our measurement of change. The past does not exist. It is just a memory. The future does not exist. All that exists is now.
There is no proof of anything, for or against.
Is not there proof the universe exists?
1. You shown me anywhere in any of the laws of thermodynamics where it says anything about it requiring an Intelligence.
2. The Universe is not a closed system. It is expanding. That much has been proven.
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. The only way it can increase is by the addition of intelligence.
The Higgs Boson demonstrated something coming from nothing. This was observed, recorded & repeated.
How has Higgs Boson demonstrated something coming from nothing?
The idea of a God cannot be seen & therefore has no evidence to support it.
Except His creation, which can be seen. Have you seen those who built your computer? Do they exist?
As your Bible says - "None so blind as those who refuse to see". The world is full of evidence. Physical evidence in the rocks, in the seas, in the atmosphere, in DNA - anything & everything that we see or touch is evidence. Plus there is Observable Evidence in astronomy.
Exactly! All that is evidence for the existence of God.
We know of star systems that are millions of Light Years away. It also proves that the age of the Universe is much older than you believe. You believe that the Universe is only 6,000 years old, yet there are star systems out there which are infinitely older than that that are so far away that the light is only just beginning to reach us. The fact that we can see this light, and measure its frequency, thus tell the distance of its source, is also evidence of the flaw of the Young Earth philosophy.
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
You cannot base evidence on anything. Evidence is evidence - plain & simple. Science takes the evidence & then forms theories based on that evidence - not the other way round. If further evidence doesn't agree with the theories, then Science changes the theories.
Except in evolution.
Unlike Creationism, it is not locked in dogma by refusing to change its views when new evidence comes along. On the contrary, it looks for evidence that might proves previous ideas mistaken so that they can strive to improve their understanding.
Except in evolution. Scientists have even lied in order to "prove" evolution is true.
Once again you keep referring to the "Proven Fact the God Exists". What proof? Where is this proof? Your saying that he has revealed himself is not proof.
How is God revealing Himself not proof He exists?
Proof is something that I can see. Something that is based on hard evidence. A fantasy is not hard evidence. The Bible is not hard evidence as it is merely a compendium of fantasies, none of which with any hard evidence.
Is not the universe something you can see and is therefor hard evidence for the existence of God since the universe appeared from nothing? Here are facts showing the Bible to be a reliable record of history among others:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
The Bible and Archaeology: How Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Record | United Church of God
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. 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.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I did actually make a full reply - I don't know why - it's covering the same ground all over again, but once again, as soon as I went to post it I got the old 500 Internal Server Error, so I don't intend to go through all that again.
Basically, in summary, as per usual you are making a load of unfounded speculations based on a book of stories handed down by word of mouth & written not only by the superstitious, but those who wanted to maintain power over the ignorant masses by the use of stories of some invisible being. The contents of a single book, such as this, cannot come close to the vast compendium of literature of observed & recorded scientific data which contradicts all the religious claims.
There are a multitude of prospective concepts about the origins of the Universe - that is, if it even had an origin. It is not even a binary option of either it had a beginning or it didn't. Nobody was around at the time, so there can never be any proof. That something exists now is merely proof that it exists now. It is not proof of its origin. If you are walking on the beach & among the stones you see something & realise its a piece of glass. You might say that the existence of this piece of glass proves the existence of a glazier. However, all the existence of that piece of glass really proves is that some minerals came into contact with some extreme heat. Yes, it could have been a glazier, but it could just as easily have been a lightning strike, melting the sand at the point of contact. Without having observed the history of that piece of glass, there is no way of knowing how it came to be there. You must, therefore accept that fact & acknowledge that all we know for sure is that it is there now.
As for your continuing to use the "supernatural" argument. Please don't even go there. It makes you look even more stupid than even I give you credit for. If you check your dictionary you will find that the opposite of "Natural" is "Artificial", not "Supernatural". "Supernatural" is simply a term used by the superstitious in a vain attempt to hide their ignorance when they can't come up with an answer different to the one that all the evidence points to.
Basically, in summary, as per usual you are making a load of unfounded speculations based on a book of stories handed down by word of mouth & written not only by the superstitious, but those who wanted to maintain power over the ignorant masses by the use of stories of some invisible being. The contents of a single book, such as this, cannot come close to the vast compendium of literature of observed & recorded scientific data which contradicts all the religious claims.
There are a multitude of prospective concepts about the origins of the Universe - that is, if it even had an origin. It is not even a binary option of either it had a beginning or it didn't. Nobody was around at the time, so there can never be any proof. That something exists now is merely proof that it exists now. It is not proof of its origin. If you are walking on the beach & among the stones you see something & realise its a piece of glass. You might say that the existence of this piece of glass proves the existence of a glazier. However, all the existence of that piece of glass really proves is that some minerals came into contact with some extreme heat. Yes, it could have been a glazier, but it could just as easily have been a lightning strike, melting the sand at the point of contact. Without having observed the history of that piece of glass, there is no way of knowing how it came to be there. You must, therefore accept that fact & acknowledge that all we know for sure is that it is there now.
As for your continuing to use the "supernatural" argument. Please don't even go there. It makes you look even more stupid than even I give you credit for. If you check your dictionary you will find that the opposite of "Natural" is "Artificial", not "Supernatural". "Supernatural" is simply a term used by the superstitious in a vain attempt to hide their ignorance when they can't come up with an answer different to the one that all the evidence points to.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1494640 wrote: There are a multitude of prospective concepts about the origins of the Universe - that is, if it even had an origin.
I have asked you twice how has Higgs Boson demonstrated something coming from nothing and have received no reply.
Basically, in summary, as per usual you are making a load of unfounded speculations based on a book of stories handed down by word of mouth & written not only by the superstitious, but those who wanted to maintain power over the ignorant masses by the use of stories of some invisible being. The contents of a single book, such as this, cannot come close to the vast compendium of literature of observed & recorded scientific data which contradicts all the religious claims.
And yet you are unable to explain the fact that:
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... stdays.cfm
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
I have asked you twice how has Higgs Boson demonstrated something coming from nothing and have received no reply.
Basically, in summary, as per usual you are making a load of unfounded speculations based on a book of stories handed down by word of mouth & written not only by the superstitious, but those who wanted to maintain power over the ignorant masses by the use of stories of some invisible being. The contents of a single book, such as this, cannot come close to the vast compendium of literature of observed & recorded scientific data which contradicts all the religious claims.
And yet you are unable to explain the fact that:
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... stdays.cfm
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1494652 wrote: I have asked you twice how has Higgs Boson demonstrated something coming from nothing and have received no reply.
I had actually replied to that in my first response which the forum decided to delete with the 500 error. Perhaps you might like the Biblical acceptance of it. They call it the "God Particle", because of the way it produces matter from nothing.
What is the God particle?
Even Creation.com have had to admit its existence, proving that something can come from nothing. The difference being, not surprisingly, that they spin it into being proof of the existence of God. Of course, in the eyes of Science it is neither proof of or proof against the existence of God. God doesn't even come into it The only thing it proves is that it exists & that it does what it does.
http://creation.com/higgs-boson-god-particle
And yet you are unable to explain the fact that:
I won't even bother with repeating your pasting. You manage enough of that for yourself. The reason I am not able to explain the 'fact' is simply because it is not fact. It is unfounded conjecture, based on superstition, just like the rest of your pasted crap.
As I have said, there is a vast, ever growing compendium of reference literature containing scientifically verified facts. There are millions of examples of hard evidence supporting the scientific theories. These theories have developed through the years, adapting with every new piece of evidence. On the Creationist side there is a single book, formed of folklore & superstition. Other reference material doesn't provide any other data, it merely rehashes the original & maintains locked in its primitive dogma, denying all the evidence that science comes up with whenever it disagrees with their own beliefs. Hard evidence is denied, yet superstitious faith is considered as 'fact'.
When will you latch on to the FACT that whenever you paste stuff you just continue to make a laughing stock of yourself for being a mindless automaton. On the rare occasions when you attempt to argue a case for yourself (albeit weakly & incorrectly) you do, at least, give yourself a little more credibility. Once you paste a block of the usual crap everyone switches off because we've all seen it many times before, and no matter how many times you paste it it's not going to make it any less crap. Think of it as being like the Terms & Conditions box that you have to check before installing a downloaded program. Does anyone actually bother to read those Terms & Conditions? Of course not. Everyone knows it's the same old crap found in all the Terms & Conditions everywhere else. Just like the Creationist reference sources, they are just rehashes of the same old thing. Basically, it's meaningless twaddle & no-one's interested.
I had actually replied to that in my first response which the forum decided to delete with the 500 error. Perhaps you might like the Biblical acceptance of it. They call it the "God Particle", because of the way it produces matter from nothing.
What is the God particle?
Even Creation.com have had to admit its existence, proving that something can come from nothing. The difference being, not surprisingly, that they spin it into being proof of the existence of God. Of course, in the eyes of Science it is neither proof of or proof against the existence of God. God doesn't even come into it The only thing it proves is that it exists & that it does what it does.
http://creation.com/higgs-boson-god-particle
And yet you are unable to explain the fact that:
I won't even bother with repeating your pasting. You manage enough of that for yourself. The reason I am not able to explain the 'fact' is simply because it is not fact. It is unfounded conjecture, based on superstition, just like the rest of your pasted crap.
As I have said, there is a vast, ever growing compendium of reference literature containing scientifically verified facts. There are millions of examples of hard evidence supporting the scientific theories. These theories have developed through the years, adapting with every new piece of evidence. On the Creationist side there is a single book, formed of folklore & superstition. Other reference material doesn't provide any other data, it merely rehashes the original & maintains locked in its primitive dogma, denying all the evidence that science comes up with whenever it disagrees with their own beliefs. Hard evidence is denied, yet superstitious faith is considered as 'fact'.
When will you latch on to the FACT that whenever you paste stuff you just continue to make a laughing stock of yourself for being a mindless automaton. On the rare occasions when you attempt to argue a case for yourself (albeit weakly & incorrectly) you do, at least, give yourself a little more credibility. Once you paste a block of the usual crap everyone switches off because we've all seen it many times before, and no matter how many times you paste it it's not going to make it any less crap. Think of it as being like the Terms & Conditions box that you have to check before installing a downloaded program. Does anyone actually bother to read those Terms & Conditions? Of course not. Everyone knows it's the same old crap found in all the Terms & Conditions everywhere else. Just like the Creationist reference sources, they are just rehashes of the same old thing. Basically, it's meaningless twaddle & no-one's interested.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1494668 wrote: I had actually replied to that in my first response which the forum decided to delete with the 500 error. Perhaps you might like the Biblical acceptance of it. They call it the "God Particle", because of the way it produces matter from nothing.
What is the God particle?
Even Creation.com have had to admit its existence, proving that something can come from nothing. The difference being, not surprisingly, that they spin it into being proof of the existence of God. Of course, in the eyes of Science it is neither proof of or proof against the existence of God. God doesn't even come into it The only thing it proves is that it exists & that it does what it does.
Higgs boson god particle - creation.com
Here are some excerpts from your creationist link:
However, knowing that the Higgs boson exists and what it does—and, indeed, knowing this for the other elementary particles as well—tells us nothing about how they came into existence initially or why. Answers to these questions depend on one’s worldview or presuppositions in much the same way that the interpretation of the observations of this recent experiment was based on the presupposition that the Higgs boson existed.
The Standard Model does, however, provide an amazing example of super-intelligent design. There are only 3 fundamental particles, each of which comes in a few variants for a total of only 24 elementary (matter) particles—6 quarks, 6 leptons and 12 gauge bosons. Everything in the entire universe is made up of these 3 fundamental particles in 24 variants. Think about it! There are 118 chemical elements in the periodic table which can be combined to create almost innumerable compounds like iron oxide or calcium carbonate or hydrogen hydroxide (aka water) and these can be combined to create almost innumerable substances like bubble gum and chocolate cake and amino acids and concrete and these can be combined to create even grander structures like buildings and airplanes and computers and ¦ the human body. Yet all these things are made using just 24 different components! That sure looks like design at its best.
The Higgs boson was capriciously nicknamed ‘the God particle’ by American physics Nobellist Leon Lederman at the insistence of his publisher5. It seemed appropriate because, as he said, the particle is “so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive. (The name was certainly more marketable than what Lederman apparently originally intended to call it, the ‘godd..mn particle’ on account of its elusivity.) I think that the nickname is quite apt for other reasons. Like with God, one cannot actually see the Higgs boson but only sees the effects of its presence and deduces its reality from the observations. Also, the Higgs boson, by providing an explanation for the masses of the elementary particles, provides the explanation for all the forces that hold the universe together. And Paul tells us in his letter to the Colossians that “ ¦ by Him [Christ, who is God] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth ¦ and in Him all things hold together (Col 1:16–17).
It seems that the more science discovers, including this seeming confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson, the more it confirms what Paul said in Romans: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Rom 1:20)
The bottom line is something does not come from nothing by any natural cause. Since the universe did come from nothing, the cause must be supernatural! Which proves the existence of God!
What is the God particle?
Even Creation.com have had to admit its existence, proving that something can come from nothing. The difference being, not surprisingly, that they spin it into being proof of the existence of God. Of course, in the eyes of Science it is neither proof of or proof against the existence of God. God doesn't even come into it The only thing it proves is that it exists & that it does what it does.
Higgs boson god particle - creation.com
Here are some excerpts from your creationist link:
However, knowing that the Higgs boson exists and what it does—and, indeed, knowing this for the other elementary particles as well—tells us nothing about how they came into existence initially or why. Answers to these questions depend on one’s worldview or presuppositions in much the same way that the interpretation of the observations of this recent experiment was based on the presupposition that the Higgs boson existed.
The Standard Model does, however, provide an amazing example of super-intelligent design. There are only 3 fundamental particles, each of which comes in a few variants for a total of only 24 elementary (matter) particles—6 quarks, 6 leptons and 12 gauge bosons. Everything in the entire universe is made up of these 3 fundamental particles in 24 variants. Think about it! There are 118 chemical elements in the periodic table which can be combined to create almost innumerable compounds like iron oxide or calcium carbonate or hydrogen hydroxide (aka water) and these can be combined to create almost innumerable substances like bubble gum and chocolate cake and amino acids and concrete and these can be combined to create even grander structures like buildings and airplanes and computers and ¦ the human body. Yet all these things are made using just 24 different components! That sure looks like design at its best.
The Higgs boson was capriciously nicknamed ‘the God particle’ by American physics Nobellist Leon Lederman at the insistence of his publisher5. It seemed appropriate because, as he said, the particle is “so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive. (The name was certainly more marketable than what Lederman apparently originally intended to call it, the ‘godd..mn particle’ on account of its elusivity.) I think that the nickname is quite apt for other reasons. Like with God, one cannot actually see the Higgs boson but only sees the effects of its presence and deduces its reality from the observations. Also, the Higgs boson, by providing an explanation for the masses of the elementary particles, provides the explanation for all the forces that hold the universe together. And Paul tells us in his letter to the Colossians that “ ¦ by Him [Christ, who is God] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth ¦ and in Him all things hold together (Col 1:16–17).
It seems that the more science discovers, including this seeming confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson, the more it confirms what Paul said in Romans: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Rom 1:20)
The bottom line is something does not come from nothing by any natural cause. Since the universe did come from nothing, the cause must be supernatural! Which proves the existence of God!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
As I said, when Creationists are faced with something they don't understand first they try to deny it exists, then when it is undeniable & goes against what they want it to represent they class it as "Supernatural". It happens. It was witnessed to happen. It happened under controlled conditions. Therefore, there is nothing Supernatural about it. On the contrary, it has been demonstrated to be perfectly natural.
Science Disproves Evolution
Shallow Meteorites
Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface (a). (Unsuccessful searches have been made for these deep—and very valuable—meteorites, including in the Grand Canyon and along conveyor belts in coal processing plants.) Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers (b). If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found directly above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, those basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.
Similar conclusions can be made about rock slides, which are usually found at the Earth’s surface (c).
a. “In older geologic formations, no signs whatsoever of the presence of meteorites have been found ... If we consider, moreover, that since the onset of modern coal mining, some fifty to fifty-five billion tons of coal have been mined, all of which have passed through the hands of people with a professional familiarity with stones, it is certainly remarkable that ancient meteorite material has never been found or described up to now.Fritz Heide, Meteorites (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p.119.
Peter A. Steveson, “Meteoritic Evidence for a Young Earth, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol.12, June 1975, pp.23–25.
“... neither tektites nor other meteorites have been found in any of the ancient geologic formations ...Ralph Stair, “Tektites and the Lost Planet, The Scientific Monthly, July 1956, p.11.
“No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column.William Henry Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p.144.
“... the astronomer Olbers had noticed: that there are no ‘fossil’ meteorites known, from any period older than the middle of the Quaternary. The quantity of coal mined during the last century amounted to many billions of tons, and with it about a thousand meteorites should have been dug out, if during the time the coal deposits were formed the meteorite frequency had been the same as it is today. Equally complete is the absence of meteorites in any other geologically old material that has been excavated in the course of technical operations.F. A. Paneth, “The Frequency of Meteorite Falls throughout the Ages, Vistas in Astronomy, Vol.2, editor Arthur Beer (New York: Pergamon Press, 1956), p.1681.
“I have interviewed the late Dr. G. P. Merrill, of the U.S. National Museum, and Dr. G. T. Prior, of the British Natural History Museum, both well-known students of meteorites, and neither man knew of a single occurrence of a meteorite in sedimentary rocks.W. A. Tarr, “Meteorites in Sedimentary Rocks? Science, Vol.75, 1January 1932, pp.17–18.
“No meteorites have been found in the geological column.Stansfield, p.81.
“In view of the connection of comets, meteors, and meteorites, the absence of meteorites in old deposits in the crust of the earth is very significant. It has been estimated that at least 500 meteorites should have been found in already worked coal seams, whereas none has been identified in strata older than the Quaternary epoch (about 1 million years ago). This suggests a very recent origin of meteorites and, by inference, of comets.N. T. Bobrovnikoff, “Comets, Astrophysics, editor J. A. Hynek (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), p. 352.
b. Hans Pettersson, “Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust, Scientific American, Vol.202, February 1960, pp.123–129.
c.“Examples of ancient rock slides have been identified from the geologic column in few instances.William Henry Twenhofel, Treatise on Sedimentation, Vol.1, 2nd edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1961), p.102.
From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I see. Back to your old "Disregarded Crap", are we?
Science Disproves Evolution
Moon Dust and Debris
If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67 of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon (b). [For more details, see pages 577–579.]
a. Before instruments were sent to the Moon, Isaac Asimov made some interesting, but false, predictions. After estimating the great depths of dust that should be on the Moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by stating:
I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight. Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year, Science Digest, January 1959, p.36.
Lyttleton felt that dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep. Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p.72.
Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [See Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol.115, 1955, pp.585–604.]
Fears about the dust thickness lessened when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [See transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p.1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p.19.]
b. “Powdery particles resting on the moon’s surface could form a layer up to 1 millimeter thick every 1,000 years, according to a new analysis. Meghan Rosen, “Moon Dust Gathers Surprisingly Fast, Science News, Vol185, 11January 2014, p.6.
Extrapolating this rate of 1 millimeter per 1,000 years would produce a dust layer almost 3 miles thick in 4.5 billion years!
From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment.
I've got news for you - it has.
Have you ever stopped to think just what it is that makes house dust light & fluffy? It's air. "Dust", in cosmological terms does not even come under the same category. A 'tiny' piece of 'dust' would most likely be the size of a ball bearing. There have been massive dents found in the International Space Station which have not only been found to have caused by nothing more than a grain of sand at high speed impact, but to have traces of ameno acids on them.
Take, for instance, the sides of volcanoes that are perpetually spewing out ash. That is effectively the same thing, yet people don't disappear into that when they walk on it. Not surprisingly the outer side of the moon gets a lot more impacting that the near side, but to say that it doesn't get constant bombardment is ridiculous - or do you believe all those craters to be the result of massive limpets?
Typical of Brown, the quote taken from Isaac Asimov is being used out of context. It is NOT a prediction, rather than an image he had in his mind because he had no evidence to base it on. He never made any claims otherwise. He could just as easily have said that he could see it as a solid plate of rock. He accepted the fact that nobody can be certain about a new environment until it has actually been physically explored.
I've got news for you - it has.
Have you ever stopped to think just what it is that makes house dust light & fluffy? It's air. "Dust", in cosmological terms does not even come under the same category. A 'tiny' piece of 'dust' would most likely be the size of a ball bearing. There have been massive dents found in the International Space Station which have not only been found to have caused by nothing more than a grain of sand at high speed impact, but to have traces of ameno acids on them.
Take, for instance, the sides of volcanoes that are perpetually spewing out ash. That is effectively the same thing, yet people don't disappear into that when they walk on it. Not surprisingly the outer side of the moon gets a lot more impacting that the near side, but to say that it doesn't get constant bombardment is ridiculous - or do you believe all those craters to be the result of massive limpets?
Typical of Brown, the quote taken from Isaac Asimov is being used out of context. It is NOT a prediction, rather than an image he had in his mind because he had no evidence to base it on. He never made any claims otherwise. He could just as easily have said that he could see it as a solid plate of rock. He accepted the fact that nobody can be certain about a new environment until it has actually been physically explored.
Science Disproves Evolution
If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment.
I've got news for you - it has.
Have you ever stopped to think just what it is that makes house dust light & fluffy? It's air. "Dust", in cosmological terms does not even come under the same category. A 'tiny' piece of 'dust' would most likely be the size of a ball bearing. There have been massive dents found in the International Space Station which have not only been found to have caused by nothing more than a grain of sand at high speed impact, but to have traces of ameno acids on them.
Take, for instance, the sides of volcanoes that are perpetually spewing out ash. That is effectively the same thing, yet people don't disappear into that when they walk on it. Not surprisingly the outer side of the moon gets a lot more impacting that the near side, but to say that it doesn't get constant bombardment is ridiculous - or do you believe all those craters to be the result of massive limpets?
Typical of Brown, the quote taken from Isaac Asimov is being used out of context. It is NOT a prediction, rather than an image he had in his mind because he had no evidence to base it on. He never made any claims otherwise. He could just as easily have said that he could see it as a solid plate of rock. He accepted the fact that nobody can be certain about a new environment until it has actually been physically explored.
I've got news for you - it has.
Have you ever stopped to think just what it is that makes house dust light & fluffy? It's air. "Dust", in cosmological terms does not even come under the same category. A 'tiny' piece of 'dust' would most likely be the size of a ball bearing. There have been massive dents found in the International Space Station which have not only been found to have caused by nothing more than a grain of sand at high speed impact, but to have traces of ameno acids on them.
Take, for instance, the sides of volcanoes that are perpetually spewing out ash. That is effectively the same thing, yet people don't disappear into that when they walk on it. Not surprisingly the outer side of the moon gets a lot more impacting that the near side, but to say that it doesn't get constant bombardment is ridiculous - or do you believe all those craters to be the result of massive limpets?
Typical of Brown, the quote taken from Isaac Asimov is being used out of context. It is NOT a prediction, rather than an image he had in his mind because he had no evidence to base it on. He never made any claims otherwise. He could just as easily have said that he could see it as a solid plate of rock. He accepted the fact that nobody can be certain about a new environment until it has actually been physically explored.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1495089 wrote: I've got news for you - it has.
Have you ever stopped to think just what it is that makes house dust light & fluffy? It's air. "Dust", in cosmological terms does not even come under the same category. A 'tiny' piece of 'dust' would most likely be the size of a ball bearing. There have been massive dents found in the International Space Station which have not only been found to have caused by nothing more than a grain of sand at high speed impact, but to have traces of ameno acids on them.
That is interesting. Where do you suppose those amino acids came from? Here are some clues:
Meteorites Return Home
Figure 187: Salt of the Earth. On 22 March 1998, this 2 3/4 pound meteorite landed 40 feet from boys playing basketball in Monahans, Texas. While the rock was still warm, police were called. Hours later, NASA scientists cracked the meteorite open in a clean-room laboratory, eliminating any possibility of contamination. Inside were salt (NaCl) crystals 0.1 inch (3 mm) in diameter and liquid water!86 Some salt crystals are shown in the blue circle, highly magnified and in true color. Bubble (B) is inside a liquid, which itself is inside a salt crystal. Eleven quivering bubbles were found in about 40 fluid pockets. Shown in the green circle is another bubble (V) inside a liquid (L). The horizontal black bar represents 0.005 mm, about 1/25 the diameter of a human hair.
NASA scientists who investigated this meteorite believe it came from an asteroid, but that is highly unlikely. Asteroids, having little gravity and being in the vacuum of space, cannot sustain liquid water, which is required to form salt crystals. (Earth is the only planet, indeed the only body in the solar system, that can sustain liquid water on its surface.) Nor could surface water (gas, liquid, or solid) on asteroids withstand high-velocity impacts. Even more perplexing for the evolutionist: What is the salt’s origin?
Figure 41 on page 110 []In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II: illustrates the origin of meteoroids. Dust-sized meteoroids often come from comets. Most larger meteoroids are rock fragments that never merged into a comet or asteroid.
Much evidence supports Earth as the origin of meteorites.
Minerals and isotopes in meteorites are remarkably similar to those on Earth.
Some meteorites contain sugars, salt crystals containing liquid water,89 and possible cellulose.
Other meteorites contain limestone, which, on Earth, forms only in liquid water. [See “The Origin of Limestone on pages 251–256.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Limestone
Many meteorites contain excess amounts of left-handed amino acids—a sign of once-living matter. [See “Handedness: Left and Right on page 19.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 35. Handedness: Left and Right
NASA has found DNA components in 12 meteorites.
A few meteorites show that “salt-rich fluids similar to terrestrial brines flowed through their veins.
Some meteorites have about twice the heavy hydrogen concentration as Earth’s water today. As explained in the preceding chapter and in Endnote 89 on page 414, this heavy hydrogen came from the subterranean chambers. About 86% of all meteorites contain chondrules, which are best explained by the hydroplate theory. [See “Chondrules on page 399.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Evidence Requiring an Explanation
Bacteria fossils have been found in three meteorites.
Seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source—and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects
Have you ever stopped to think just what it is that makes house dust light & fluffy? It's air. "Dust", in cosmological terms does not even come under the same category. A 'tiny' piece of 'dust' would most likely be the size of a ball bearing. There have been massive dents found in the International Space Station which have not only been found to have caused by nothing more than a grain of sand at high speed impact, but to have traces of ameno acids on them.
That is interesting. Where do you suppose those amino acids came from? Here are some clues:
Meteorites Return Home
Figure 187: Salt of the Earth. On 22 March 1998, this 2 3/4 pound meteorite landed 40 feet from boys playing basketball in Monahans, Texas. While the rock was still warm, police were called. Hours later, NASA scientists cracked the meteorite open in a clean-room laboratory, eliminating any possibility of contamination. Inside were salt (NaCl) crystals 0.1 inch (3 mm) in diameter and liquid water!86 Some salt crystals are shown in the blue circle, highly magnified and in true color. Bubble (B) is inside a liquid, which itself is inside a salt crystal. Eleven quivering bubbles were found in about 40 fluid pockets. Shown in the green circle is another bubble (V) inside a liquid (L). The horizontal black bar represents 0.005 mm, about 1/25 the diameter of a human hair.
NASA scientists who investigated this meteorite believe it came from an asteroid, but that is highly unlikely. Asteroids, having little gravity and being in the vacuum of space, cannot sustain liquid water, which is required to form salt crystals. (Earth is the only planet, indeed the only body in the solar system, that can sustain liquid water on its surface.) Nor could surface water (gas, liquid, or solid) on asteroids withstand high-velocity impacts. Even more perplexing for the evolutionist: What is the salt’s origin?
Figure 41 on page 110 []In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II: illustrates the origin of meteoroids. Dust-sized meteoroids often come from comets. Most larger meteoroids are rock fragments that never merged into a comet or asteroid.
Much evidence supports Earth as the origin of meteorites.
Minerals and isotopes in meteorites are remarkably similar to those on Earth.
Some meteorites contain sugars, salt crystals containing liquid water,89 and possible cellulose.
Other meteorites contain limestone, which, on Earth, forms only in liquid water. [See “The Origin of Limestone on pages 251–256.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Limestone
Many meteorites contain excess amounts of left-handed amino acids—a sign of once-living matter. [See “Handedness: Left and Right on page 19.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 35. Handedness: Left and Right
NASA has found DNA components in 12 meteorites.
A few meteorites show that “salt-rich fluids similar to terrestrial brines flowed through their veins.
Some meteorites have about twice the heavy hydrogen concentration as Earth’s water today. As explained in the preceding chapter and in Endnote 89 on page 414, this heavy hydrogen came from the subterranean chambers. About 86% of all meteorites contain chondrules, which are best explained by the hydroplate theory. [See “Chondrules on page 399.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Evidence Requiring an Explanation
Bacteria fossils have been found in three meteorites.
Seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source—and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The fact that there are similarities between minerals & isotypes found on earth to those found on meteorites is NOT evidence that they originated on earth - quite the opposite. It indicates that they cam TO Earth from Outer Space. If it went FROM Earth to arrive BACK at Earth that would mean that it not only stopped & turned round, but that, by some remote co-incidence, that it just happened to find its way back again to its point of origin. It's like saying that a bullet found in the barrel of a gun originated from deep inside a tree because the striations on both bullets were identical. It would be like saying that although it is reasonable to accept that the bullet found in the tree was fired from the gun, but that the bullet found in the gun originated in the tree. Common sense decrees that the bullet originated in the gun & was fired into the tree. Your / Brown's theory states the opposite.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1495332 wrote: The fact that there are similarities between minerals & isotypes found on earth to those found on meteorites is NOT evidence that they originated on earth - quite the opposite. It indicates that they cam TO Earth from Outer Space. If it went FROM Earth to arrive BACK at Earth that would mean that it not only stopped & turned round, but that, by some remote co-incidence, that it just happened to find its way back again to its point of origin. It's like saying that a bullet found in the barrel of a gun originated from deep inside a tree because the striations on both bullets were identical. It would be like saying that although it is reasonable to accept that the bullet found in the tree was fired from the gun, but that the bullet found in the gun originated in the tree. Common sense decrees that the bullet originated in the gun & was fired into the tree. Your / Brown's theory states the opposite.
What about the fact that seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source—and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
What about the fact that seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source—and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
As usual you base your arguments on a false premise.
Bacteria need water to live? This is just one example that disproves that.
Life in Asphalt - Astrobiology Magazine
Liquid water at sub-zero temperatures?
Can water stay liquid below zero degrees Celsius? | Science Questions with Surprising Answers
Some bacteria not only live in ice, but freeze it themselves.
Bizarre Ice-Forming Bacteria's Secrets Revealed
The very fact that living bacteria has been found in space proves that they can survive without water or oxygen. Bacteria is also found in hyperarid regions on earth.
Pressure is also a factor in the boiling point / freezing point of water.
Earth is not unique in having liquid water - recent discoveries on Mars have proven that - and Mars is our CLOSEST neighbour. There are other planets with a much denser atmosphere, causing freezing points to be higher. As with much higher gravities.
Even if the bacteria you refer to did originate in liquid water & were supposedly launched into space, that is still nowhere near evidence of their having been launched from Earth. If something at point A is found to be heading away from point B, then it would be reasonable to hypothesise that it originated from point B. However, if it were found heading towards point B, then the chances are far more likely that it originated from point C.
Furthermore, if, as you suggest, something were to have been ejected from Earth, then the question remains as to how that might have happened in the first place. The most obvious explanation might be that it were brought about by a catastrophic impact by another astral body, which would be quite reasonable - but of course, you also deny that ever having happened as well, don't you.
You see, once you base your entire argument on a false premise, everything else in the argument falls apart. You will note also, that what I have posted here is not personal opinion, but has been supported by links to supporting evidence from different independent sources.
Bacteria need water to live? This is just one example that disproves that.
Life in Asphalt - Astrobiology Magazine
Liquid water at sub-zero temperatures?
Can water stay liquid below zero degrees Celsius? | Science Questions with Surprising Answers
Some bacteria not only live in ice, but freeze it themselves.
Bizarre Ice-Forming Bacteria's Secrets Revealed
The very fact that living bacteria has been found in space proves that they can survive without water or oxygen. Bacteria is also found in hyperarid regions on earth.
Pressure is also a factor in the boiling point / freezing point of water.
Earth is not unique in having liquid water - recent discoveries on Mars have proven that - and Mars is our CLOSEST neighbour. There are other planets with a much denser atmosphere, causing freezing points to be higher. As with much higher gravities.
Even if the bacteria you refer to did originate in liquid water & were supposedly launched into space, that is still nowhere near evidence of their having been launched from Earth. If something at point A is found to be heading away from point B, then it would be reasonable to hypothesise that it originated from point B. However, if it were found heading towards point B, then the chances are far more likely that it originated from point C.
Furthermore, if, as you suggest, something were to have been ejected from Earth, then the question remains as to how that might have happened in the first place. The most obvious explanation might be that it were brought about by a catastrophic impact by another astral body, which would be quite reasonable - but of course, you also deny that ever having happened as well, don't you.
You see, once you base your entire argument on a false premise, everything else in the argument falls apart. You will note also, that what I have posted here is not personal opinion, but has been supported by links to supporting evidence from different independent sources.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1495342 wrote: What about the fact that seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source—and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
And where, pray tell, did you come up with all of that?
While fossil evidence of bacteria has been found in meteorite material, no live bacteria has been recorded on any recent meteorite.
Again, Science. Show us the science.
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source—and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
And where, pray tell, did you come up with all of that?
While fossil evidence of bacteria has been found in meteorite material, no live bacteria has been recorded on any recent meteorite.
Again, Science. Show us the science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Meteoritic Dust
Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young.
[ From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Nickel happens to be the 24th most common element on Earth.
Its presence is directly related to life on Earth.
Biological role
Although not recognized until the 1970s, nickel plays important roles in the biology of microorganisms and plants.[63][64] The plant enzyme urease (an enzyme that assists in the hydrolysis of urea) contains nickel. The NiFe-hydrogenases contain nickel in addition to iron-sulfur clusters. Such [NiFe]-hydrogenases characteristically oxidise H
2. A nickel-tetrapyrrole coenzyme, Cofactor F430, is present in the methyl coenzyme M reductase, which powers methanogenic archaea.[65] One of the carbon monoxide dehydrogenase enzymes consists of an Fe-Ni-S cluster.[66] Other nickel-containing enzymes include a rare bacterial class of superoxide dismutase[67] and glyoxalase I enzymes in bacteria and several parasitic eukaryotic trypanosomal parasites[68] (this enzyme in higher organisms, including yeast and mammals, uses divalent zinc, Zn2+).[69][70][71][72][73]
Nickel can have an impact on human health through infectious diseases arising from nickel-dependent bacteria.[74] Nickel released from Siberian Traps volcanic eruptions (site of the modern city of Norilsk) is suspected of having had a significant impact on the role played by Methanosarcina, a genus of euryarchaeote archaea that produced methane during the biggest extinction event on record.[75]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel)
Next false premise please...
Its presence is directly related to life on Earth.
Biological role
Although not recognized until the 1970s, nickel plays important roles in the biology of microorganisms and plants.[63][64] The plant enzyme urease (an enzyme that assists in the hydrolysis of urea) contains nickel. The NiFe-hydrogenases contain nickel in addition to iron-sulfur clusters. Such [NiFe]-hydrogenases characteristically oxidise H
2. A nickel-tetrapyrrole coenzyme, Cofactor F430, is present in the methyl coenzyme M reductase, which powers methanogenic archaea.[65] One of the carbon monoxide dehydrogenase enzymes consists of an Fe-Ni-S cluster.[66] Other nickel-containing enzymes include a rare bacterial class of superoxide dismutase[67] and glyoxalase I enzymes in bacteria and several parasitic eukaryotic trypanosomal parasites[68] (this enzyme in higher organisms, including yeast and mammals, uses divalent zinc, Zn2+).[69][70][71][72][73]
Nickel can have an impact on human health through infectious diseases arising from nickel-dependent bacteria.[74] Nickel released from Siberian Traps volcanic eruptions (site of the modern city of Norilsk) is suspected of having had a significant impact on the role played by Methanosarcina, a genus of euryarchaeote archaea that produced methane during the biggest extinction event on record.[75]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel)
Next false premise please...
Science Disproves Evolution
Rapid Cooling
If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions for the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth. The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.
[ From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
OK. That has to be one of the dumbest things you have posted, yet.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Does any of that make any sense whatsoever?
Basically the whole phrase could be reworded to be "I do not want to believe the truth, and I will always deny the evidence before me", and it would be far more factually accurate.
Basically the whole phrase could be reworded to be "I do not want to believe the truth, and I will always deny the evidence before me", and it would be far more factually accurate.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart. How true it is.
Science Disproves Evolution
Is it not fear of the truth??? I believe it is for some.
Science Disproves Evolution
Moon Recession
As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first detected this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.5-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than evolutionists assume. [For details, see pages 571–574.]
Figure 32: Young Craters. Large craters on the Moon have high, steep walls that should be slowly slumping and deep floors that should be bulging upward. Little deformation exists, so these craters appear relatively young. Similar conclusions can be drawn for Venus and Mercury.
[ From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ohj!!!
Science Disproves Evolution
These so called scientists are really just wannabees.
Science Disproves Evolution
The orbit of the moon is a highly complex thing. For a start of, the moon is not perfectly balanced - its core is about 2km off centre. This supports the theory of it having been thrown from the earth by a meteor collision. The mass of the moon has the impetus which keeps it in orbit, despite it trying to hurl itself away. Yet the combined gravity of the moon & the earth stop it from doing so. However, despite the distance from earth having been observed as increasing, it has also been observed getting closer. It goes away, then comes back. That is the nature of its slingshot orbit.
Craters on this side of the moon are less sever because they are shielded by the earth. The other side is covered with much deeper craters. As for their supposed to be bulging outward, just where does that logic come from? If you fire a bullet into a sandpit, it leaves an concave crater - not a convex one.
Plus, once again, he erroneously brings in Evolution into the subject of Cosmology. They're not even related in any way, yet at every opportunity he tries to connect one to the other. The moon was probably in orbit long before there was any trace of life on earth, or the meteoric impact the blasted the moon into orbit could have been what introduced the original spores of life to the planet.
Craters on this side of the moon are less sever because they are shielded by the earth. The other side is covered with much deeper craters. As for their supposed to be bulging outward, just where does that logic come from? If you fire a bullet into a sandpit, it leaves an concave crater - not a convex one.
Plus, once again, he erroneously brings in Evolution into the subject of Cosmology. They're not even related in any way, yet at every opportunity he tries to connect one to the other. The moon was probably in orbit long before there was any trace of life on earth, or the meteoric impact the blasted the moon into orbit could have been what introduced the original spores of life to the planet.
Science Disproves Evolution
Real scientists agree that Evolution is a fact. It can be seen. It can be tracked genetically. It is scientifically proven. This pathetic thread is very similar Global Warming and Climate Change Deniers ideas.
Science Disproves Evolution
Vera;1496164 wrote: Real scientists agree that Evolution is a fact. It can be seen. It can be tracked genetically. It is scientifically proven. This pathetic thread is very similar Global Warming and Climate Change Deniers ideas.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
More quotes from people who may be scientists, but no real science in that entire posts.
Given your propensity for taking statements completely out of context, and with no certifications for supposed authors of those statements, all that you have there are some possibly semi-educated opinions.
Given your propensity for taking statements completely out of context, and with no certifications for supposed authors of those statements, all that you have there are some possibly semi-educated opinions.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1496185 wrote: More quotes from people who may be scientists, but no real science in that entire posts.
Given your propensity for taking statements completely out of context, and with no certifications for supposed authors of those statements, all that you have there are some possibly semi-educated opinions.
Please show us where the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Given your propensity for taking statements completely out of context, and with no certifications for supposed authors of those statements, all that you have there are some possibly semi-educated opinions.
Please show us where the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1496218 wrote: Please show us where the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Please show us the quotes within their context.
Please show us the quotes within their context.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Hot Moon
A surprising amount of heat is flowing out of the Moon from just below its surface, and yet the Moon’s interior is relatively cold (a). Because it has not yet cooled off, the Moon is much younger than most people had guessed, or relatively recent events have altered the Moon’s heat flow (b)— or both.
a. “ a somewhat surprising outcome considering the size of the Moon and the assumption that most of its heat energy had been lost....These unexpectedly high lunar [heat flow] values seem to indicate the Moon’s interior is much hotter than most thermal models had anticipated. If the temperature gradient in the lower regolith is extrapolated to great depths, the lunar interior would appear to be at least partly molten—a condition contradicted by other evidence. Nicholas M. Short, Planetary Geology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975), p.184.
u In 2011, the Moon was discovered to have a small liquid core. [See Renee C. Weber et al., “Seismic Detection of the Lunar Core, Science, Vol.331, 21 January 2011, pp.309–312.]
u “Actual values of heat flow determined on the Moon at the Apollo 15 and 17 sites were two and three times higher than had been predicted. Short, p.183.
b. Dr. Kent Davey developed a 40,000 finite element model that considered a body of water 1/2 mile thick at temperature 150°F only 1/2 mile below the Moon’s surface. After 10,000 years that water’s temperature would only have decreased 53°F. Kent Davey, personal communication, 9 November 2015.
c. The unexpectedly large heat flow may be a consequence of large impacts occurring on the lunar surface soon after the global flood. Because the flood was recent (only about 5300 years ago) excess heat should still be present. [See "When Was the Flood?" on page480, Figure164 on page297 and Did the Preflood Earth Have a 30-Day Lunar Month? on page 580.]
Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
A Southwest Research Institute-led team of scientists discovered two geologically young craters -- one 16 million, the other between 75 and 420 million, years old -- in the Moon's darkest regions.
New technique allows scientists to 'age' craters in the darkest regions of the Moon
The huge Procellarum basin on the nearside of the Moon may be a relic scar from an ancient impact event that shaped the lunar surface, reports a study published online this week in Nature Geoscience. Such an impact may explain why the nearside and farside of the Moon are composed of different kinds of rock.
Huge Procellarum basin on the nearside of the moon may be relic scar from ancient impact
New technique allows scientists to 'age' craters in the darkest regions of the Moon
The huge Procellarum basin on the nearside of the Moon may be a relic scar from an ancient impact event that shaped the lunar surface, reports a study published online this week in Nature Geoscience. Such an impact may explain why the nearside and farside of the Moon are composed of different kinds of rock.
Huge Procellarum basin on the nearside of the moon may be relic scar from ancient impact
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Once again the apologetic approach of grasping at straws trying to fit evidence to fit with with an invalid presupposition of a mythical flood. "This is the accepted evidence. However, this evidence has to be flawed because it doesn't tie in with my belief in a flood - except for the bits that might support my belief, that is".
Furthermore, I did some Googling for some more info on Short's quote. Not surprisingly, it only ever seems to come up on Creationist websites relating to brown, and even more on all your "Science Disproves Evolution" threads, scattered around the internet, where you continue to paste the exact same garbage as you do here. There is absolutely no reference to these claims in any genuine scientific source. We have already seen how Brown deliberately takes partial quotes & uses them out of context in order to reverse their original intention.
Furthermore, I did some Googling for some more info on Short's quote. Not surprisingly, it only ever seems to come up on Creationist websites relating to brown, and even more on all your "Science Disproves Evolution" threads, scattered around the internet, where you continue to paste the exact same garbage as you do here. There is absolutely no reference to these claims in any genuine scientific source. We have already seen how Brown deliberately takes partial quotes & uses them out of context in order to reverse their original intention.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1496274 wrote: We have already seen how Brown deliberately takes partial quotes & uses them out of context in order to reverse their original intention.
For example?
For example?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1496280 wrote: For example?
Here is a perfect example:
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1496169
Here is a perfect example:
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1496169
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1496280 wrote: For example?
Let's not go into all that again - for a start, Stephen Hawking - ridiculing the notion of a God - cherry picked to make it look as if he were speaking in support of a God. Brown selects part of a much longer quote. If you can't remember how we have been over this you are either EXTREMELY forgetful, EXTREMELY stupid (yes, I can accept that as an excuse), or a blatant liar, pretending that it never happened.
In the post that Lars points out, where Brown claims that Darwin was not known to be a Creationist - on the contrary - he was very MUCH a Creationist. He had originally even intended on taking Holy Orders. The problem was that he was a true Scientist. He recognised that the evidence before him was in conflict with his beliefs. However, rather than ignore it he changed how he viewed his faith, going on to believe that his God had a much more complex plan introducing Evolution. You see, he believed that Evolution was PART of Creation - not INSTEAD of it.
Let's not go into all that again - for a start, Stephen Hawking - ridiculing the notion of a God - cherry picked to make it look as if he were speaking in support of a God. Brown selects part of a much longer quote. If you can't remember how we have been over this you are either EXTREMELY forgetful, EXTREMELY stupid (yes, I can accept that as an excuse), or a blatant liar, pretending that it never happened.
In the post that Lars points out, where Brown claims that Darwin was not known to be a Creationist - on the contrary - he was very MUCH a Creationist. He had originally even intended on taking Holy Orders. The problem was that he was a true Scientist. He recognised that the evidence before him was in conflict with his beliefs. However, rather than ignore it he changed how he viewed his faith, going on to believe that his God had a much more complex plan introducing Evolution. You see, he believed that Evolution was PART of Creation - not INSTEAD of it.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1496288 wrote: Let's not go into all that again - for a start, Stephen Hawking - ridiculing the notion of a God - cherry picked to make it look as if he were speaking in support of a God. Brown selects part of a much longer quote. If you can't remember how we have been over this you are either EXTREMELY forgetful, EXTREMELY stupid (yes, I can accept that as an excuse), or a blatant liar, pretending that it never happened.
In the post that Lars points out, where Brown claims that Darwin was not known to be a Creationist - on the contrary - he was very MUCH a Creationist. He had originally even intended on taking Holy Orders. The problem was that he was a true Scientist. He recognised that the evidence before him was in conflict with his beliefs. However, rather than ignore it he changed how he viewed his faith, going on to believe that his God had a much more complex plan introducing Evolution. You see, he believed that Evolution was PART of Creation - not INSTEAD of it.
Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin contrasts his theory of natural selection with the theory that God independently created each species. This makes it seem as though the Origin offers a scientific alternative to a theological worldview. A few months after the Origin appeared, however, the eminent anatomist Richard Owen published a review that pointed out the theological assumptions of Darwin's theory. Owen worked in the tradition of rational morphology, within which one might suggest that evolution occurs by processes that are continuous with those by which life arises from matter; in contrast, Darwin rested his account of life's origins on the notion that God created one or a few life forms upon which natural selection could act. Owen argued that Darwin's reliance on God to explain the origins of life makes his version of evolution no less supernatural than the special creationist that Darwin criticizes: although Darwin limits God to one or a few acts of creation, he still relies upon God to explain life's existence.
Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator.1 Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology.2 I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’3
Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence. He labelled himself an agnostic, and gave us his ‘Religious Belief’ in his Autobiography,4 written in 1876 when he was 67.
1. Darwin rejected Genesis as true history
Darwin asserted that different species originated by the extremely slow process of evolution. However, he knew that Genesis taught that God had created plants, animals and man by separate sudden commands. Both premises could not be true. So either his theory or Genesis was in error. Which? He wrote:
‘I had gradually come, by this time [i.e. January 1839, when he was 29—Ed.], to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos [sic], or the beliefs of any barbarian.’4
Comment: Darwin embraced the wrong worldview. The ‘manifestly false history of the world’ is not that recorded in Genesis, but that of his theory and the long ages it requires.
2. Darwin rejected the miraculous in Christianity
Concerning ‘the miracles with which Christianity is supported’, he wrote,
‘[T]he more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these ¦ I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.’4
Comment: Christianity is indeed a religion of miracle. From the creative acts of God recorded in Genesis 1, through the miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egypt in Exodus, to Christ’s many miracles in the Gospels, and the disciples’ miracles in Acts, we see a God at work who is greater than our imagination can devise. He who brought everything into existence by His spoken word (Genesis 1) is certainly later able to legitimately vary what happens in His creation by the exercise of His will.
Darwin’s arguments are philosophically bankrupt. He supposedly knows that all miracle reports are false because he knows that the laws of nature are fixed. However, he can know that the laws of nature are fixed only if he knows in advance that all miracle reports are false. So he is arguing in a circle: he dismisses the miracles by dismissing the sources; but he dismisses the sources because they contain miracles.
He also invokes intellectual snobbery by assuming that Jesus’ contemporaries believed in miracles out of ignorance. However, Joseph (Matthew 1:19) and Mary (Luke 1:34), for example, knew very well how babies are made—needing both a man and a woman, although they did not know certain details about spermatozoa and ova. They questioned the announcements of the Virginal Conception because they did know the facts of life, not because they did not!
Also, miracles are properly considered not as breaks in the laws of nature, but additions to them. So to disprove miracles, Darwin would need to prove that nature is all there is, with no God capable of acting outside the normal laws by which he upholds it (Colossians 1:15 ff.).5
3. Darwin resented the biblical doctrine of future judgment
He wrote,
‘I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.’4
Comment: If Darwin had read his Bible as well as he had read Paley, he would have known that it says: ‘The Lord is ¦ longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance’ (2 Peter 3:9). In fact, by sending the Lord Jesus Christ to die for sin (John 1:29), God the Father provided the way of escape from everlasting punishment.
Darwin also fails to show why the punishment is unjust, relying instead on the fallacy of argument from ‘outrage’. However, a sin against an infinitely holy God is infinitely serious. God’s perfect justice requires that either the finite sinner must endure punishment for an infinite duration, or an infinite Substitute must bear the punishment we deserve. This is fulfilled by the God-man Jesus taking upon Himself the sins of the world (Isaiah 53:6).6
4. Darwin thought that natural selection rendered design redundant
He wrote,
‘The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. ¦ Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.’4,7
Comment: Wrong, Charles. Natural selection is the culling of the ‘unfit’ individuals of a population. This can uncover previously unseen combinations of genes that have always been there since Creation and remain unchanged. However, it can act only on existing genetic information, and cannot produce anything new. It has nothing to do with design. And by the way, you didn’t discover natural selection. Edward Blyth, a creationist, observed it and wrote about it in 1835–1837.8
5. Darwin thought that natural selection, rather than belief in God, could account for both the happiness and the misery in the world
He wrote,
‘If the truth of this conclusion be granted [i.e. that there is more happiness than misery in the world], it harmonises well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree they would neglect to propagate their kind ¦ .’ He then added that many sentient beings ‘occasionally suffer much. Such suffering, is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action ¦ .’ He continued, ‘A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?’4
Comment: Darwin’s views on suffering were highly personalized through the death of his 10-year-old daughter, Annie, in 1851, which ‘destroyed Charles’s tatters of belief in a moral, just universe’ and ‘chimed the final death-knell for his Christianity’.9 But Charles, suffering and death are integral parts of your theory of evolution.
God originally created a perfect world, where there was no violence or pain or death (Genesis 1:29–31). When this sinless world was marred by the rebellion of the first man, Adam’s disobedience brought an intruder into the world—death (Genesis 2:17, cf. 3:19). However, now, because of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, we all can be restored to a right relationship with God and enjoy peace with Him.
This sad outcome for Darwin shows the baneful danger of compromise with the concept of millions of years. Darwin’s main opponents in the Church had views very much like today’s ‘progressive creationists’, who believe that God created species over millions of years. But this view entails that God had created the germ that killed Annie as a deadly pathogen. This contradicts the biblical teaching that death is ‘the last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26) and ‘the wages of sin’ (Romans 6:23). This teaching implies that God had created the germ as a beneficial agent, and that it became deadly only after the Fall.10
6. Darwin discounted the inner conviction of others as evidence for God
He wrote:
‘But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans [sic] and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God. There are also many barbarian tribes who cannot be said with any truth to believe in what we call God: they believe indeed in spirits or ghosts, and it can be explained, as Tyler and Herbert Spencer have shown,11 how such a belief would be likely to arise.’4
Comment: Bible-believing Christians do indeed have an inner conviction about their relationship with God. They have a positive peace with God about their sins (as distinct from a negative mental obliteration of the concept). This is because at the heart of Christianity the penalty for sin has been paid by Christ’s death and resurrection, and so God can justly forgive sin (1 John 1:9) and thus give peace of mind to all those who come to Him through Jesus Christ. Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and animism provide no such assurance, because no other religion has an adequate answer to the sin problem.
The inner conviction of the early Christians would never have been produced were it not backed up by irrefutable historical proof that Jesus rose from the dead. There are at least 17 cultural factors that would have doomed Christianity in the first century if there had not been this proof.12
7. Darwin discounted ‘grand scenes’ (like that of a Brazilian forest) as evidence for God
Comment: In the Bible, David saw evidence in nature that pointed him to God (Psalm 19:1). Darwin had done so too in the Brazilian forest in his mid-20s, but not in later life when he had quenched all such feelings with his evolutionary dogma. As Christians, we should be aware that our feelings go up and down with our moods, our appetite, our health, etc., but our Christian faith depends on what God has said in His Word, the Bible, not on what we feel.
8. Darwin discounted man’s ability to reason
Darwin acknowledged that a ‘First Cause’ was a more impressive idea than blind chance, but then wrote,
‘[C]an the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?’4
Comment: We now know that there is zero chance of the universe being the way it is by accident, and there is zero chance of proteins randomly combining to form life. The best Darwin could do to void the evidence for a First Cause was to invoke his own theory. In fact, the reason why the mind of man can contemplate such things is because man is not an evolved animal, but is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26; James 3:9).
This is something to remember when debating sceptics—given their own evolutionary assumptions, why should we trust their sceptical thoughts to be true? Natural selection works only on survival value, not on logic or truth. C.S. Lewis pointed this out long ago.
9. Darwin thought that belief in God was the result of ‘constant inculcation’ of children
He wrote,
‘t would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.’4
Comment: God made mankind in His image. It is not surprising therefore that children easily believe in God. This even includes children who are NOT inculcated, such as in Japan where most adults don’t think of God as Creator.13 It is also not surprising that in later life many become atheists when they are taught by the government schools and media that they are nothing more than evolved pond scum.
Darwin’s argument commits the genetic fallacy—the error of trying to disprove a belief by tracing it to its source. For example, Kekulé thought up the (correct) ring structure of the benzene (C6H6) molecule after a dream of a snake grasping its tail, but chemists don’t need to worry about correct ophiology to analyse benzene! People can believe the right things for the wrong reasons.
Conclusion
Our faith is based on God’s Word, and no human being will ever be able to prove whether or not God exists (Hebrews 11:6), as that would then make him/her superior to God. Nevertheless Christian faith is not irrational and is supported by logic and reason (Romans 1:18–20, 1 Peter 3:15). Darwin committed logical fallacies, and his arguments against God fail because he disregarded the evidence that God has supplied, both in His Word and in nature.
Darwin’s arguments against God - creation.com
In the post that Lars points out, where Brown claims that Darwin was not known to be a Creationist - on the contrary - he was very MUCH a Creationist. He had originally even intended on taking Holy Orders. The problem was that he was a true Scientist. He recognised that the evidence before him was in conflict with his beliefs. However, rather than ignore it he changed how he viewed his faith, going on to believe that his God had a much more complex plan introducing Evolution. You see, he believed that Evolution was PART of Creation - not INSTEAD of it.
Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin contrasts his theory of natural selection with the theory that God independently created each species. This makes it seem as though the Origin offers a scientific alternative to a theological worldview. A few months after the Origin appeared, however, the eminent anatomist Richard Owen published a review that pointed out the theological assumptions of Darwin's theory. Owen worked in the tradition of rational morphology, within which one might suggest that evolution occurs by processes that are continuous with those by which life arises from matter; in contrast, Darwin rested his account of life's origins on the notion that God created one or a few life forms upon which natural selection could act. Owen argued that Darwin's reliance on God to explain the origins of life makes his version of evolution no less supernatural than the special creationist that Darwin criticizes: although Darwin limits God to one or a few acts of creation, he still relies upon God to explain life's existence.
Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator.1 Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology.2 I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’3
Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence. He labelled himself an agnostic, and gave us his ‘Religious Belief’ in his Autobiography,4 written in 1876 when he was 67.
1. Darwin rejected Genesis as true history
Darwin asserted that different species originated by the extremely slow process of evolution. However, he knew that Genesis taught that God had created plants, animals and man by separate sudden commands. Both premises could not be true. So either his theory or Genesis was in error. Which? He wrote:
‘I had gradually come, by this time [i.e. January 1839, when he was 29—Ed.], to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos [sic], or the beliefs of any barbarian.’4
Comment: Darwin embraced the wrong worldview. The ‘manifestly false history of the world’ is not that recorded in Genesis, but that of his theory and the long ages it requires.
2. Darwin rejected the miraculous in Christianity
Concerning ‘the miracles with which Christianity is supported’, he wrote,
‘[T]he more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these ¦ I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.’4
Comment: Christianity is indeed a religion of miracle. From the creative acts of God recorded in Genesis 1, through the miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egypt in Exodus, to Christ’s many miracles in the Gospels, and the disciples’ miracles in Acts, we see a God at work who is greater than our imagination can devise. He who brought everything into existence by His spoken word (Genesis 1) is certainly later able to legitimately vary what happens in His creation by the exercise of His will.
Darwin’s arguments are philosophically bankrupt. He supposedly knows that all miracle reports are false because he knows that the laws of nature are fixed. However, he can know that the laws of nature are fixed only if he knows in advance that all miracle reports are false. So he is arguing in a circle: he dismisses the miracles by dismissing the sources; but he dismisses the sources because they contain miracles.
He also invokes intellectual snobbery by assuming that Jesus’ contemporaries believed in miracles out of ignorance. However, Joseph (Matthew 1:19) and Mary (Luke 1:34), for example, knew very well how babies are made—needing both a man and a woman, although they did not know certain details about spermatozoa and ova. They questioned the announcements of the Virginal Conception because they did know the facts of life, not because they did not!
Also, miracles are properly considered not as breaks in the laws of nature, but additions to them. So to disprove miracles, Darwin would need to prove that nature is all there is, with no God capable of acting outside the normal laws by which he upholds it (Colossians 1:15 ff.).5
3. Darwin resented the biblical doctrine of future judgment
He wrote,
‘I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.’4
Comment: If Darwin had read his Bible as well as he had read Paley, he would have known that it says: ‘The Lord is ¦ longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance’ (2 Peter 3:9). In fact, by sending the Lord Jesus Christ to die for sin (John 1:29), God the Father provided the way of escape from everlasting punishment.
Darwin also fails to show why the punishment is unjust, relying instead on the fallacy of argument from ‘outrage’. However, a sin against an infinitely holy God is infinitely serious. God’s perfect justice requires that either the finite sinner must endure punishment for an infinite duration, or an infinite Substitute must bear the punishment we deserve. This is fulfilled by the God-man Jesus taking upon Himself the sins of the world (Isaiah 53:6).6
4. Darwin thought that natural selection rendered design redundant
He wrote,
‘The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. ¦ Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.’4,7
Comment: Wrong, Charles. Natural selection is the culling of the ‘unfit’ individuals of a population. This can uncover previously unseen combinations of genes that have always been there since Creation and remain unchanged. However, it can act only on existing genetic information, and cannot produce anything new. It has nothing to do with design. And by the way, you didn’t discover natural selection. Edward Blyth, a creationist, observed it and wrote about it in 1835–1837.8
5. Darwin thought that natural selection, rather than belief in God, could account for both the happiness and the misery in the world
He wrote,
‘If the truth of this conclusion be granted [i.e. that there is more happiness than misery in the world], it harmonises well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree they would neglect to propagate their kind ¦ .’ He then added that many sentient beings ‘occasionally suffer much. Such suffering, is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action ¦ .’ He continued, ‘A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?’4
Comment: Darwin’s views on suffering were highly personalized through the death of his 10-year-old daughter, Annie, in 1851, which ‘destroyed Charles’s tatters of belief in a moral, just universe’ and ‘chimed the final death-knell for his Christianity’.9 But Charles, suffering and death are integral parts of your theory of evolution.
God originally created a perfect world, where there was no violence or pain or death (Genesis 1:29–31). When this sinless world was marred by the rebellion of the first man, Adam’s disobedience brought an intruder into the world—death (Genesis 2:17, cf. 3:19). However, now, because of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, we all can be restored to a right relationship with God and enjoy peace with Him.
This sad outcome for Darwin shows the baneful danger of compromise with the concept of millions of years. Darwin’s main opponents in the Church had views very much like today’s ‘progressive creationists’, who believe that God created species over millions of years. But this view entails that God had created the germ that killed Annie as a deadly pathogen. This contradicts the biblical teaching that death is ‘the last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26) and ‘the wages of sin’ (Romans 6:23). This teaching implies that God had created the germ as a beneficial agent, and that it became deadly only after the Fall.10
6. Darwin discounted the inner conviction of others as evidence for God
He wrote:
‘But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans [sic] and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God. There are also many barbarian tribes who cannot be said with any truth to believe in what we call God: they believe indeed in spirits or ghosts, and it can be explained, as Tyler and Herbert Spencer have shown,11 how such a belief would be likely to arise.’4
Comment: Bible-believing Christians do indeed have an inner conviction about their relationship with God. They have a positive peace with God about their sins (as distinct from a negative mental obliteration of the concept). This is because at the heart of Christianity the penalty for sin has been paid by Christ’s death and resurrection, and so God can justly forgive sin (1 John 1:9) and thus give peace of mind to all those who come to Him through Jesus Christ. Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and animism provide no such assurance, because no other religion has an adequate answer to the sin problem.
The inner conviction of the early Christians would never have been produced were it not backed up by irrefutable historical proof that Jesus rose from the dead. There are at least 17 cultural factors that would have doomed Christianity in the first century if there had not been this proof.12
7. Darwin discounted ‘grand scenes’ (like that of a Brazilian forest) as evidence for God
Comment: In the Bible, David saw evidence in nature that pointed him to God (Psalm 19:1). Darwin had done so too in the Brazilian forest in his mid-20s, but not in later life when he had quenched all such feelings with his evolutionary dogma. As Christians, we should be aware that our feelings go up and down with our moods, our appetite, our health, etc., but our Christian faith depends on what God has said in His Word, the Bible, not on what we feel.
8. Darwin discounted man’s ability to reason
Darwin acknowledged that a ‘First Cause’ was a more impressive idea than blind chance, but then wrote,
‘[C]an the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?’4
Comment: We now know that there is zero chance of the universe being the way it is by accident, and there is zero chance of proteins randomly combining to form life. The best Darwin could do to void the evidence for a First Cause was to invoke his own theory. In fact, the reason why the mind of man can contemplate such things is because man is not an evolved animal, but is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26; James 3:9).
This is something to remember when debating sceptics—given their own evolutionary assumptions, why should we trust their sceptical thoughts to be true? Natural selection works only on survival value, not on logic or truth. C.S. Lewis pointed this out long ago.
9. Darwin thought that belief in God was the result of ‘constant inculcation’ of children
He wrote,
‘t would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.’4
Comment: God made mankind in His image. It is not surprising therefore that children easily believe in God. This even includes children who are NOT inculcated, such as in Japan where most adults don’t think of God as Creator.13 It is also not surprising that in later life many become atheists when they are taught by the government schools and media that they are nothing more than evolved pond scum.
Darwin’s argument commits the genetic fallacy—the error of trying to disprove a belief by tracing it to its source. For example, Kekulé thought up the (correct) ring structure of the benzene (C6H6) molecule after a dream of a snake grasping its tail, but chemists don’t need to worry about correct ophiology to analyse benzene! People can believe the right things for the wrong reasons.
Conclusion
Our faith is based on God’s Word, and no human being will ever be able to prove whether or not God exists (Hebrews 11:6), as that would then make him/her superior to God. Nevertheless Christian faith is not irrational and is supported by logic and reason (Romans 1:18–20, 1 Peter 3:15). Darwin committed logical fallacies, and his arguments against God fail because he disregarded the evidence that God has supplied, both in His Word and in nature.
Darwin’s arguments against God - creation.com
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Well, let's start with 1.
You really believe that Genesis in a factual and scientifically accurate account of the beginning of the Universe?
Is your faith that weak that you cannot consider the alternatives?
You really believe that Genesis in a factual and scientifically accurate account of the beginning of the Universe?
Is your faith that weak that you cannot consider the alternatives?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence