Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
I didn't say he was right, just that he is more right than the dolts who believe the Earth to be a few thousand years old.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517342 wrote: I didn't say he was right, just that he is more right than the dolts who believe the Earth to be a few thousand years old.
But he was refuted. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
A pathetic case for an old earth
by Lita Cosner
Books claiming that science disproves ‘young-earth’ creationism are very common, and books that claim the Bible itself does not mandate a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis are not in short supply either. David Snoke’s book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth ostensibly falls in the latter group, though his main reason for rejecting biblical creation is really uniformitarian ‘science’. Books like these generally don’t pose a threat to informed creationists, and this one is no exception. In fact, Snoke could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had actually taken the time to read more creationist literature; most of the things he cites as problems for creationists have been answered years ago.
First, some clear flaws in the book must be pointed out. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance to think that someone can refute young-earth creationism in any kind of detail in a book less than 200 pages long, and with just over 4 pages of endnotes which cite only half a dozen actual creationist works. The only creationist book he cites is The Genesis Flood, which is over 45 years old. No mention of Refuting Compromise for example that refutes almost all his arguments.1 And the most up-to-date creationist article cited is from 1993. Clearly this is a man at the cutting edge!
Incompetent arrogance
Photo by Warwick Armstrong Skull
Since Snoke accepts the evolutionary dates for Homo sapiens fossils, he must label them as pre-Adamite hominids, though there is no indication that they were any different from modern humans.
He frequently makes assertions outside his area of expertise without citing sources, most notably regarding the Hebrew language and biblical exegesis. If the only places he used sources are where he cited them, he must have an enviable range of expertise outside of his degree in physics, indeed.
Throughout the book, he smears young-earth creationists, depicting them as people who ‘latch on to people with dubious credentials who tell us what we want to hear’ (p. 23), who accuse the secular scientific establishment of conspiracy to cover up young-earth evidence (p. 31) and engage in unethical scientific practices (p. 187). He accuses young-earth creationists of
‘¦ dismiss[ing] any input from science, adopting a young-earth creationist view even if all science says otherwise, and assuming that most scientists are either villains or brainwashed idiots’ (p. 120).
Such mud-slinging, un-supported by actual citations, is inappropriate for any scholarly work. The most ironic accusation he hurled at young-earth creationism was calling it ‘sensational and popular, but with a long record of retractions’ (p. 32). Yet in science, retraction is seen as a positive thing, proof that the scientific method works.
One of the more peculiar arguments attempts to refute the idea that there could be intense geological activity in a short period of time. He states:
Snoke admits that he ‘never would have come up with the view that the earth is millions of years old if [he] had never studied science’, and though he claims to be making a ‘biblical’ case for an old earth, he presents the scientific case before the biblical case!
‘The laws of nature would have to be utterly different in order to allow the preservation of life through such a phase in which energies greater than thousands of atomic bombs were released. Of course, we can always suppose that God did a miracle to preserve life during this time, but there is no mention of either this intense continent-moving time or a miracle of preservation in the biblical texts’ (p. 39).
Of course, God’s Word reveals that Noah’s Flood was a reality, and Jesus affirmed this in Luke 17:26–27, and this is consistent with a continent moving. And Jesus also affirmed that the Ark was the means of preservation. And don’t expect him to interact with the catastrophic plate tectonics ideas of Dr John Baumgardner, who developed the world’s leading supercomputer model of the earth’s crust.2
In other places, carelessly made statements backfire badly. For instance:
‘The fact that Abel raised sheep also seems to indicate that he ate them, since that would be the typical behavior for a Hebrew shepherd’ (p. 65).
Not so; sheep were raised for their milk and wool more than for their meat, and even in later times only the well-to-do could afford to eat much meat. The fact that Abel sacrificed sheep does not mean that he ate meat, and even if people ate meat before the Flood, that doesn’t mean God gave permission before then. Otherwise, why would God bother to tell Noah, ‘Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything,’ if Noah was already eating meat?
He claims that ‘much of the public and many theologians are simply not well equipped to make decisions about the scientific issues’ (p. 43). This is rank hypocrisy given the incompetent dealings with the biblical issues in this book. He also ignores the large number of young-earth creationists who are well equipped, having earned doctorates in relevant scientific disciplines.3,4
Snoke’s main focus is to attempt to prove that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is better than a literal interpretation. In order to intelligently discuss biblical interpretation, one would have to possess basic knowledge of the differences in interpreting the various biblical genres. However, several times he shows apparent ignorance about the difference between interpreting poetry and interpreting narrative genres; for instance, he argues for a non-literal interpretation of some Psalms, and then goes from there to argue that Genesis should also be interpreted figuratively. Of course, vastly different styles of Psalms and Genesis should make it obvious that they should not be interpreted the same way! Genesis has all the verb patterns of Hebrew narrative, while Psalms is full of the parallelisms that characterize Hebrew poetry.5
In another place, he indicated that his ‘interpretation of Genesis 1 in terms of a stage metaphor draws from a famous scene in one of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books’ (p. 136). I am a Lewis fan myself, but I wouldn’t use one of his works of fiction to justify any hermeneutical approach to Genesis! Snoke shows his appreciation of Lewis’s work in another place where he says, ‘As C.S. Lewis said about the lion Aslan, he is good but he is not “safe’, to make the point that ‘God ¦ revels in his terrible power and potential for wrath’ (p. 179).
One of the most arrogant moves in the book is to offer a ‘literal translation’ of Genesis 1–11, without any expertise in the Hebrew language. It truly takes an astounding amount of hubris to claim to know better than the committees of Hebrew scholars who translate the Old Testament into English, while Snoke has no credentials in any biblical discipline whatsoever.
Can death before Adam be biblical?
Snoke spends a lot of time arguing for animal death and carnivory before the Fall. He argues that there is no explicit reference to animals being made carnivorous as an effect of the Fall, and argues thus that they weren’t, that there were always carnivorous animals present as part of God’s ‘very good’ creation. However, we do know from Genesis 1:30 that animals were created vegetarian, while many are no longer vegetarian, and we also know that God finished creation (Genesis 2:3), so it is logical to deduce that some vegetarian animals became carnivorous. As Christian confessions have noted, we are bound to believe both what is explicitly stated in Scripture but also what can be derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. By Snoke’s ‘reasoning’, we should not believe in the vital doctrine of the Trinity, because—as the Jehovah’s Witness cult loves to point out—the word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible (ignoring that the doctrine of the Trinity is).
Also, Snoke is quite hypocritical accusing creationists of believing something that isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture, when his assertion of billions of years is nowhere to be found in the text, nor can it be deduced from its propositions!
It is one thing to argue that there could have been animal death before the Fall, although that contradicts Romans 8:19–22,6 but he still has to account for human remains before Adam. He merely says:
Snoke is quite hypocritical, accusing creationists of believing something that isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture, when his assertion of billions of years is nowhere to be found in the text, nor can it be deduced from its propositions!
‘Archaeological evidence indicates that human-like creatures as far back as a million years ago buried their dead, made tools, and collected pretty things. Of course, we see animals today doing these same things. Elephants mourn their dead, monkeys use tools, and birds collect colorful objects’ (p. 130).
Of course, this is nothing but an elephant hurl. Despite the similarities, the evidence still indicates that ‘modern’ humans appear suddenly, with greatly expanded brain capacity, language and culture. Any humans that Snoke would call pre-Adamite have no characteristics that would distinguish them physically from any normal human, but since Snoke accepts the evolutionary dates for the human fossils, he must label them as non-human.7,8
Snoke spends quite a lot of time criticizing the idea of a global Flood; it is not possible to deal with those arguments in detail here, it is sufficient to point the reader to existing creationist works on the subject; he offers absolutely nothing new, and fails to answer the geological absurdity of a year-long local flood in a half-bowl–shaped terrain like Mesopotamia, or logical absurdities like building an ocean-liner–sized Ark instead of migrating.9
He does do a good job of demolishing certain arguments for young-earth creationism, like the second law of thermodynamics beginning at the Fall, and the moon dust thickness argument. His only problem is that nearly no credible creationist has used those particular arguments for many years now!10
Conclusion
In short, Snoke’s book claims to be a biblical refutation of young-earth creationism, but fails miserably. Instead, he delivers a seemingly endless supply of abusive ad hominem attacks against young-earth creationists, convoluted illogical arguments, sweeping statements made without any evidence and nearly nothing of real substance, while he cites nearly nothing from the actual view he is criticising. This book is so badly written, it should make old-earth creationists ashamed that they hold the same view as David Snoke.
https://creation.com/a-pathetic-case-fo ... refutation
But he was refuted. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
A pathetic case for an old earth
by Lita Cosner
Books claiming that science disproves ‘young-earth’ creationism are very common, and books that claim the Bible itself does not mandate a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis are not in short supply either. David Snoke’s book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth ostensibly falls in the latter group, though his main reason for rejecting biblical creation is really uniformitarian ‘science’. Books like these generally don’t pose a threat to informed creationists, and this one is no exception. In fact, Snoke could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had actually taken the time to read more creationist literature; most of the things he cites as problems for creationists have been answered years ago.
First, some clear flaws in the book must be pointed out. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance to think that someone can refute young-earth creationism in any kind of detail in a book less than 200 pages long, and with just over 4 pages of endnotes which cite only half a dozen actual creationist works. The only creationist book he cites is The Genesis Flood, which is over 45 years old. No mention of Refuting Compromise for example that refutes almost all his arguments.1 And the most up-to-date creationist article cited is from 1993. Clearly this is a man at the cutting edge!
Incompetent arrogance
Photo by Warwick Armstrong Skull
Since Snoke accepts the evolutionary dates for Homo sapiens fossils, he must label them as pre-Adamite hominids, though there is no indication that they were any different from modern humans.
He frequently makes assertions outside his area of expertise without citing sources, most notably regarding the Hebrew language and biblical exegesis. If the only places he used sources are where he cited them, he must have an enviable range of expertise outside of his degree in physics, indeed.
Throughout the book, he smears young-earth creationists, depicting them as people who ‘latch on to people with dubious credentials who tell us what we want to hear’ (p. 23), who accuse the secular scientific establishment of conspiracy to cover up young-earth evidence (p. 31) and engage in unethical scientific practices (p. 187). He accuses young-earth creationists of
‘¦ dismiss[ing] any input from science, adopting a young-earth creationist view even if all science says otherwise, and assuming that most scientists are either villains or brainwashed idiots’ (p. 120).
Such mud-slinging, un-supported by actual citations, is inappropriate for any scholarly work. The most ironic accusation he hurled at young-earth creationism was calling it ‘sensational and popular, but with a long record of retractions’ (p. 32). Yet in science, retraction is seen as a positive thing, proof that the scientific method works.
One of the more peculiar arguments attempts to refute the idea that there could be intense geological activity in a short period of time. He states:
Snoke admits that he ‘never would have come up with the view that the earth is millions of years old if [he] had never studied science’, and though he claims to be making a ‘biblical’ case for an old earth, he presents the scientific case before the biblical case!
‘The laws of nature would have to be utterly different in order to allow the preservation of life through such a phase in which energies greater than thousands of atomic bombs were released. Of course, we can always suppose that God did a miracle to preserve life during this time, but there is no mention of either this intense continent-moving time or a miracle of preservation in the biblical texts’ (p. 39).
Of course, God’s Word reveals that Noah’s Flood was a reality, and Jesus affirmed this in Luke 17:26–27, and this is consistent with a continent moving. And Jesus also affirmed that the Ark was the means of preservation. And don’t expect him to interact with the catastrophic plate tectonics ideas of Dr John Baumgardner, who developed the world’s leading supercomputer model of the earth’s crust.2
In other places, carelessly made statements backfire badly. For instance:
‘The fact that Abel raised sheep also seems to indicate that he ate them, since that would be the typical behavior for a Hebrew shepherd’ (p. 65).
Not so; sheep were raised for their milk and wool more than for their meat, and even in later times only the well-to-do could afford to eat much meat. The fact that Abel sacrificed sheep does not mean that he ate meat, and even if people ate meat before the Flood, that doesn’t mean God gave permission before then. Otherwise, why would God bother to tell Noah, ‘Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything,’ if Noah was already eating meat?
He claims that ‘much of the public and many theologians are simply not well equipped to make decisions about the scientific issues’ (p. 43). This is rank hypocrisy given the incompetent dealings with the biblical issues in this book. He also ignores the large number of young-earth creationists who are well equipped, having earned doctorates in relevant scientific disciplines.3,4
Snoke’s main focus is to attempt to prove that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is better than a literal interpretation. In order to intelligently discuss biblical interpretation, one would have to possess basic knowledge of the differences in interpreting the various biblical genres. However, several times he shows apparent ignorance about the difference between interpreting poetry and interpreting narrative genres; for instance, he argues for a non-literal interpretation of some Psalms, and then goes from there to argue that Genesis should also be interpreted figuratively. Of course, vastly different styles of Psalms and Genesis should make it obvious that they should not be interpreted the same way! Genesis has all the verb patterns of Hebrew narrative, while Psalms is full of the parallelisms that characterize Hebrew poetry.5
In another place, he indicated that his ‘interpretation of Genesis 1 in terms of a stage metaphor draws from a famous scene in one of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books’ (p. 136). I am a Lewis fan myself, but I wouldn’t use one of his works of fiction to justify any hermeneutical approach to Genesis! Snoke shows his appreciation of Lewis’s work in another place where he says, ‘As C.S. Lewis said about the lion Aslan, he is good but he is not “safe’, to make the point that ‘God ¦ revels in his terrible power and potential for wrath’ (p. 179).
One of the most arrogant moves in the book is to offer a ‘literal translation’ of Genesis 1–11, without any expertise in the Hebrew language. It truly takes an astounding amount of hubris to claim to know better than the committees of Hebrew scholars who translate the Old Testament into English, while Snoke has no credentials in any biblical discipline whatsoever.
Can death before Adam be biblical?
Snoke spends a lot of time arguing for animal death and carnivory before the Fall. He argues that there is no explicit reference to animals being made carnivorous as an effect of the Fall, and argues thus that they weren’t, that there were always carnivorous animals present as part of God’s ‘very good’ creation. However, we do know from Genesis 1:30 that animals were created vegetarian, while many are no longer vegetarian, and we also know that God finished creation (Genesis 2:3), so it is logical to deduce that some vegetarian animals became carnivorous. As Christian confessions have noted, we are bound to believe both what is explicitly stated in Scripture but also what can be derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. By Snoke’s ‘reasoning’, we should not believe in the vital doctrine of the Trinity, because—as the Jehovah’s Witness cult loves to point out—the word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible (ignoring that the doctrine of the Trinity is).
Also, Snoke is quite hypocritical accusing creationists of believing something that isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture, when his assertion of billions of years is nowhere to be found in the text, nor can it be deduced from its propositions!
It is one thing to argue that there could have been animal death before the Fall, although that contradicts Romans 8:19–22,6 but he still has to account for human remains before Adam. He merely says:
Snoke is quite hypocritical, accusing creationists of believing something that isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture, when his assertion of billions of years is nowhere to be found in the text, nor can it be deduced from its propositions!
‘Archaeological evidence indicates that human-like creatures as far back as a million years ago buried their dead, made tools, and collected pretty things. Of course, we see animals today doing these same things. Elephants mourn their dead, monkeys use tools, and birds collect colorful objects’ (p. 130).
Of course, this is nothing but an elephant hurl. Despite the similarities, the evidence still indicates that ‘modern’ humans appear suddenly, with greatly expanded brain capacity, language and culture. Any humans that Snoke would call pre-Adamite have no characteristics that would distinguish them physically from any normal human, but since Snoke accepts the evolutionary dates for the human fossils, he must label them as non-human.7,8
Snoke spends quite a lot of time criticizing the idea of a global Flood; it is not possible to deal with those arguments in detail here, it is sufficient to point the reader to existing creationist works on the subject; he offers absolutely nothing new, and fails to answer the geological absurdity of a year-long local flood in a half-bowl–shaped terrain like Mesopotamia, or logical absurdities like building an ocean-liner–sized Ark instead of migrating.9
He does do a good job of demolishing certain arguments for young-earth creationism, like the second law of thermodynamics beginning at the Fall, and the moon dust thickness argument. His only problem is that nearly no credible creationist has used those particular arguments for many years now!10
Conclusion
In short, Snoke’s book claims to be a biblical refutation of young-earth creationism, but fails miserably. Instead, he delivers a seemingly endless supply of abusive ad hominem attacks against young-earth creationists, convoluted illogical arguments, sweeping statements made without any evidence and nearly nothing of real substance, while he cites nearly nothing from the actual view he is criticising. This book is so badly written, it should make old-earth creationists ashamed that they hold the same view as David Snoke.
https://creation.com/a-pathetic-case-fo ... refutation
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517347 wrote: But he was refuted. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
A pathetic case for an old earth
by Lita Cosner
Books claiming that science disproves ‘young-earth’ creationism are very common, and books that claim the Bible itself does not mandate a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis are not in short supply either. David Snoke’s book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth ostensibly falls in the latter group, though his main reason for rejecting biblical creation is really uniformitarian ‘science’. Books like these generally don’t pose a threat to informed creationists, and this one is no exception. In fact, Snoke could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had actually taken the time to read more creationist literature; most of the things he cites as problems for creationists have been answered years ago.
First, some clear flaws in the book must be pointed out. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance to think that someone can refute young-earth creationism in any kind of detail in a book less than 200 pages long, and with just over 4 pages of endnotes which cite only half a dozen actual creationist works. The only creationist book he cites is The Genesis Flood, which is over 45 years old. No mention of Refuting Compromise for example that refutes almost all his arguments.1 And the most up-to-date creationist article cited is from 1993. Clearly this is a man at the cutting edge!
Incompetent arrogance
Photo by Warwick Armstrong Skull
Since Snoke accepts the evolutionary dates for Homo sapiens fossils, he must label them as pre-Adamite hominids, though there is no indication that they were any different from modern humans.
He frequently makes assertions outside his area of expertise without citing sources, most notably regarding the Hebrew language and biblical exegesis. If the only places he used sources are where he cited them, he must have an enviable range of expertise outside of his degree in physics, indeed.
Throughout the book, he smears young-earth creationists, depicting them as people who ‘latch on to people with dubious credentials who tell us what we want to hear’ (p. 23), who accuse the secular scientific establishment of conspiracy to cover up young-earth evidence (p. 31) and engage in unethical scientific practices (p. 187). He accuses young-earth creationists of
‘¦ dismiss[ing] any input from science, adopting a young-earth creationist view even if all science says otherwise, and assuming that most scientists are either villains or brainwashed idiots’ (p. 120).
Such mud-slinging, un-supported by actual citations, is inappropriate for any scholarly work. The most ironic accusation he hurled at young-earth creationism was calling it ‘sensational and popular, but with a long record of retractions’ (p. 32). Yet in science, retraction is seen as a positive thing, proof that the scientific method works.
One of the more peculiar arguments attempts to refute the idea that there could be intense geological activity in a short period of time. He states:
Snoke admits that he ‘never would have come up with the view that the earth is millions of years old if [he] had never studied science’, and though he claims to be making a ‘biblical’ case for an old earth, he presents the scientific case before the biblical case!
‘The laws of nature would have to be utterly different in order to allow the preservation of life through such a phase in which energies greater than thousands of atomic bombs were released. Of course, we can always suppose that God did a miracle to preserve life during this time, but there is no mention of either this intense continent-moving time or a miracle of preservation in the biblical texts’ (p. 39).
Of course, God’s Word reveals that Noah’s Flood was a reality, and Jesus affirmed this in Luke 17:26–27, and this is consistent with a continent moving. And Jesus also affirmed that the Ark was the means of preservation. And don’t expect him to interact with the catastrophic plate tectonics ideas of Dr John Baumgardner, who developed the world’s leading supercomputer model of the earth’s crust.2
In other places, carelessly made statements backfire badly. For instance:
‘The fact that Abel raised sheep also seems to indicate that he ate them, since that would be the typical behavior for a Hebrew shepherd’ (p. 65).
Not so; sheep were raised for their milk and wool more than for their meat, and even in later times only the well-to-do could afford to eat much meat. The fact that Abel sacrificed sheep does not mean that he ate meat, and even if people ate meat before the Flood, that doesn’t mean God gave permission before then. Otherwise, why would God bother to tell Noah, ‘Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything,’ if Noah was already eating meat?
He claims that ‘much of the public and many theologians are simply not well equipped to make decisions about the scientific issues’ (p. 43). This is rank hypocrisy given the incompetent dealings with the biblical issues in this book. He also ignores the large number of young-earth creationists who are well equipped, having earned doctorates in relevant scientific disciplines.3,4
Snoke’s main focus is to attempt to prove that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is better than a literal interpretation. In order to intelligently discuss biblical interpretation, one would have to possess basic knowledge of the differences in interpreting the various biblical genres. However, several times he shows apparent ignorance about the difference between interpreting poetry and interpreting narrative genres; for instance, he argues for a non-literal interpretation of some Psalms, and then goes from there to argue that Genesis should also be interpreted figuratively. Of course, vastly different styles of Psalms and Genesis should make it obvious that they should not be interpreted the same way! Genesis has all the verb patterns of Hebrew narrative, while Psalms is full of the parallelisms that characterize Hebrew poetry.5
In another place, he indicated that his ‘interpretation of Genesis 1 in terms of a stage metaphor draws from a famous scene in one of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books’ (p. 136). I am a Lewis fan myself, but I wouldn’t use one of his works of fiction to justify any hermeneutical approach to Genesis! Snoke shows his appreciation of Lewis’s work in another place where he says, ‘As C.S. Lewis said about the lion Aslan, he is good but he is not “safe’, to make the point that ‘God ¦ revels in his terrible power and potential for wrath’ (p. 179).
One of the most arrogant moves in the book is to offer a ‘literal translation’ of Genesis 1–11, without any expertise in the Hebrew language. It truly takes an astounding amount of hubris to claim to know better than the committees of Hebrew scholars who translate the Old Testament into English, while Snoke has no credentials in any biblical discipline whatsoever.
Can death before Adam be biblical?
Snoke spends a lot of time arguing for animal death and carnivory before the Fall. He argues that there is no explicit reference to animals being made carnivorous as an effect of the Fall, and argues thus that they weren’t, that there were always carnivorous animals present as part of God’s ‘very good’ creation. However, we do know from Genesis 1:30 that animals were created vegetarian, while many are no longer vegetarian, and we also know that God finished creation (Genesis 2:3), so it is logical to deduce that some vegetarian animals became carnivorous. As Christian confessions have noted, we are bound to believe both what is explicitly stated in Scripture but also what can be derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. By Snoke’s ‘reasoning’, we should not believe in the vital doctrine of the Trinity, because—as the Jehovah’s Witness cult loves to point out—the word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible (ignoring that the doctrine of the Trinity is).
Also, Snoke is quite hypocritical accusing creationists of believing something that isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture, when his assertion of billions of years is nowhere to be found in the text, nor can it be deduced from its propositions!
It is one thing to argue that there could have been animal death before the Fall, although that contradicts Romans 8:19–22,6 but he still has to account for human remains before Adam. He merely says:
Snoke is quite hypocritical, accusing creationists of believing something that isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture, when his assertion of billions of years is nowhere to be found in the text, nor can it be deduced from its propositions!
‘Archaeological evidence indicates that human-like creatures as far back as a million years ago buried their dead, made tools, and collected pretty things. Of course, we see animals today doing these same things. Elephants mourn their dead, monkeys use tools, and birds collect colorful objects’ (p. 130).
Of course, this is nothing but an elephant hurl. Despite the similarities, the evidence still indicates that ‘modern’ humans appear suddenly, with greatly expanded brain capacity, language and culture. Any humans that Snoke would call pre-Adamite have no characteristics that would distinguish them physically from any normal human, but since Snoke accepts the evolutionary dates for the human fossils, he must label them as non-human.7,8
Snoke spends quite a lot of time criticizing the idea of a global Flood; it is not possible to deal with those arguments in detail here, it is sufficient to point the reader to existing creationist works on the subject; he offers absolutely nothing new, and fails to answer the geological absurdity of a year-long local flood in a half-bowl–shaped terrain like Mesopotamia, or logical absurdities like building an ocean-liner–sized Ark instead of migrating.9
He does do a good job of demolishing certain arguments for young-earth creationism, like the second law of thermodynamics beginning at the Fall, and the moon dust thickness argument. His only problem is that nearly no credible creationist has used those particular arguments for many years now!10
Conclusion
In short, Snoke’s book claims to be a biblical refutation of young-earth creationism, but fails miserably. Instead, he delivers a seemingly endless supply of abusive ad hominem attacks against young-earth creationists, convoluted illogical arguments, sweeping statements made without any evidence and nearly nothing of real substance, while he cites nearly nothing from the actual view he is criticising. This book is so badly written, it should make old-earth creationists ashamed that they hold the same view as David Snoke.
https://creation.com/a-pathetic-case-fo ... refutation
As far as I am concerned you may as well be arguing to support the Flat Earth notions.
Earth is neither flat, nor young.
And any argument that uses the bible to support a biblical argument has already failed.
A pathetic case for an old earth
by Lita Cosner
Books claiming that science disproves ‘young-earth’ creationism are very common, and books that claim the Bible itself does not mandate a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis are not in short supply either. David Snoke’s book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth ostensibly falls in the latter group, though his main reason for rejecting biblical creation is really uniformitarian ‘science’. Books like these generally don’t pose a threat to informed creationists, and this one is no exception. In fact, Snoke could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had actually taken the time to read more creationist literature; most of the things he cites as problems for creationists have been answered years ago.
First, some clear flaws in the book must be pointed out. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance to think that someone can refute young-earth creationism in any kind of detail in a book less than 200 pages long, and with just over 4 pages of endnotes which cite only half a dozen actual creationist works. The only creationist book he cites is The Genesis Flood, which is over 45 years old. No mention of Refuting Compromise for example that refutes almost all his arguments.1 And the most up-to-date creationist article cited is from 1993. Clearly this is a man at the cutting edge!
Incompetent arrogance
Photo by Warwick Armstrong Skull
Since Snoke accepts the evolutionary dates for Homo sapiens fossils, he must label them as pre-Adamite hominids, though there is no indication that they were any different from modern humans.
He frequently makes assertions outside his area of expertise without citing sources, most notably regarding the Hebrew language and biblical exegesis. If the only places he used sources are where he cited them, he must have an enviable range of expertise outside of his degree in physics, indeed.
Throughout the book, he smears young-earth creationists, depicting them as people who ‘latch on to people with dubious credentials who tell us what we want to hear’ (p. 23), who accuse the secular scientific establishment of conspiracy to cover up young-earth evidence (p. 31) and engage in unethical scientific practices (p. 187). He accuses young-earth creationists of
‘¦ dismiss[ing] any input from science, adopting a young-earth creationist view even if all science says otherwise, and assuming that most scientists are either villains or brainwashed idiots’ (p. 120).
Such mud-slinging, un-supported by actual citations, is inappropriate for any scholarly work. The most ironic accusation he hurled at young-earth creationism was calling it ‘sensational and popular, but with a long record of retractions’ (p. 32). Yet in science, retraction is seen as a positive thing, proof that the scientific method works.
One of the more peculiar arguments attempts to refute the idea that there could be intense geological activity in a short period of time. He states:
Snoke admits that he ‘never would have come up with the view that the earth is millions of years old if [he] had never studied science’, and though he claims to be making a ‘biblical’ case for an old earth, he presents the scientific case before the biblical case!
‘The laws of nature would have to be utterly different in order to allow the preservation of life through such a phase in which energies greater than thousands of atomic bombs were released. Of course, we can always suppose that God did a miracle to preserve life during this time, but there is no mention of either this intense continent-moving time or a miracle of preservation in the biblical texts’ (p. 39).
Of course, God’s Word reveals that Noah’s Flood was a reality, and Jesus affirmed this in Luke 17:26–27, and this is consistent with a continent moving. And Jesus also affirmed that the Ark was the means of preservation. And don’t expect him to interact with the catastrophic plate tectonics ideas of Dr John Baumgardner, who developed the world’s leading supercomputer model of the earth’s crust.2
In other places, carelessly made statements backfire badly. For instance:
‘The fact that Abel raised sheep also seems to indicate that he ate them, since that would be the typical behavior for a Hebrew shepherd’ (p. 65).
Not so; sheep were raised for their milk and wool more than for their meat, and even in later times only the well-to-do could afford to eat much meat. The fact that Abel sacrificed sheep does not mean that he ate meat, and even if people ate meat before the Flood, that doesn’t mean God gave permission before then. Otherwise, why would God bother to tell Noah, ‘Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything,’ if Noah was already eating meat?
He claims that ‘much of the public and many theologians are simply not well equipped to make decisions about the scientific issues’ (p. 43). This is rank hypocrisy given the incompetent dealings with the biblical issues in this book. He also ignores the large number of young-earth creationists who are well equipped, having earned doctorates in relevant scientific disciplines.3,4
Snoke’s main focus is to attempt to prove that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is better than a literal interpretation. In order to intelligently discuss biblical interpretation, one would have to possess basic knowledge of the differences in interpreting the various biblical genres. However, several times he shows apparent ignorance about the difference between interpreting poetry and interpreting narrative genres; for instance, he argues for a non-literal interpretation of some Psalms, and then goes from there to argue that Genesis should also be interpreted figuratively. Of course, vastly different styles of Psalms and Genesis should make it obvious that they should not be interpreted the same way! Genesis has all the verb patterns of Hebrew narrative, while Psalms is full of the parallelisms that characterize Hebrew poetry.5
In another place, he indicated that his ‘interpretation of Genesis 1 in terms of a stage metaphor draws from a famous scene in one of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books’ (p. 136). I am a Lewis fan myself, but I wouldn’t use one of his works of fiction to justify any hermeneutical approach to Genesis! Snoke shows his appreciation of Lewis’s work in another place where he says, ‘As C.S. Lewis said about the lion Aslan, he is good but he is not “safe’, to make the point that ‘God ¦ revels in his terrible power and potential for wrath’ (p. 179).
One of the most arrogant moves in the book is to offer a ‘literal translation’ of Genesis 1–11, without any expertise in the Hebrew language. It truly takes an astounding amount of hubris to claim to know better than the committees of Hebrew scholars who translate the Old Testament into English, while Snoke has no credentials in any biblical discipline whatsoever.
Can death before Adam be biblical?
Snoke spends a lot of time arguing for animal death and carnivory before the Fall. He argues that there is no explicit reference to animals being made carnivorous as an effect of the Fall, and argues thus that they weren’t, that there were always carnivorous animals present as part of God’s ‘very good’ creation. However, we do know from Genesis 1:30 that animals were created vegetarian, while many are no longer vegetarian, and we also know that God finished creation (Genesis 2:3), so it is logical to deduce that some vegetarian animals became carnivorous. As Christian confessions have noted, we are bound to believe both what is explicitly stated in Scripture but also what can be derived by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. By Snoke’s ‘reasoning’, we should not believe in the vital doctrine of the Trinity, because—as the Jehovah’s Witness cult loves to point out—the word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible (ignoring that the doctrine of the Trinity is).
Also, Snoke is quite hypocritical accusing creationists of believing something that isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture, when his assertion of billions of years is nowhere to be found in the text, nor can it be deduced from its propositions!
It is one thing to argue that there could have been animal death before the Fall, although that contradicts Romans 8:19–22,6 but he still has to account for human remains before Adam. He merely says:
Snoke is quite hypocritical, accusing creationists of believing something that isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture, when his assertion of billions of years is nowhere to be found in the text, nor can it be deduced from its propositions!
‘Archaeological evidence indicates that human-like creatures as far back as a million years ago buried their dead, made tools, and collected pretty things. Of course, we see animals today doing these same things. Elephants mourn their dead, monkeys use tools, and birds collect colorful objects’ (p. 130).
Of course, this is nothing but an elephant hurl. Despite the similarities, the evidence still indicates that ‘modern’ humans appear suddenly, with greatly expanded brain capacity, language and culture. Any humans that Snoke would call pre-Adamite have no characteristics that would distinguish them physically from any normal human, but since Snoke accepts the evolutionary dates for the human fossils, he must label them as non-human.7,8
Snoke spends quite a lot of time criticizing the idea of a global Flood; it is not possible to deal with those arguments in detail here, it is sufficient to point the reader to existing creationist works on the subject; he offers absolutely nothing new, and fails to answer the geological absurdity of a year-long local flood in a half-bowl–shaped terrain like Mesopotamia, or logical absurdities like building an ocean-liner–sized Ark instead of migrating.9
He does do a good job of demolishing certain arguments for young-earth creationism, like the second law of thermodynamics beginning at the Fall, and the moon dust thickness argument. His only problem is that nearly no credible creationist has used those particular arguments for many years now!10
Conclusion
In short, Snoke’s book claims to be a biblical refutation of young-earth creationism, but fails miserably. Instead, he delivers a seemingly endless supply of abusive ad hominem attacks against young-earth creationists, convoluted illogical arguments, sweeping statements made without any evidence and nearly nothing of real substance, while he cites nearly nothing from the actual view he is criticising. This book is so badly written, it should make old-earth creationists ashamed that they hold the same view as David Snoke.
https://creation.com/a-pathetic-case-fo ... refutation
As far as I am concerned you may as well be arguing to support the Flat Earth notions.
Earth is neither flat, nor young.
And any argument that uses the bible to support a biblical argument has already failed.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517348 wrote: As far as I am concerned you may as well be arguing to support the Flat Earth notions.
Earth is neither flat, nor young.
And any argument that uses the bible to support a biblical argument has already failed.
Why do you believe that? It is true the earth is not flat, as the Bible and science teaches. It is also true that the earth is only about 6000 years old, as the Bible and science teaches. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
How old is the earth?
Evolutionists fallaciously think that billions of years of time makes particles-to-people evolution possible. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.
On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.
This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.
The rocks
The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33:
Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials.
The ‘deep time’ indoctrination comes with the statement ‘often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.’ However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (‘the present is the key to the past’) is often called uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word ‘uniformitarianism’ has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called ‘methodological uniformitarianism,’ as opposed to what some have called ‘substantive uniformitarianism.’
It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general ‘slow and gradual’ principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood.
However, a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized.
Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet (7.6 meters) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!1 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet (about 1 meter) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field. Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles.2,3
In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together.4 The journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.5
So when we start from the bias that the Bible is God’s Word and is thus true, we can derive reasonable interpretations of the data. Not that every problem has been solved, but many of them have been.
Conversely, how does the ‘slow and gradual’ explanation fare? Think how long dead organisms normally last. Scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet Teaching about Evolution has a photo of a fossil jellyfish on page 36. It clearly couldn’t have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to have been cemented together, and so hardened quickly.
The booklet Stones and Bones6 shows other fossils that must have formed rapidly. One is a 7-foot (2m) long ichthyosaur (extinct fish-shaped marine reptile) fossilized while giving birth. Another is a fish fossilized in the middle of its lunch. And there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers (hence the term polystrate fossil). If the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even hundreds of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away.
Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been ‘catastrophic floods’ on Mars7 that carved out canyons8 although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence.
Radiometric dating
As shown above, the evidence from the geological record is consistent with catastrophes, and there are many features that are hard to explain by slow and gradual processes. However, evolutionists point to dating methods that allegedly support deep time. The best known is radiometric dating. This is accurately described on page 35 of Teaching about Evolution:
Some elements, such as uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce other elements. By measuring the quantities of radioactive elements and the elements into which they decay in rocks, geologists can determine how much time has elapsed since the rock has cooled from an initially molten state.
However, the deep time ‘determination’ is an interpretation; the actual scientific data are isotope ratios. Each chemical element usually has several different forms, or isotopes, which have different masses. There are other possible interpretations, depending on the assumptions. This can be illustrated with an hourglass. When it is up-ended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was up-ended from the quantities of sand in both containers and the flow rate. Or can we? First, we must assume three things:
Hourglass illustration
An hourglass ‘clock’ tells us the elapsed time by comparing the amount of sand in the top bowl (‘Parent’) with the amount in the bottom bowl (‘Daughter’).
We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level.
The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate.
The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.
Teaching about Evolution addresses assumption 2:
For example, it requires that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over time and is not influenced by such factors as temperature and pressure—conclusions supported by extensive research in physics.
It is true that in today’s world, radioactive decay rates seem constant, and are unaffected by heat or pressure. However, we have tested decay rates for only about 100 years, so we can’t be sure that they were constant over the alleged billions of years. Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys suggests that decay rates were faster during creation week, and have remained constant since then. There is some basis for this, for example radiohalo analysis, but it is still tentative.
Teaching about Evolution also addresses assumption 3:
It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.
This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.
Anomalies
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14
The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15
Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17
The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1½ inches (4 cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.19
A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the booklet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.
Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’20 Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.
https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
Earth is neither flat, nor young.
And any argument that uses the bible to support a biblical argument has already failed.
Why do you believe that? It is true the earth is not flat, as the Bible and science teaches. It is also true that the earth is only about 6000 years old, as the Bible and science teaches. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
How old is the earth?
Evolutionists fallaciously think that billions of years of time makes particles-to-people evolution possible. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.
On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.
This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.
The rocks
The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33:
Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials.
The ‘deep time’ indoctrination comes with the statement ‘often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.’ However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (‘the present is the key to the past’) is often called uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word ‘uniformitarianism’ has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called ‘methodological uniformitarianism,’ as opposed to what some have called ‘substantive uniformitarianism.’
It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general ‘slow and gradual’ principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood.
However, a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized.
Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet (7.6 meters) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!1 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet (about 1 meter) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field. Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles.2,3
In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together.4 The journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.5
So when we start from the bias that the Bible is God’s Word and is thus true, we can derive reasonable interpretations of the data. Not that every problem has been solved, but many of them have been.
Conversely, how does the ‘slow and gradual’ explanation fare? Think how long dead organisms normally last. Scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet Teaching about Evolution has a photo of a fossil jellyfish on page 36. It clearly couldn’t have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to have been cemented together, and so hardened quickly.
The booklet Stones and Bones6 shows other fossils that must have formed rapidly. One is a 7-foot (2m) long ichthyosaur (extinct fish-shaped marine reptile) fossilized while giving birth. Another is a fish fossilized in the middle of its lunch. And there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers (hence the term polystrate fossil). If the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even hundreds of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away.
Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been ‘catastrophic floods’ on Mars7 that carved out canyons8 although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence.
Radiometric dating
As shown above, the evidence from the geological record is consistent with catastrophes, and there are many features that are hard to explain by slow and gradual processes. However, evolutionists point to dating methods that allegedly support deep time. The best known is radiometric dating. This is accurately described on page 35 of Teaching about Evolution:
Some elements, such as uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce other elements. By measuring the quantities of radioactive elements and the elements into which they decay in rocks, geologists can determine how much time has elapsed since the rock has cooled from an initially molten state.
However, the deep time ‘determination’ is an interpretation; the actual scientific data are isotope ratios. Each chemical element usually has several different forms, or isotopes, which have different masses. There are other possible interpretations, depending on the assumptions. This can be illustrated with an hourglass. When it is up-ended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was up-ended from the quantities of sand in both containers and the flow rate. Or can we? First, we must assume three things:
Hourglass illustration
An hourglass ‘clock’ tells us the elapsed time by comparing the amount of sand in the top bowl (‘Parent’) with the amount in the bottom bowl (‘Daughter’).
We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level.
The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate.
The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.
Teaching about Evolution addresses assumption 2:
For example, it requires that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over time and is not influenced by such factors as temperature and pressure—conclusions supported by extensive research in physics.
It is true that in today’s world, radioactive decay rates seem constant, and are unaffected by heat or pressure. However, we have tested decay rates for only about 100 years, so we can’t be sure that they were constant over the alleged billions of years. Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys suggests that decay rates were faster during creation week, and have remained constant since then. There is some basis for this, for example radiohalo analysis, but it is still tentative.
Teaching about Evolution also addresses assumption 3:
It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.
This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.
Anomalies
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14
The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15
Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17
The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1½ inches (4 cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.19
A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the booklet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.
Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’20 Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.
https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517349 wrote: Why do you believe that? It is true the earth is not flat, as the Bible and science teaches. It is also true that the earth is only about 6000 years old, as the Bible and science teaches. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
How old is the earth?
Evolutionists fallaciously think that billions of years of time makes particles-to-people evolution possible. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.
On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.
This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.
The rocks
The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33:
Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials.
The ‘deep time’ indoctrination comes with the statement ‘often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.’ However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (‘the present is the key to the past’) is often called uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word ‘uniformitarianism’ has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called ‘methodological uniformitarianism,’ as opposed to what some have called ‘substantive uniformitarianism.’
It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general ‘slow and gradual’ principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood.
However, a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized.
Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet (7.6 meters) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!1 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet (about 1 meter) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field. Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles.2,3
In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together.4 The journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.5
So when we start from the bias that the Bible is God’s Word and is thus true, we can derive reasonable interpretations of the data. Not that every problem has been solved, but many of them have been.
Conversely, how does the ‘slow and gradual’ explanation fare? Think how long dead organisms normally last. Scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet Teaching about Evolution has a photo of a fossil jellyfish on page 36. It clearly couldn’t have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to have been cemented together, and so hardened quickly.
The booklet Stones and Bones6 shows other fossils that must have formed rapidly. One is a 7-foot (2m) long ichthyosaur (extinct fish-shaped marine reptile) fossilized while giving birth. Another is a fish fossilized in the middle of its lunch. And there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers (hence the term polystrate fossil). If the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even hundreds of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away.
Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been ‘catastrophic floods’ on Mars7 that carved out canyons8 although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence.
Radiometric dating
As shown above, the evidence from the geological record is consistent with catastrophes, and there are many features that are hard to explain by slow and gradual processes. However, evolutionists point to dating methods that allegedly support deep time. The best known is radiometric dating. This is accurately described on page 35 of Teaching about Evolution:
Some elements, such as uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce other elements. By measuring the quantities of radioactive elements and the elements into which they decay in rocks, geologists can determine how much time has elapsed since the rock has cooled from an initially molten state.
However, the deep time ‘determination’ is an interpretation; the actual scientific data are isotope ratios. Each chemical element usually has several different forms, or isotopes, which have different masses. There are other possible interpretations, depending on the assumptions. This can be illustrated with an hourglass. When it is up-ended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was up-ended from the quantities of sand in both containers and the flow rate. Or can we? First, we must assume three things:
Hourglass illustration
An hourglass ‘clock’ tells us the elapsed time by comparing the amount of sand in the top bowl (‘Parent’) with the amount in the bottom bowl (‘Daughter’).
We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level.
The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate.
The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.
Teaching about Evolution addresses assumption 2:
For example, it requires that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over time and is not influenced by such factors as temperature and pressure—conclusions supported by extensive research in physics.
It is true that in today’s world, radioactive decay rates seem constant, and are unaffected by heat or pressure. However, we have tested decay rates for only about 100 years, so we can’t be sure that they were constant over the alleged billions of years. Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys suggests that decay rates were faster during creation week, and have remained constant since then. There is some basis for this, for example radiohalo analysis, but it is still tentative.
Teaching about Evolution also addresses assumption 3:
It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.
This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.
Anomalies
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14
The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15
Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17
The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1½ inches (4 cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.19
A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the booklet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.
Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’20 Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.
https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
Sorry, but the Bible does not "Teach" anything. And it is NOT a science book.
There is no Science in the Bible. There never was any science in the Bible, and God does not care how old we think the earth may be or how we got here. If you're wrapped up in all that, you've pretty much missed the point.
How old is the earth?
Evolutionists fallaciously think that billions of years of time makes particles-to-people evolution possible. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.
On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.
This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.
The rocks
The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33:
Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials.
The ‘deep time’ indoctrination comes with the statement ‘often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.’ However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (‘the present is the key to the past’) is often called uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word ‘uniformitarianism’ has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called ‘methodological uniformitarianism,’ as opposed to what some have called ‘substantive uniformitarianism.’
It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general ‘slow and gradual’ principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood.
However, a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized.
Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet (7.6 meters) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!1 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet (about 1 meter) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field. Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles.2,3
In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together.4 The journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.5
So when we start from the bias that the Bible is God’s Word and is thus true, we can derive reasonable interpretations of the data. Not that every problem has been solved, but many of them have been.
Conversely, how does the ‘slow and gradual’ explanation fare? Think how long dead organisms normally last. Scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet Teaching about Evolution has a photo of a fossil jellyfish on page 36. It clearly couldn’t have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to have been cemented together, and so hardened quickly.
The booklet Stones and Bones6 shows other fossils that must have formed rapidly. One is a 7-foot (2m) long ichthyosaur (extinct fish-shaped marine reptile) fossilized while giving birth. Another is a fish fossilized in the middle of its lunch. And there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers (hence the term polystrate fossil). If the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even hundreds of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away.
Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been ‘catastrophic floods’ on Mars7 that carved out canyons8 although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence.
Radiometric dating
As shown above, the evidence from the geological record is consistent with catastrophes, and there are many features that are hard to explain by slow and gradual processes. However, evolutionists point to dating methods that allegedly support deep time. The best known is radiometric dating. This is accurately described on page 35 of Teaching about Evolution:
Some elements, such as uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce other elements. By measuring the quantities of radioactive elements and the elements into which they decay in rocks, geologists can determine how much time has elapsed since the rock has cooled from an initially molten state.
However, the deep time ‘determination’ is an interpretation; the actual scientific data are isotope ratios. Each chemical element usually has several different forms, or isotopes, which have different masses. There are other possible interpretations, depending on the assumptions. This can be illustrated with an hourglass. When it is up-ended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was up-ended from the quantities of sand in both containers and the flow rate. Or can we? First, we must assume three things:
Hourglass illustration
An hourglass ‘clock’ tells us the elapsed time by comparing the amount of sand in the top bowl (‘Parent’) with the amount in the bottom bowl (‘Daughter’).
We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level.
The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate.
The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.
Teaching about Evolution addresses assumption 2:
For example, it requires that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over time and is not influenced by such factors as temperature and pressure—conclusions supported by extensive research in physics.
It is true that in today’s world, radioactive decay rates seem constant, and are unaffected by heat or pressure. However, we have tested decay rates for only about 100 years, so we can’t be sure that they were constant over the alleged billions of years. Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys suggests that decay rates were faster during creation week, and have remained constant since then. There is some basis for this, for example radiohalo analysis, but it is still tentative.
Teaching about Evolution also addresses assumption 3:
It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.
This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.
Anomalies
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14
The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15
Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17
The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1½ inches (4 cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.19
A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the booklet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.
Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’20 Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.
https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
Sorry, but the Bible does not "Teach" anything. And it is NOT a science book.
There is no Science in the Bible. There never was any science in the Bible, and God does not care how old we think the earth may be or how we got here. If you're wrapped up in all that, you've pretty much missed the point.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517350 wrote: Sorry, but the Bible does not "Teach" anything. And it is NOT a science book.
There is no Science in the Bible. There never was any science in the Bible, and God does not care how old we think the earth may be or how we got here. If you're wrapped up in all that, you've pretty much missed the point.
The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
There is no Science in the Bible. There never was any science in the Bible, and God does not care how old we think the earth may be or how we got here. If you're wrapped up in all that, you've pretty much missed the point.
The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Just as expected Pahu continues to say "The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.", followed by countless pastes to be scrolled past, but has still failed to meet my challenge.
Just to remind you - IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITHOUT PASTING define precisely which disciplines of science have disproved anything to do with evolution & in which way. I have already listed the Disciplines of Science for you. Essentially, all you need do is fill in the form. However, as I also stated, failure to do so defaults to an admission that you are wrong & that the Disciplines of Science have NOT disproved Evolution. We all know you can't meet the challenge, because your claim is totally bogus.
Just to remind you - IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITHOUT PASTING define precisely which disciplines of science have disproved anything to do with evolution & in which way. I have already listed the Disciplines of Science for you. Essentially, all you need do is fill in the form. However, as I also stated, failure to do so defaults to an admission that you are wrong & that the Disciplines of Science have NOT disproved Evolution. We all know you can't meet the challenge, because your claim is totally bogus.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517370 wrote: The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
Well I spent some time browsing through those links, and find nothing even remotely "scientific"
Your statement is categorically false.
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
Well I spent some time browsing through those links, and find nothing even remotely "scientific"
Your statement is categorically false.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Good grief all those useless posts of cut and paste. What BS
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac you actually took the time to read some of that nonsense! LOL
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1517374 wrote: Just as expected Pahu continues to say "The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.", followed by countless pastes to be scrolled past, but has still failed to meet my challenge.
Just to remind you - IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITHOUT PASTING define precisely which disciplines of science have disproved anything to do with evolution & in which way. I have already listed the Disciplines of Science for you. Essentially, all you need do is fill in the form. However, as I also stated, failure to do so defaults to an admission that you are wrong & that the Disciplines of Science have NOT disproved Evolution. We all know you can't meet the challenge, because your claim is totally bogus.
You want me to abandon science for my opinions. I prefer the facts of science. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Tail-gliding Bugs Are Not Evidence for Flight Evolution
Researchers recently announced that they have unlocked some of the mystery surrounding the evolution of insect flight.1 Their observance of a certain wingless insect led them to hypothesize that its “directed aerial descent might be an important stage in flight evolution. But is it?
Bristletails, a kind of wingless arthropod, were dusted with fluorescent orange powder (to keep track of them) and then dropped from the Amazon Conservatory for Tropical Studies canopy walkway near Iquitos, Peru, as well as from jungle tree canopies at Barro Colorado Island, Panama, and Gamba, Gabon. They were observed using the little barbs sticking out of their tails to guide their descent, thus increasing their chances of landing in a neighboring tree. The scientists then cut these barbs off and determined that this markedly reduced the numbers of bristletails reaching nearby tree trunks.
After this research was published in a prestigious journal, the scientific press and evolutionary community thought this discovery could help explain the evolution of flight. But how relevant to flight are the bristletails’ bristles really?
The origin of flight across the animal kingdom is perhaps one of the most obvious problems in the evolutionary scenario. Flight supposedly developed on at least five different occasions in the following groups: a wide array of insects, bats, dinosaurs, and an immense variety of birds. Not only is it a real stretch to explain how flight could have evolved across the animal spectrum spontaneously in multiple events, but at the time it supposedly happened the various types of wings and supporting body structures appear in the fossil record fully formed, functional, and ready to fly.
In fossilized animals, there are no undisputed transitional forms that have wings that are partially developed and considered to be “precursor wings. The evolution of fully-functional wings would have required hundreds of beneficial mutations to have occurred simultaneously in both genders via massive changes in complex developmental gene networks. Random processes don’t stand a chance of accomplishing such a feat. Even if it did happen, semi-developed, non-functional wings would provide little adaptive benefit to an animal.
Another consideration is that wings of all types in the animal kingdom must have proper support structures, bone structures, and accompanying musculature as well. It is not just enough to have a set of wings—the entire frame of the animal must be geared for flight.
Natural selection would actually cull out animals with partially developed structures because such features tend to hinder survival in the wild. This rules out any type of slow and gradual evolution of wings and support structures. Thus, there is neither any direct evidence for flight evolution, nor any credible naturalistic story of flight’s origin.
The observed, wide variety of flying creatures, whose design is so effective that it is studied and copied by air and space engineers, testifies of a wise Creator who made “every winged fowl after [its] kind: and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21).
Tail-gliding Bugs Are Not Evidence for Flight Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
Just to remind you - IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITHOUT PASTING define precisely which disciplines of science have disproved anything to do with evolution & in which way. I have already listed the Disciplines of Science for you. Essentially, all you need do is fill in the form. However, as I also stated, failure to do so defaults to an admission that you are wrong & that the Disciplines of Science have NOT disproved Evolution. We all know you can't meet the challenge, because your claim is totally bogus.
You want me to abandon science for my opinions. I prefer the facts of science. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Tail-gliding Bugs Are Not Evidence for Flight Evolution
Researchers recently announced that they have unlocked some of the mystery surrounding the evolution of insect flight.1 Their observance of a certain wingless insect led them to hypothesize that its “directed aerial descent might be an important stage in flight evolution. But is it?
Bristletails, a kind of wingless arthropod, were dusted with fluorescent orange powder (to keep track of them) and then dropped from the Amazon Conservatory for Tropical Studies canopy walkway near Iquitos, Peru, as well as from jungle tree canopies at Barro Colorado Island, Panama, and Gamba, Gabon. They were observed using the little barbs sticking out of their tails to guide their descent, thus increasing their chances of landing in a neighboring tree. The scientists then cut these barbs off and determined that this markedly reduced the numbers of bristletails reaching nearby tree trunks.
After this research was published in a prestigious journal, the scientific press and evolutionary community thought this discovery could help explain the evolution of flight. But how relevant to flight are the bristletails’ bristles really?
The origin of flight across the animal kingdom is perhaps one of the most obvious problems in the evolutionary scenario. Flight supposedly developed on at least five different occasions in the following groups: a wide array of insects, bats, dinosaurs, and an immense variety of birds. Not only is it a real stretch to explain how flight could have evolved across the animal spectrum spontaneously in multiple events, but at the time it supposedly happened the various types of wings and supporting body structures appear in the fossil record fully formed, functional, and ready to fly.
In fossilized animals, there are no undisputed transitional forms that have wings that are partially developed and considered to be “precursor wings. The evolution of fully-functional wings would have required hundreds of beneficial mutations to have occurred simultaneously in both genders via massive changes in complex developmental gene networks. Random processes don’t stand a chance of accomplishing such a feat. Even if it did happen, semi-developed, non-functional wings would provide little adaptive benefit to an animal.
Another consideration is that wings of all types in the animal kingdom must have proper support structures, bone structures, and accompanying musculature as well. It is not just enough to have a set of wings—the entire frame of the animal must be geared for flight.
Natural selection would actually cull out animals with partially developed structures because such features tend to hinder survival in the wild. This rules out any type of slow and gradual evolution of wings and support structures. Thus, there is neither any direct evidence for flight evolution, nor any credible naturalistic story of flight’s origin.
The observed, wide variety of flying creatures, whose design is so effective that it is studied and copied by air and space engineers, testifies of a wise Creator who made “every winged fowl after [its] kind: and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21).
Tail-gliding Bugs Are Not Evidence for Flight Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1517376 wrote: Good grief all those useless posts of cut and paste. What BS
It's not as if it's anything new. It's the same old BS he's pasted 100s of times before. Does he really believe anyone takes the slightest bit of notice of them? I know for me it's just a case of see the pastes & scroll right past. None of them have ever contained a single piece of relevant information, and no matter how many times it's pasted isn't going to change that.
He keeps on about the Disciplines of Science having disproved Evolution, yet he can't say in what way. I have provided him with a list of those Disciplines of Science, as well as having listed against every single one how those Disciplines have REINFORCED Evolution. I continue to challenge him to list how those same Disciplines has disproved anything. So far he has not replied to my challenge once. All he has done is to repeat his claim followed by more irrelevant pasting.
When making such a claim, the onus of proof is on the claimant. Therefore, I say again, if he cannot fulfill my challenge to quantify his claim, then he is conceding defeat by default.
Come on Pahu - do it. And the first part of the challenge stands. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITH NO PASTING. I know you can't do it. You know you can't do it. Why? Because it's total BS. If you can't copy & paste you are totally out of your depth. You don't have a clue about the Disciplines of Science or how they operate.
It's not as if it's anything new. It's the same old BS he's pasted 100s of times before. Does he really believe anyone takes the slightest bit of notice of them? I know for me it's just a case of see the pastes & scroll right past. None of them have ever contained a single piece of relevant information, and no matter how many times it's pasted isn't going to change that.
He keeps on about the Disciplines of Science having disproved Evolution, yet he can't say in what way. I have provided him with a list of those Disciplines of Science, as well as having listed against every single one how those Disciplines have REINFORCED Evolution. I continue to challenge him to list how those same Disciplines has disproved anything. So far he has not replied to my challenge once. All he has done is to repeat his claim followed by more irrelevant pasting.
When making such a claim, the onus of proof is on the claimant. Therefore, I say again, if he cannot fulfill my challenge to quantify his claim, then he is conceding defeat by default.
Come on Pahu - do it. And the first part of the challenge stands. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITH NO PASTING. I know you can't do it. You know you can't do it. Why? Because it's total BS. If you can't copy & paste you are totally out of your depth. You don't have a clue about the Disciplines of Science or how they operate.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1517382 wrote: It's not as if it's anything new. It's the same old BS he's pasted 100s of times before. Does he really believe anyone takes the slightest bit of notice of them? I know for me it's just a case of see the pastes & scroll right past. None of them have ever contained a single piece of relevant information, and no matter how many times it's pasted isn't going to change that.
He keeps on about the Disciplines of Science having disproved Evolution, yet he can't say in what way. I have provided him with a list of those Disciplines of Science, as well as having listed against every single one how those Disciplines have REINFORCED Evolution. I continue to challenge him to list how those same Disciplines has disproved anything. So far he has not replied to my challenge once. All he has done is to repeat his claim followed by more irrelevant pasting.
When making such a claim, the onus of proof is on the claimant. Therefore, I say again, if he cannot fulfill my challenge to quantify his claim, then he is conceding defeat by default.
Come on Pahu - do it. And the first part of the challenge stands. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITH NO PASTING. I know you can't do it. You know you can't do it. Why? Because it's total BS. If you can't copy & paste you are totally out of your depth. You don't have a clue about the Disciplines of Science or how they operate.
You want me to abandon science for my opinions. I prefer the facts of science. Since you admit you never read the facts I am sharing, how do you know none of them have ever contained a single piece of relevant information? If ignorance is bliss, you are blisstered. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Does Organic Mean Living?
Often today we hear of the search for "organic" compounds in decidedly "inorganic" places inhospitable to life, such as meteorites or on desolate moons throughout the solar system. What is going on? Doesn't "organic" mean living? Does this mean there is life elsewhere? What does "organic" really mean?
In high school we were all taught that the word organic applies to living things. The primary dictionary meaning has to do with "pertaining to or derived from living organisms." At the end of a list of appropriate usages lies, "that of pertaining to carbon compounds."
Historically, it was thought that certain chemical compounds could only be synthesized in living organisms by a "life force," but later it was shown that some compounds associated in nature only with living things could be made in a laboratory merely by combining appropriate chemicals. Since all living things are composed of compounds made of carbon and hydrogen, this led to a technical definition of "organic compound" as any member of a large class of chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon and hydrogen. Many of these hydro-carbons are extraordinarily complex and found only in association with life, but some are rather simple, like methane, which is not necessarily from a living source.
Use of the term often leads to miscommunication of the facts. To a non-specialist the term "organic compound," connotes life and living, yet the discoverer might merely be meaning a carbon-based molecule. Confusion most often arises in evolutionary contexts, where evolution enthusiasts speak of the spontaneous origin of life from non-living "organic" chemicals. Seldom does the evolutionary scientist explain that his use of "organic" implies non-living. Perhaps he assumes everyone can understand the term in a technical sense, but few have this training. Thus he allows his listeners to conclude error.
Unfortunately, it is not just a harmless error, for it implies that "living or once-living" compounds can arise from non-living sources. As often admitted even by evolutionists, the original transmutation of non-living chemicals into living things is easily the most difficult problem in all of evolution theory. Thus, a casual episode of mis-information can cause many to assume this insurmountable problem is routinely overcome.
I wonder if the blurring of terms is sometimes purposeful. Evolution cannot stand up to rigorous examination; its problems are too great. But it can convince many if certain vital information is withheld. Thus, the evolution lie lives on.
Does Organic Mean Living? | The Institute for Creation Research
He keeps on about the Disciplines of Science having disproved Evolution, yet he can't say in what way. I have provided him with a list of those Disciplines of Science, as well as having listed against every single one how those Disciplines have REINFORCED Evolution. I continue to challenge him to list how those same Disciplines has disproved anything. So far he has not replied to my challenge once. All he has done is to repeat his claim followed by more irrelevant pasting.
When making such a claim, the onus of proof is on the claimant. Therefore, I say again, if he cannot fulfill my challenge to quantify his claim, then he is conceding defeat by default.
Come on Pahu - do it. And the first part of the challenge stands. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITH NO PASTING. I know you can't do it. You know you can't do it. Why? Because it's total BS. If you can't copy & paste you are totally out of your depth. You don't have a clue about the Disciplines of Science or how they operate.
You want me to abandon science for my opinions. I prefer the facts of science. Since you admit you never read the facts I am sharing, how do you know none of them have ever contained a single piece of relevant information? If ignorance is bliss, you are blisstered. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Does Organic Mean Living?
Often today we hear of the search for "organic" compounds in decidedly "inorganic" places inhospitable to life, such as meteorites or on desolate moons throughout the solar system. What is going on? Doesn't "organic" mean living? Does this mean there is life elsewhere? What does "organic" really mean?
In high school we were all taught that the word organic applies to living things. The primary dictionary meaning has to do with "pertaining to or derived from living organisms." At the end of a list of appropriate usages lies, "that of pertaining to carbon compounds."
Historically, it was thought that certain chemical compounds could only be synthesized in living organisms by a "life force," but later it was shown that some compounds associated in nature only with living things could be made in a laboratory merely by combining appropriate chemicals. Since all living things are composed of compounds made of carbon and hydrogen, this led to a technical definition of "organic compound" as any member of a large class of chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon and hydrogen. Many of these hydro-carbons are extraordinarily complex and found only in association with life, but some are rather simple, like methane, which is not necessarily from a living source.
Use of the term often leads to miscommunication of the facts. To a non-specialist the term "organic compound," connotes life and living, yet the discoverer might merely be meaning a carbon-based molecule. Confusion most often arises in evolutionary contexts, where evolution enthusiasts speak of the spontaneous origin of life from non-living "organic" chemicals. Seldom does the evolutionary scientist explain that his use of "organic" implies non-living. Perhaps he assumes everyone can understand the term in a technical sense, but few have this training. Thus he allows his listeners to conclude error.
Unfortunately, it is not just a harmless error, for it implies that "living or once-living" compounds can arise from non-living sources. As often admitted even by evolutionists, the original transmutation of non-living chemicals into living things is easily the most difficult problem in all of evolution theory. Thus, a casual episode of mis-information can cause many to assume this insurmountable problem is routinely overcome.
I wonder if the blurring of terms is sometimes purposeful. Evolution cannot stand up to rigorous examination; its problems are too great. But it can convince many if certain vital information is withheld. Thus, the evolution lie lives on.
Does Organic Mean Living? | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517383 wrote: You want me to abandon science for my opinions. I prefer the facts of science. Since you admit you never read the facts I am sharing, how do you know none of them have ever contained a single piece of relevant information? If ignorance is bliss, you are blisstered. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
You have just conceded defeat.
1. As expected you couldn't resist resorting to pasting, instead of responding in your own words, seeing as you don't have the intelligence to form an argument for yourself. You have therefore failed the challenge on hte very first point.
2. Once again you continue to use the same old phrase about the Disciplines of Science, without even understanding what they are.
3. You have failed to list one single item of the Disciplines of Science that support your claim.
4. You claim that the Disciplines of Science prove Creationism. Ok. Seeing as you've already failed to come up with any of the Disciplines of Science that have apparently disproved Evolution, as that, to be honest, would be an impossible task, seeing as it can't. The Disciplines of Science can't disprove anything. They can only support something. So, using the Disciplines of Science, demonstrate, once again IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITHOUT ANY PASTING, exactly how the Disciplines of Science have proven Creationism. To give you a start, the fundamental Discipline of all Science begins with hard evidence. So where is the hard evidence that this 'Creator' exists? You see, Science can't disprove the existence of a 'Creator', but I challenge you to come up with the Disciplines of Science that prove it, as you keep claiming exists.
Put quite simply - PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
You have just conceded defeat.
1. As expected you couldn't resist resorting to pasting, instead of responding in your own words, seeing as you don't have the intelligence to form an argument for yourself. You have therefore failed the challenge on hte very first point.
2. Once again you continue to use the same old phrase about the Disciplines of Science, without even understanding what they are.
3. You have failed to list one single item of the Disciplines of Science that support your claim.
4. You claim that the Disciplines of Science prove Creationism. Ok. Seeing as you've already failed to come up with any of the Disciplines of Science that have apparently disproved Evolution, as that, to be honest, would be an impossible task, seeing as it can't. The Disciplines of Science can't disprove anything. They can only support something. So, using the Disciplines of Science, demonstrate, once again IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITHOUT ANY PASTING, exactly how the Disciplines of Science have proven Creationism. To give you a start, the fundamental Discipline of all Science begins with hard evidence. So where is the hard evidence that this 'Creator' exists? You see, Science can't disprove the existence of a 'Creator', but I challenge you to come up with the Disciplines of Science that prove it, as you keep claiming exists.
Put quite simply - PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1517384 wrote: You have just conceded defeat.
1. As expected you couldn't resist resorting to pasting, instead of responding in your own words, seeing as you don't have the intelligence to form an argument for yourself. You have therefore failed the challenge on hte very first point.
2. Once again you continue to use the same old phrase about the Disciplines of Science, without even understanding what they are.
3. You have failed to list one single item of the Disciplines of Science that support your claim.
4. You claim that the Disciplines of Science prove Creationism. Ok. Seeing as you've already failed to come up with any of the Disciplines of Science that have apparently disproved Evolution, as that, to be honest, would be an impossible task, seeing as it can't. The Disciplines of Science can't disprove anything. They can only support something. So, using the Disciplines of Science, demonstrate, once again IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITHOUT ANY PASTING, exactly how the Disciplines of Science have proven Creationism. To give you a start, the fundamental Discipline of all Science begins with hard evidence. So where is the hard evidence that this 'Creator' exists? You see, Science can't disprove the existence of a 'Creator', but I challenge you to come up with the Disciplines of Science that prove it, as you keep claiming exists.
Put quite simply - PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
Apparently you failed to notice that I have shared numerous scientific facts proving creation and disproving evolution. Take another look. I have also proved God exists. Here it is again:
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=71
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... cle&id=137
The First Cause Argument
Arguments for God's Existence
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality
by Charles McCombs, Ph.D.
When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came from chemicals.
As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals. Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption and has never been demonstrated. Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the building blocks of life. I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.
Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator? For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of chirality. Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they do not even want to discuss.
Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.
What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.
Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.
If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.
However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?
Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.
If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.
I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
There is another problem with DNA and how it works in the human body. As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.
Let's look at DNA and this repair mechanism, if indeed they were formed from random chance natural processes. If the repair mechanism evolved first, what use is a repair mechanism if DNA has not evolved yet? If DNA evolved first, how would the DNA even know it would be better off with a repair mechanism? Can molecules think? DNA is not a stable chemical molecule, and without a repair mechanism, it would easily deteriorate by chemical oxidation and other processes. There is no mechanism to explain how DNA could exist for millions of years while the repair mechanism evolved. DNA would just decompose back into pond scum before the alleged billions of random chance mutations could ever form the repair mechanism.
Once we realize that design does not happen by chance, then we realize that the entire universe is not the product of a random, chance process; it is the result of an omnipotent Creator who created everything by just His Word. I hope you are beginning to see the problem. Evolution can give you a theory that might on the surface seem possible, but when true science gets involved and scientists start asking questions, the problems and false logic of the theory become apparent. This is why evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality | The Institute for Creation Research
1. As expected you couldn't resist resorting to pasting, instead of responding in your own words, seeing as you don't have the intelligence to form an argument for yourself. You have therefore failed the challenge on hte very first point.
2. Once again you continue to use the same old phrase about the Disciplines of Science, without even understanding what they are.
3. You have failed to list one single item of the Disciplines of Science that support your claim.
4. You claim that the Disciplines of Science prove Creationism. Ok. Seeing as you've already failed to come up with any of the Disciplines of Science that have apparently disproved Evolution, as that, to be honest, would be an impossible task, seeing as it can't. The Disciplines of Science can't disprove anything. They can only support something. So, using the Disciplines of Science, demonstrate, once again IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WITHOUT ANY PASTING, exactly how the Disciplines of Science have proven Creationism. To give you a start, the fundamental Discipline of all Science begins with hard evidence. So where is the hard evidence that this 'Creator' exists? You see, Science can't disprove the existence of a 'Creator', but I challenge you to come up with the Disciplines of Science that prove it, as you keep claiming exists.
Put quite simply - PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
Apparently you failed to notice that I have shared numerous scientific facts proving creation and disproving evolution. Take another look. I have also proved God exists. Here it is again:
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=71
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... cle&id=137
The First Cause Argument
Arguments for God's Existence
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality
by Charles McCombs, Ph.D.
When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came from chemicals.
As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals. Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption and has never been demonstrated. Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the building blocks of life. I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.
Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator? For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of chirality. Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they do not even want to discuss.
Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.
What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.
Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.
If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.
However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?
Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.
If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.
I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
There is another problem with DNA and how it works in the human body. As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.
Let's look at DNA and this repair mechanism, if indeed they were formed from random chance natural processes. If the repair mechanism evolved first, what use is a repair mechanism if DNA has not evolved yet? If DNA evolved first, how would the DNA even know it would be better off with a repair mechanism? Can molecules think? DNA is not a stable chemical molecule, and without a repair mechanism, it would easily deteriorate by chemical oxidation and other processes. There is no mechanism to explain how DNA could exist for millions of years while the repair mechanism evolved. DNA would just decompose back into pond scum before the alleged billions of random chance mutations could ever form the repair mechanism.
Once we realize that design does not happen by chance, then we realize that the entire universe is not the product of a random, chance process; it is the result of an omnipotent Creator who created everything by just His Word. I hope you are beginning to see the problem. Evolution can give you a theory that might on the surface seem possible, but when true science gets involved and scientists start asking questions, the problems and false logic of the theory become apparent. This is why evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517411 wrote: Apparently you failed to notice that I have shared numerous scientific facts proving creation and disproving evolution. ...
You have shared nothing that that can be remotely considered " scientific facts proving creation and disproving evolution " most of what you share is opinion, and fantasy.
You have shared nothing that that can be remotely considered " scientific facts proving creation and disproving evolution " most of what you share is opinion, and fantasy.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517413 wrote: You have shared nothing that that can be remotely considered " scientific facts proving creation and disproving evolution " most of what you share is opinion, and fantasy.
In your perverted opinion. The fact remains that I have provided numerous scientific facts proving creation and disproving evolution, but you are blinded by your erroneous preconceptions. Since you never read what I have shared, you really can't claim an opinion, can you? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Biology Confronts Evolution
by Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
Evolution pretends to be biology but it plays us for fools because it provides no successful experimental documentation. Let's see if there is one scintilla of scientific evidence to support evolution.
Most biology textbooks show a glass apparatus in which the precursors for amino acids were boiled and electrically sparked for a week, and sure enough, there were trace amounts of a few amino acids. The implication is that if similar, unthinking processes were continued, then a living cell would evolve. Such logic is like stating that automobiles evolved long ago by means of rubber sap, sand, iron ore, and coal falling into a volcano. The iron ore and the carbon in the coal made steel, the sand melted and made glass, and the sap vulcanized and made rubber. Then after billions and billions of trials and errors, the text may say, there evolved spontaneously better and better pistons, cylinders, whole engines with spark plugs and transmissions, axles on four wheels with rubber tires under bodies of steel with glass windows, windshield wipers, headlights, and tanks full of gasoline. The text might state that the first cell and all life evolved in a similar way.
Scientists note that such a tall tale is a fantasy of a peculiar type. If someone said he had bought a brand-new car the night before and in the morning found it rusted and rotted to a pile of powder, then we would note that his story described correctly the direction of the laws of physics, but rust and rot do not occur that fast. Contrarily, if he says that a pile of sand and iron ore evolved into a brand-new car, then we recognize this as an inverted fantasy because it is the exact opposite of the way reality works. So, the amino acid and volcano car examples are not merely fantasies, they are inverted fantasies. They are not the cow-jumped-over-the-moon kind of tall tales, because cows can jump a low fence. They are the grass-ate-the-cow kind of tall tales, the inverted, upside-down kind of fantasy.
One way that scientists reject tall tales is with observation. Scientists are persuaded by observing cars coming off the assembly lines in Detroit and note that no one has ever seen a car spontaneously, nor purposefully, evolved in or out of a volcano. Scientists therefore unequivocally conclude that all cars were created by intelligent design. But what about life? Is biology sufficient to explain life or must it be supplemented by inverted evolutionary concepts to fully describe the biological world? Let us pursue this answer by examining the life cycle of a representative life form.
Survival by Means of Genetic Reserves
The monarch butterfly is a good example of biology because all observations can be verified. Its whole life cycle is sequenced from one allotment of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and can be observed in 60 days. The monarch butterfly's egg is oval and about one millimeter long. It hatches in three days to a caterpillar which spins a chrysalis around itself then hatches as the butterfly. Then it has the ability to fly, migrate, eat, mate, and procreate. Shortly after completion of their reproductive functions, both male and female become dehydrated and die.
Unique Sequential Genetic Reserves
The life cycle of the monarch butterfly teaches that within the seemingly inert egg are all of the genetic instructions to form a sixteen-legged caterpillar and a six-legged butterfly. There was no physical manifestation of the caterpillar when it was an egg just as there was no physical manifestation of the butterfly when it was a caterpillar. There was a manifested morphology while there were unmanifested in the organism's genetic reserves meticulously planned transitional structures and different morphologies. To observe such remarkable transformations in 60 days teaches an important lesson on genetic reserves. These incredibly complex transformations, which no human engineer can blueprint, may be called sequential genetic reserves. They occur once in a rigorous order to attain adulthood and do not occur again. Every complex organism has them. Some do not transform from sixteen legs to six legs, some do not transform from pedestrians to flyers, but the transformations to adulthood are no less remarkable. Every multicelled life form must grow and develop from an egg or seed to an adult configuration and that requires continuous structural and functional alterations that are molecularly planned, organized, coordinated, controlled, and commanded beyond human comprehension. We do not know how the DNA did it, but we do know that such mega-engineering could not have been done brainlessly the way evolution pretends. There are other kinds of genetic reserves.
Punctual and Precise Cyclical Genetic Reserves
When the arctic fox has a gray coat of fur in summer, which blends with the tundra, it has in its genetic reserve the white fur it will wear in winter. The fox's white fur in winter blends with the snow but its genetic reserve still contains the gray fur for the following summer. Similarly, the rock ptarmigan draws from its genetic reserves to display feathers of mottled reddish-brown in spring, then brownish-gray in fall, then white in winter. Trees leaf and bloom in spring, fruit in summer, then drop their leaves in the fall. Birds nest and rear young in spring and summer, then migrate in the fall. These periodicities are from the organism's cyclical DNA genetic reserves and go on repetitively for its lifetime with punctuality and precision. The fox has white fur for the first snowfall, not the last, and gray fur for the first thaw, not a week or a month later. And it never grows red or green or orange or blue fur by trial and error like random processes might propose. If its cyclical genetic reserves were not engineered for precision and punctuality, it could not survive one season.
Punctual and Precise Arousal Genetic Reserves
Exercise in the heat arouses the genetic reserve to synthesize heat-shock proteins that enable activity in the hot environment. Activity patterns arouse new proteins for muscle actin and myosin contractile filaments. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and bradycardia are aroused from training, and skeletal muscle atrophy and tachycardia from bed rest. An increased concentration of red blood cells and 2,3-diphospho-glycerate are aroused by sojourns at high altitude, then lost by a return to sea level. New collateral coronary arteries are synthesized in two months to get around blocked arteries. New bone cells are aroused by fractures, and new scar tissue from abrasions, cuts, or tears. These are but a few of the innumerable DNA genetic reserves manifested by arousal that are built into each life form. They may be aroused in a matter of hours, not millions of years. They cannot be incorporated by evolution because the organism cannot experience what is needed until the event, and it will not survive unless the need is immediately satisfied. Vacant-minded evolution cannot plan or organize or coordinate or command or control change because it is brainless. What is brainless is simple (to the extreme) and cannot comprehend or act in what is complex to the extreme: life and survival.
All Genetic Reserves Function At Once
From conception to death, the DNA of the life form makes available, as needed, all genetic reserves and there is no interference amongst them. For example, the life form may arouse simultaneously the separate proteins for heat shock and altitude as it climbs a mountain in the heat of the day as well as the proteins to withstand the bitter cold at night. Always at the ready, the abundant genetic reserves may manifest themselves in any appropriate pattern at any time. They provide each life form with remarkable arrays of morphological, functional, and behavioral mechanisms to meet punctually and precisely the variabilities of any environment and to survive the extremes. And they do it right the first time. They do not do it by magic or blind iteration over alleged millions of years, as the inverted evolutionist superstition would have us believe. If the arctic fox had to evolve its white coat for the first snowfall by chance, it would not have survived one day. Like every life form, it needed the versatility, precision, and punctuality of all its genetic reserves from conception or it would never have survived even to being born.
Are Response, Adaptation, Acclimation, and Acclimatization, Evolution or Design?
If a person exercises, the heart rate will increase and this is called a response. If a person trains for weeks with that exact exercise, then the heart rate will be lower than the initial response. That lowered heart rate for the same exercise might be called, adaptation. If such a modified response is instigated by an environment, then it may be called acclimation. If in response to a change in climate, then it may be called acclimatization. Calling any of these evolution misleads us because the immediate response is an attribute of the current physiological configuration from the DNA. From a store of arousal genetic reserves in the DNA, that configuration dynamically masters new requirements and stays current. Those reserves will synthesize the appropriate new proteins whether the stimulus comes from within, like the exercise, or from outside like the climate, or something else in the environment. By appropriating the four responses, evolutionists not only mislead us but they also complicate what is in reality quite simple. The design takes care of everything. Evolution has nothing to do and that is why biology has eliminated it.
Are There Speciation, Micro- and Macroevolution in Reality Biology?
Anyone can observe remarkable variation in biology. All brothers and sisters are different. Even identical twins have different fingerprints and behaviors. The Chihuahua is not a different species. "Speciation" and "microevolution" are attempts to appropriate the immense variability of biology. All Chihuahuas are different but not one will ever evolve to a cat or a rac**** or anything else. So too "macroevolution" as an extension of microevolution is a fraudulent misrepresentation that has never been seen because it is an inverted fantasy like grass eating a cow.
Life Described Scientifically
As anyone can observe, the Primordial Law of Biology is minor vita ex vita, life arises only from life and always with less vitality. Biology is under the jurisdiction of the laws of the universe, the propaganda of evolution notwithstanding. The Primordial Law of the Universe is natura semper scalas descendet, nature always descends, that is, devolves. Therefore, devolution, never evolution, is the relentless, inescapable law of the universe. The true nature of the universe, and therefore biology, is devolution, the exact opposite of masquerading evolution interloping in public school and university biology textbooks as science.
The history of each individual in each generation is the same as for the population, but on a smaller scale. The individual is conceived with its greatest vitality and progressively devolves that vitality until death. Just as no individual can live forever, so no population can live forever. All life forms individually and collectively are fixed and mortal.
From environmental pollutants that cause genetic disorders, populations lose their vitality until they cannot reproduce viable offspring. That is the advent of extinction. By contrast, the evolution superstition in biology textbooks is a multi-inverted fantasy because it not only teaches that life can spring up like the volcano car, but that life and the car can perfect themselves forever like fictional perpetual motion machines.
Conclusion
As we have seen, biology is the best explanation of life. It is the most complete, the most observable, and the most verifiable with experiments. There is no need to employ any of the unnecessary, misleading, multi-inverted, and unobservable complexities of evolution superstition. Biology completely eliminates evolution.
Biology Confronts Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
In your perverted opinion. The fact remains that I have provided numerous scientific facts proving creation and disproving evolution, but you are blinded by your erroneous preconceptions. Since you never read what I have shared, you really can't claim an opinion, can you? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Biology Confronts Evolution
by Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
Evolution pretends to be biology but it plays us for fools because it provides no successful experimental documentation. Let's see if there is one scintilla of scientific evidence to support evolution.
Most biology textbooks show a glass apparatus in which the precursors for amino acids were boiled and electrically sparked for a week, and sure enough, there were trace amounts of a few amino acids. The implication is that if similar, unthinking processes were continued, then a living cell would evolve. Such logic is like stating that automobiles evolved long ago by means of rubber sap, sand, iron ore, and coal falling into a volcano. The iron ore and the carbon in the coal made steel, the sand melted and made glass, and the sap vulcanized and made rubber. Then after billions and billions of trials and errors, the text may say, there evolved spontaneously better and better pistons, cylinders, whole engines with spark plugs and transmissions, axles on four wheels with rubber tires under bodies of steel with glass windows, windshield wipers, headlights, and tanks full of gasoline. The text might state that the first cell and all life evolved in a similar way.
Scientists note that such a tall tale is a fantasy of a peculiar type. If someone said he had bought a brand-new car the night before and in the morning found it rusted and rotted to a pile of powder, then we would note that his story described correctly the direction of the laws of physics, but rust and rot do not occur that fast. Contrarily, if he says that a pile of sand and iron ore evolved into a brand-new car, then we recognize this as an inverted fantasy because it is the exact opposite of the way reality works. So, the amino acid and volcano car examples are not merely fantasies, they are inverted fantasies. They are not the cow-jumped-over-the-moon kind of tall tales, because cows can jump a low fence. They are the grass-ate-the-cow kind of tall tales, the inverted, upside-down kind of fantasy.
One way that scientists reject tall tales is with observation. Scientists are persuaded by observing cars coming off the assembly lines in Detroit and note that no one has ever seen a car spontaneously, nor purposefully, evolved in or out of a volcano. Scientists therefore unequivocally conclude that all cars were created by intelligent design. But what about life? Is biology sufficient to explain life or must it be supplemented by inverted evolutionary concepts to fully describe the biological world? Let us pursue this answer by examining the life cycle of a representative life form.
Survival by Means of Genetic Reserves
The monarch butterfly is a good example of biology because all observations can be verified. Its whole life cycle is sequenced from one allotment of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and can be observed in 60 days. The monarch butterfly's egg is oval and about one millimeter long. It hatches in three days to a caterpillar which spins a chrysalis around itself then hatches as the butterfly. Then it has the ability to fly, migrate, eat, mate, and procreate. Shortly after completion of their reproductive functions, both male and female become dehydrated and die.
Unique Sequential Genetic Reserves
The life cycle of the monarch butterfly teaches that within the seemingly inert egg are all of the genetic instructions to form a sixteen-legged caterpillar and a six-legged butterfly. There was no physical manifestation of the caterpillar when it was an egg just as there was no physical manifestation of the butterfly when it was a caterpillar. There was a manifested morphology while there were unmanifested in the organism's genetic reserves meticulously planned transitional structures and different morphologies. To observe such remarkable transformations in 60 days teaches an important lesson on genetic reserves. These incredibly complex transformations, which no human engineer can blueprint, may be called sequential genetic reserves. They occur once in a rigorous order to attain adulthood and do not occur again. Every complex organism has them. Some do not transform from sixteen legs to six legs, some do not transform from pedestrians to flyers, but the transformations to adulthood are no less remarkable. Every multicelled life form must grow and develop from an egg or seed to an adult configuration and that requires continuous structural and functional alterations that are molecularly planned, organized, coordinated, controlled, and commanded beyond human comprehension. We do not know how the DNA did it, but we do know that such mega-engineering could not have been done brainlessly the way evolution pretends. There are other kinds of genetic reserves.
Punctual and Precise Cyclical Genetic Reserves
When the arctic fox has a gray coat of fur in summer, which blends with the tundra, it has in its genetic reserve the white fur it will wear in winter. The fox's white fur in winter blends with the snow but its genetic reserve still contains the gray fur for the following summer. Similarly, the rock ptarmigan draws from its genetic reserves to display feathers of mottled reddish-brown in spring, then brownish-gray in fall, then white in winter. Trees leaf and bloom in spring, fruit in summer, then drop their leaves in the fall. Birds nest and rear young in spring and summer, then migrate in the fall. These periodicities are from the organism's cyclical DNA genetic reserves and go on repetitively for its lifetime with punctuality and precision. The fox has white fur for the first snowfall, not the last, and gray fur for the first thaw, not a week or a month later. And it never grows red or green or orange or blue fur by trial and error like random processes might propose. If its cyclical genetic reserves were not engineered for precision and punctuality, it could not survive one season.
Punctual and Precise Arousal Genetic Reserves
Exercise in the heat arouses the genetic reserve to synthesize heat-shock proteins that enable activity in the hot environment. Activity patterns arouse new proteins for muscle actin and myosin contractile filaments. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and bradycardia are aroused from training, and skeletal muscle atrophy and tachycardia from bed rest. An increased concentration of red blood cells and 2,3-diphospho-glycerate are aroused by sojourns at high altitude, then lost by a return to sea level. New collateral coronary arteries are synthesized in two months to get around blocked arteries. New bone cells are aroused by fractures, and new scar tissue from abrasions, cuts, or tears. These are but a few of the innumerable DNA genetic reserves manifested by arousal that are built into each life form. They may be aroused in a matter of hours, not millions of years. They cannot be incorporated by evolution because the organism cannot experience what is needed until the event, and it will not survive unless the need is immediately satisfied. Vacant-minded evolution cannot plan or organize or coordinate or command or control change because it is brainless. What is brainless is simple (to the extreme) and cannot comprehend or act in what is complex to the extreme: life and survival.
All Genetic Reserves Function At Once
From conception to death, the DNA of the life form makes available, as needed, all genetic reserves and there is no interference amongst them. For example, the life form may arouse simultaneously the separate proteins for heat shock and altitude as it climbs a mountain in the heat of the day as well as the proteins to withstand the bitter cold at night. Always at the ready, the abundant genetic reserves may manifest themselves in any appropriate pattern at any time. They provide each life form with remarkable arrays of morphological, functional, and behavioral mechanisms to meet punctually and precisely the variabilities of any environment and to survive the extremes. And they do it right the first time. They do not do it by magic or blind iteration over alleged millions of years, as the inverted evolutionist superstition would have us believe. If the arctic fox had to evolve its white coat for the first snowfall by chance, it would not have survived one day. Like every life form, it needed the versatility, precision, and punctuality of all its genetic reserves from conception or it would never have survived even to being born.
Are Response, Adaptation, Acclimation, and Acclimatization, Evolution or Design?
If a person exercises, the heart rate will increase and this is called a response. If a person trains for weeks with that exact exercise, then the heart rate will be lower than the initial response. That lowered heart rate for the same exercise might be called, adaptation. If such a modified response is instigated by an environment, then it may be called acclimation. If in response to a change in climate, then it may be called acclimatization. Calling any of these evolution misleads us because the immediate response is an attribute of the current physiological configuration from the DNA. From a store of arousal genetic reserves in the DNA, that configuration dynamically masters new requirements and stays current. Those reserves will synthesize the appropriate new proteins whether the stimulus comes from within, like the exercise, or from outside like the climate, or something else in the environment. By appropriating the four responses, evolutionists not only mislead us but they also complicate what is in reality quite simple. The design takes care of everything. Evolution has nothing to do and that is why biology has eliminated it.
Are There Speciation, Micro- and Macroevolution in Reality Biology?
Anyone can observe remarkable variation in biology. All brothers and sisters are different. Even identical twins have different fingerprints and behaviors. The Chihuahua is not a different species. "Speciation" and "microevolution" are attempts to appropriate the immense variability of biology. All Chihuahuas are different but not one will ever evolve to a cat or a rac**** or anything else. So too "macroevolution" as an extension of microevolution is a fraudulent misrepresentation that has never been seen because it is an inverted fantasy like grass eating a cow.
Life Described Scientifically
As anyone can observe, the Primordial Law of Biology is minor vita ex vita, life arises only from life and always with less vitality. Biology is under the jurisdiction of the laws of the universe, the propaganda of evolution notwithstanding. The Primordial Law of the Universe is natura semper scalas descendet, nature always descends, that is, devolves. Therefore, devolution, never evolution, is the relentless, inescapable law of the universe. The true nature of the universe, and therefore biology, is devolution, the exact opposite of masquerading evolution interloping in public school and university biology textbooks as science.
The history of each individual in each generation is the same as for the population, but on a smaller scale. The individual is conceived with its greatest vitality and progressively devolves that vitality until death. Just as no individual can live forever, so no population can live forever. All life forms individually and collectively are fixed and mortal.
From environmental pollutants that cause genetic disorders, populations lose their vitality until they cannot reproduce viable offspring. That is the advent of extinction. By contrast, the evolution superstition in biology textbooks is a multi-inverted fantasy because it not only teaches that life can spring up like the volcano car, but that life and the car can perfect themselves forever like fictional perpetual motion machines.
Conclusion
As we have seen, biology is the best explanation of life. It is the most complete, the most observable, and the most verifiable with experiments. There is no need to employ any of the unnecessary, misleading, multi-inverted, and unobservable complexities of evolution superstition. Biology completely eliminates evolution.
Biology Confronts Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
More BS. Soon have a pile large enough to fertilize his and many other gardens. Watched a TV program the other night by a you well educated scientist. He was talking about what evolution has don here on earth. He also offered evidence for his comments.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1517419 wrote: More BS. Soon have a pile large enough to fertilize his and many other gardens. Watched a TV program the other night by a you well educated scientist. He was talking about what evolution has don here on earth. He also offered evidence for his comments.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
The study of biological processes and phenomena indicates that significant evolutionary developments are not observable in the modern world. Similarly the great gaps in the fossil record make it extremely doubtful that any genuine evolution, as distinct from small changes within the kinds, ever took place in the past.
There is one consideration, however, which goes well beyond the implications of the above difficulties. Not only is there no evidence that evolution ever has taken place, but there is also firm evidence that evolution never could take place. The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within.
"Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in") and trope (meaning "turning"). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.
That the principles of evolution and entropy are both believed to be universal principles and yet are mutually contradictory is seen from the following authoritative definitions:
"There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation—the law of increasing entropy." 1
As far as evolution is concerned, the classic definition of Sir Julian Huxley is as follows:
"Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution—a single process of self-transformation."2
Thus, in one instance, "all observed systems ... go from order to disorder," and in the other, "the whole of reality ... gives rise to an increasingly high level of organization in its products." It seems obvious that either evolution or entropy has been vastly over-rated or else that something is wrong with the English language.
The entropy principle, however, is nothing less than the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is as universal and certain a law as exists in science. First, however, before discussing the Second Law, we should define the First Law and, for that matter, thermodynamics itself.
Thermodynamics is a compound of two Greek words, therme ("heat") and dunamis ("power"). It is the science that speaks of the power or energy contained in heat, and its conversion to other forms of energy. The term "energy" is itself derived from the Greek word energeia ("working"), and is normally defined as "the capacity to do work." In modern scientific terminology, "energy" and "work" are considered equivalent, each measured as the product of a force times the distance through which it acts (foot-pounds, in the English system of dimensions). Something which has "energy" has the "capacity to do work" ... that is, the capacity to exert a force through a distance."
The concept of "power" is closely related to that of "energy" except that the time factor must also be taken into account. Power is the work done, or the energy expended to do the work, per unit of time measured in foot-pounds per second.
The First Law of Thermodynamics
Since all processes are fundamentally energy conversion processes, and since everything that happens in the physical universe is a "process" of some kind, it is obvious why the Two Laws of Thermodynamics are recognized as the most universal and fundamental of all scientific laws. Everything that exists in the universe is some form of energy, and everything that happens is some form of energy conversion. Thus the Laws which govern energy and energy conversion are of paramount importance in understanding the world in which we live.
Isaac Asimov defines the First Law as follows:
"To express all this, we can say: ‘Energy can be transferred from one place to another, or transformed from one form to another, but it can be neither created nor destroyed.’ Or we can put it another way: ‘The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant.’ When the total quantity of something does not change, we say that it is conserved. The two statements given above, then, are two ways of expressing ‘the law of conservation of energy.’ This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make."3
Asimov makes a very interesting point when he says concerning this Law: "No one knows why energy is conserved."4 He should have said, of course, that science cannot tell us why energy is neither created nor destroyed. The Bible, however, does give us this information.
The reason why no energy can now be created is because only God can create energy and because God has "rested from all His work which He created and made" (Genesis 2:3). The reason why energy cannot now be destroyed is because He is now "upholding all things by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3). "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it" (Ecclesiastes 3:14).
The Second Law in Classical Thermodynamics
The First Law is itself a strong witness against evolution, since it implies a basic condition of stability in the universe. The fundamental structure of the cosmos is one of conservation, not innovation. However, this fact in itself is not impressive to the evolutionist, as he merely assumes that the process of evolution takes place within the framework of energy conservation, never stopping to wonder where all the energy came from in the first place nor how it came to pass that the total energy was constant from then on.
It is the Second law, however, that wipes out the theory of evolution. There is a universal process of change, and it is a directional change, but it is not an upward change.
In so-called classical thermodynamics, the Second Law, like the First, is formulated in terms of energy.
"It is in the transformation process that Nature appears to exact a penalty and this is where the second principle makes its appearance. For every naturally occurring transformation of energy is accompanied, somewhere, by a loss in the availability of energy for the future performance of work."5
In this case, entropy can be expressed mathematically in terms of the total irreversible flow of heat. It expresses quantitatively the amount of energy in an energy conversion process which becomes unavailable for further work. In order for work to be done, the available energy has to "flow" from a higher level to a lower level. When it reaches the lower level, the energy is still in existence, but no longer capable of doing work. Heat will naturally flow from a hot body to a cold body, but not from a cold body to a hot body.
For this reason, no process can be 100% efficient, with all of the available energy converted into work. Some must be deployed to overcome friction and will be degraded to non-recoverable heat energy, which will finally be radiated into space and dispersed. For the same reason a self-contained perpetual motion machine is an impossibility.
Since, as we have noted, everything in the physical universe is energy in some form and, since in every process some energy becomes unavailable, it is obvious that ultimately all energy in the universe will be unavailable energy, if present processes go on long enough. When that happens, presumably all the various forms of energy in the universe will have been gradually converted through a multiplicity of processes into uniformly (that is, randomly) dispersed heat energy. Everything will be at the same low temperature. There will be no "differential" of energy levels, therefore no "gradient" of energy to induce its flow. No more work can be done and the universe will reach what the physicists call its ultimate "heat death."
Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
The evolutionist will not accept this conclusion, however. He hypothesizes that either: (1) some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevailed far back in time, or (2) some. natural law canceling out the Second Law prevails far out in space.
When he makes such assumptions, however, he is denying his own theory, which says that all things can be explained in terms of presently observable laws and processes. He is really resorting to creationism, but refuses to acknowledge a Creator.
Entropy and Disorder
A second way of stating the entropy law is in terms of statistical thermodynamics. It is recognized today that not only are all scientific laws empirical but also that they are statistical. A great number of individual molecules, in a gas for example, may behave in such a way that the over-all aspects of that gas produce predictable patterns in the aggregate, even though individual molecules may deviate from the norm. Laws describing such behavior must be formulated statistically, or probabilistically, rather than strictly dynamically. The dynamical laws then can theoretically be deduced as limiting cases of the probabilistic statements.
In this context entropy is a probability function related to the degree of disorder in a system. The more disordered a system may be, the more likely it is.
"All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entropy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system; the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy."6
Note again the universality expressed here—all real processes. Isaac Asimov expresses this concept interestingly as follows:
"Another way of stating the Second Law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the Second Law is all about."7
Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution, which goes from disorder to order?" Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do.
Especially is such a question vital, when we are thinking of evolution as a growth process on the grand scale from atom to Adam and from particle to people. This represents an absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.
Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy | The Institute for Creation Research
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
The study of biological processes and phenomena indicates that significant evolutionary developments are not observable in the modern world. Similarly the great gaps in the fossil record make it extremely doubtful that any genuine evolution, as distinct from small changes within the kinds, ever took place in the past.
There is one consideration, however, which goes well beyond the implications of the above difficulties. Not only is there no evidence that evolution ever has taken place, but there is also firm evidence that evolution never could take place. The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within.
"Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in") and trope (meaning "turning"). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.
That the principles of evolution and entropy are both believed to be universal principles and yet are mutually contradictory is seen from the following authoritative definitions:
"There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation—the law of increasing entropy." 1
As far as evolution is concerned, the classic definition of Sir Julian Huxley is as follows:
"Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution—a single process of self-transformation."2
Thus, in one instance, "all observed systems ... go from order to disorder," and in the other, "the whole of reality ... gives rise to an increasingly high level of organization in its products." It seems obvious that either evolution or entropy has been vastly over-rated or else that something is wrong with the English language.
The entropy principle, however, is nothing less than the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is as universal and certain a law as exists in science. First, however, before discussing the Second Law, we should define the First Law and, for that matter, thermodynamics itself.
Thermodynamics is a compound of two Greek words, therme ("heat") and dunamis ("power"). It is the science that speaks of the power or energy contained in heat, and its conversion to other forms of energy. The term "energy" is itself derived from the Greek word energeia ("working"), and is normally defined as "the capacity to do work." In modern scientific terminology, "energy" and "work" are considered equivalent, each measured as the product of a force times the distance through which it acts (foot-pounds, in the English system of dimensions). Something which has "energy" has the "capacity to do work" ... that is, the capacity to exert a force through a distance."
The concept of "power" is closely related to that of "energy" except that the time factor must also be taken into account. Power is the work done, or the energy expended to do the work, per unit of time measured in foot-pounds per second.
The First Law of Thermodynamics
Since all processes are fundamentally energy conversion processes, and since everything that happens in the physical universe is a "process" of some kind, it is obvious why the Two Laws of Thermodynamics are recognized as the most universal and fundamental of all scientific laws. Everything that exists in the universe is some form of energy, and everything that happens is some form of energy conversion. Thus the Laws which govern energy and energy conversion are of paramount importance in understanding the world in which we live.
Isaac Asimov defines the First Law as follows:
"To express all this, we can say: ‘Energy can be transferred from one place to another, or transformed from one form to another, but it can be neither created nor destroyed.’ Or we can put it another way: ‘The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant.’ When the total quantity of something does not change, we say that it is conserved. The two statements given above, then, are two ways of expressing ‘the law of conservation of energy.’ This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make."3
Asimov makes a very interesting point when he says concerning this Law: "No one knows why energy is conserved."4 He should have said, of course, that science cannot tell us why energy is neither created nor destroyed. The Bible, however, does give us this information.
The reason why no energy can now be created is because only God can create energy and because God has "rested from all His work which He created and made" (Genesis 2:3). The reason why energy cannot now be destroyed is because He is now "upholding all things by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3). "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it" (Ecclesiastes 3:14).
The Second Law in Classical Thermodynamics
The First Law is itself a strong witness against evolution, since it implies a basic condition of stability in the universe. The fundamental structure of the cosmos is one of conservation, not innovation. However, this fact in itself is not impressive to the evolutionist, as he merely assumes that the process of evolution takes place within the framework of energy conservation, never stopping to wonder where all the energy came from in the first place nor how it came to pass that the total energy was constant from then on.
It is the Second law, however, that wipes out the theory of evolution. There is a universal process of change, and it is a directional change, but it is not an upward change.
In so-called classical thermodynamics, the Second Law, like the First, is formulated in terms of energy.
"It is in the transformation process that Nature appears to exact a penalty and this is where the second principle makes its appearance. For every naturally occurring transformation of energy is accompanied, somewhere, by a loss in the availability of energy for the future performance of work."5
In this case, entropy can be expressed mathematically in terms of the total irreversible flow of heat. It expresses quantitatively the amount of energy in an energy conversion process which becomes unavailable for further work. In order for work to be done, the available energy has to "flow" from a higher level to a lower level. When it reaches the lower level, the energy is still in existence, but no longer capable of doing work. Heat will naturally flow from a hot body to a cold body, but not from a cold body to a hot body.
For this reason, no process can be 100% efficient, with all of the available energy converted into work. Some must be deployed to overcome friction and will be degraded to non-recoverable heat energy, which will finally be radiated into space and dispersed. For the same reason a self-contained perpetual motion machine is an impossibility.
Since, as we have noted, everything in the physical universe is energy in some form and, since in every process some energy becomes unavailable, it is obvious that ultimately all energy in the universe will be unavailable energy, if present processes go on long enough. When that happens, presumably all the various forms of energy in the universe will have been gradually converted through a multiplicity of processes into uniformly (that is, randomly) dispersed heat energy. Everything will be at the same low temperature. There will be no "differential" of energy levels, therefore no "gradient" of energy to induce its flow. No more work can be done and the universe will reach what the physicists call its ultimate "heat death."
Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
The evolutionist will not accept this conclusion, however. He hypothesizes that either: (1) some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevailed far back in time, or (2) some. natural law canceling out the Second Law prevails far out in space.
When he makes such assumptions, however, he is denying his own theory, which says that all things can be explained in terms of presently observable laws and processes. He is really resorting to creationism, but refuses to acknowledge a Creator.
Entropy and Disorder
A second way of stating the entropy law is in terms of statistical thermodynamics. It is recognized today that not only are all scientific laws empirical but also that they are statistical. A great number of individual molecules, in a gas for example, may behave in such a way that the over-all aspects of that gas produce predictable patterns in the aggregate, even though individual molecules may deviate from the norm. Laws describing such behavior must be formulated statistically, or probabilistically, rather than strictly dynamically. The dynamical laws then can theoretically be deduced as limiting cases of the probabilistic statements.
In this context entropy is a probability function related to the degree of disorder in a system. The more disordered a system may be, the more likely it is.
"All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entropy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system; the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy."6
Note again the universality expressed here—all real processes. Isaac Asimov expresses this concept interestingly as follows:
"Another way of stating the Second Law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the Second Law is all about."7
Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution, which goes from disorder to order?" Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do.
Especially is such a question vital, when we are thinking of evolution as a growth process on the grand scale from atom to Adam and from particle to people. This represents an absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.
Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Again, all opinion, not science.
Admittedly, a lot of things published by scientists are opinions.
But most are opinions they espouse based on the results of their own testing.
What you offer most of the time is opinion of not-scientists, who published their opinions of other peoples' work.
Admittedly, a lot of things published by scientists are opinions.
But most are opinions they espouse based on the results of their own testing.
What you offer most of the time is opinion of not-scientists, who published their opinions of other peoples' work.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517428 wrote: Again, all opinion, not science.
Admittedly, a lot of things published by scientists are opinions.
But most are opinions they espouse based on the results of their own testing.
What you offer most of the time is opinion of not-scientists, who published their opinions of other peoples' work.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Pitcher Plants Designed to Attract Bats
by Brian Thomas, M.S.
Even children learn that plants and animals depend on one another. Plants release oxygen for animals to breathe, and plants make food—mostly sugar—for animals to eat. In turn, animals produce carbon dioxide so plants can grow using sunlight. This ecological interdependence shows enough divine design to inspire any honest thinker to consider a Creator, but a recently discovered interaction between pitcher plants and bats shows even more.1
Pitcher plants in tropical Borneo, the largest island in Asia, attract a particular species of bat to roost right inside their pitchers. The plants absorb nitrogen from the bat waste that drops to the bottom of the pitchers, and the bats enjoy comfy digs. Researchers already knew that pitcher plants in South American jungles grow flowers that attract bats for pollination, but the Asian version is unique. They give bats a safe place to roost during daylight hours. How do bats discern these preferred pitcher plants from the surrounding dense jungle foliage, and does the answer to that question help explain how this all might have evolved?
German specialists worked with biologists from Brunei, Borneo to track down the specifics on how pitcher plants attract bats. They published their results in Current Biology.2 The pitcher plants present concave reflectors that attract their bat buddies. Bats’ high-pitched sound waves bounce off the reflector, so it stands out against the drab-sounding jungle background. The pitcher’s sonic reflector has three other precise design features.
1. The plant’s reflector is situated just above the pitcher’s opening. To the bat, the reflector sounds very loud, but the opening below absorbs sound. The bats easily pick out this distinct contrast.
2. The area containing the reflector is larger than related pitcher plants that attract insects, increasing its sonic signal.
3. It reflects distinct sonic patterns on either side so that the bats can detect it from many angles.
The plant reflector’s size and side-reflecting patterns only work when a certain range of sound frequencies strike it. Of course, these exactly match the vocal range of these local bats, which happen to hold the record for highest frequencies of all bats so far measured. For more about animal sonar, watch our short video here.
How did all this interdependent fine-tuning happen? For a pitcher plant to construct the right size and shape reflector in the right place, it needs just the right building instructions in its DNA. And no number of high-pitched bat calls can somehow reach into plant-seed DNA and write new reflector construction code.
The Current Biology study authors wrote, “In the Neotropics, a few bat-pollinated plants found an efficient solution to attract bats by developing floral ultrasound reflectors, which enabled them to exploit the bats’ echolocation system.2 But when is the last time a plant, animal, or any non-person willfully changed its DNA to solve an environmental challenge? Plus, how would these plants ever “know about the benefits of bat guano’s nitrogen until after they already had fully formed bat homes to attract it?
The plants found no solution, developed no reflectors, and exploited no echolocation. People alone can perform these kinds of creative tasks, and the best example is the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible.3
Pitcher plant reflectors reflect creation—His creation—and this interdependent pitcher plant-bat system showcases the ingenious design within that creation.
Pitcher Plants Designed to Attract Bats | The Institute for Creation Research
Admittedly, a lot of things published by scientists are opinions.
But most are opinions they espouse based on the results of their own testing.
What you offer most of the time is opinion of not-scientists, who published their opinions of other peoples' work.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Pitcher Plants Designed to Attract Bats
by Brian Thomas, M.S.
Even children learn that plants and animals depend on one another. Plants release oxygen for animals to breathe, and plants make food—mostly sugar—for animals to eat. In turn, animals produce carbon dioxide so plants can grow using sunlight. This ecological interdependence shows enough divine design to inspire any honest thinker to consider a Creator, but a recently discovered interaction between pitcher plants and bats shows even more.1
Pitcher plants in tropical Borneo, the largest island in Asia, attract a particular species of bat to roost right inside their pitchers. The plants absorb nitrogen from the bat waste that drops to the bottom of the pitchers, and the bats enjoy comfy digs. Researchers already knew that pitcher plants in South American jungles grow flowers that attract bats for pollination, but the Asian version is unique. They give bats a safe place to roost during daylight hours. How do bats discern these preferred pitcher plants from the surrounding dense jungle foliage, and does the answer to that question help explain how this all might have evolved?
German specialists worked with biologists from Brunei, Borneo to track down the specifics on how pitcher plants attract bats. They published their results in Current Biology.2 The pitcher plants present concave reflectors that attract their bat buddies. Bats’ high-pitched sound waves bounce off the reflector, so it stands out against the drab-sounding jungle background. The pitcher’s sonic reflector has three other precise design features.
1. The plant’s reflector is situated just above the pitcher’s opening. To the bat, the reflector sounds very loud, but the opening below absorbs sound. The bats easily pick out this distinct contrast.
2. The area containing the reflector is larger than related pitcher plants that attract insects, increasing its sonic signal.
3. It reflects distinct sonic patterns on either side so that the bats can detect it from many angles.
The plant reflector’s size and side-reflecting patterns only work when a certain range of sound frequencies strike it. Of course, these exactly match the vocal range of these local bats, which happen to hold the record for highest frequencies of all bats so far measured. For more about animal sonar, watch our short video here.
How did all this interdependent fine-tuning happen? For a pitcher plant to construct the right size and shape reflector in the right place, it needs just the right building instructions in its DNA. And no number of high-pitched bat calls can somehow reach into plant-seed DNA and write new reflector construction code.
The Current Biology study authors wrote, “In the Neotropics, a few bat-pollinated plants found an efficient solution to attract bats by developing floral ultrasound reflectors, which enabled them to exploit the bats’ echolocation system.2 But when is the last time a plant, animal, or any non-person willfully changed its DNA to solve an environmental challenge? Plus, how would these plants ever “know about the benefits of bat guano’s nitrogen until after they already had fully formed bat homes to attract it?
The plants found no solution, developed no reflectors, and exploited no echolocation. People alone can perform these kinds of creative tasks, and the best example is the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible.3
Pitcher plant reflectors reflect creation—His creation—and this interdependent pitcher plant-bat system showcases the ingenious design within that creation.
Pitcher Plants Designed to Attract Bats | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I prefer a good dictionary or some bona fide research rather than Wikipedia. Any one can add anything to that site. Not a good site for real history.
Science Disproves Evolution
The Bible is not the inerrant word of God but does contain much wisdom if read as a Jewish book.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1517440 wrote: I prefer a good dictionary or some bona fide research rather than Wikipedia. Any one can add anything to that site. Not a good site for real history.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Fossil Shrimp Brains Look Modern
Cambrian rocks are supposed to represent a time about 500 million years ago when ancient muds buried some of the first creatures that evolved on Earth. Today's array of life forms supposedly emerged from those "simpler" beginnings. But intriguing Cambrian discoveries, including newly described arthropod fossils from China, keep clashing with these out-of-touch ideas.
These unique fossils, described in an upcoming edition of Current Biology, show flattened traces of the ancient marine animals' brains.1
The research team published a similar report in Nature in 2012, but it showed only one shrimp-like arthropod from Cambrian Chinese rocks called the Chengjiang Shales.2 This new report compares that sample with several more brain shapes, all from the same animal kind.
Paleontologists did not readily accept the Cambrian preserved brain, balking at the idea that shrimp brains could preserve so well as to last hundreds of millions of years. This new report attempted to address that well-founded skepticism, in part by showing more fossils.
The new report also analyzed the former brain material. It seems that thin black or yellow smudges preserved these ancient arthropod brain shapes. The Current Biology study authors found that some preserved brains represented decayed, black-carbon smears and others were yellowish pyrite—also known as fool's gold. The team suggested that ancient anoxic bacteria could have reduced nearby sulfate to iron sulfide, which stayed on as pyrite. Some fossils showed mixtures of both carbon and pyrite.
Also, the Cambrian shrimp brains had the same shapes, lobes, and connections as today's shrimp and other decapod crustaceans: They appear fully-formed, completely equipped for shrimp life, and in effect totally modernized right from the start. The same can be said for Cambrian hagfish.3
"Underwater mudslides" and "rapid entombment" imply overwhelming catastrophes like those that would accompany a world-destroying Flood. This idea may sound as crazy to a secular thinker as shrimp creation, but it certainly fits the evidence.
[Edited for space constraints. To read the whole article, go here: Fossil]Fossil Shrimp Brains Look Modern | The Institute for Creation Research Shrimp Brains Look Modern | The Institute for Creation Research]
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Fossil Shrimp Brains Look Modern
Cambrian rocks are supposed to represent a time about 500 million years ago when ancient muds buried some of the first creatures that evolved on Earth. Today's array of life forms supposedly emerged from those "simpler" beginnings. But intriguing Cambrian discoveries, including newly described arthropod fossils from China, keep clashing with these out-of-touch ideas.
These unique fossils, described in an upcoming edition of Current Biology, show flattened traces of the ancient marine animals' brains.1
The research team published a similar report in Nature in 2012, but it showed only one shrimp-like arthropod from Cambrian Chinese rocks called the Chengjiang Shales.2 This new report compares that sample with several more brain shapes, all from the same animal kind.
Paleontologists did not readily accept the Cambrian preserved brain, balking at the idea that shrimp brains could preserve so well as to last hundreds of millions of years. This new report attempted to address that well-founded skepticism, in part by showing more fossils.
The new report also analyzed the former brain material. It seems that thin black or yellow smudges preserved these ancient arthropod brain shapes. The Current Biology study authors found that some preserved brains represented decayed, black-carbon smears and others were yellowish pyrite—also known as fool's gold. The team suggested that ancient anoxic bacteria could have reduced nearby sulfate to iron sulfide, which stayed on as pyrite. Some fossils showed mixtures of both carbon and pyrite.
Also, the Cambrian shrimp brains had the same shapes, lobes, and connections as today's shrimp and other decapod crustaceans: They appear fully-formed, completely equipped for shrimp life, and in effect totally modernized right from the start. The same can be said for Cambrian hagfish.3
"Underwater mudslides" and "rapid entombment" imply overwhelming catastrophes like those that would accompany a world-destroying Flood. This idea may sound as crazy to a secular thinker as shrimp creation, but it certainly fits the evidence.
[Edited for space constraints. To read the whole article, go here: Fossil]Fossil Shrimp Brains Look Modern | The Institute for Creation Research Shrimp Brains Look Modern | The Institute for Creation Research]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1517442 wrote: The Bible is not the inerrant word of God but does contain much wisdom if read as a Jewish book.
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
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
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
404 Error
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
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
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
About Bible Prophecy
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
404 Error
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
The Bible is a very human construction. The writers had experiences and they wrote there interpretation of what they observed. Now we read their interpretation and add our own. Archaeology does not support the historical accuracy y of the Bible. There are so many contradicttions in the Bible that one could write a great thick book on them and still not cover all of them.
Science Disproves Evolution
Chemical Elements of Life 1
The chemical evolution of life is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen (a). However, the closer one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.
Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon (b). One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, today’s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on the earth’s surface since the first fossils formed.
Oxygen. No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earth’s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many substances should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth (c). Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation (d). But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life (e). The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously—in other words, by creation.
a. The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%).
b. Carbon is only the 18th most abundant element, by weight, in the earth’s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite.
c. “The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem. Leigh Van Valen, “The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen, Science, Vol.171, 5 February 1971, p.442.
d. Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen. [See If]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 29.** Proteins no oxygen was in the atmosphere as life evolved, how did the atmosphere get its oxygen?
Cyanobacteria break down carbon dioxide and water and release oxygen. In 1987, William J. Schopf claimed that he and his graduate student had discovered fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cyanobacteria. This, he said, is how the atmosphere gained its oxygen after these bacteria—shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiation—evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved.
Schopf’s former graduate student and other experts have now charged Schopf with withholding evidence that those fossils were not cyanobacteria. Most experts feel betrayed by Schopf, who now accepts that his “specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all. [See Rex Dalton, “Squaring Up over Ancient Life, Nature, Vol.417, 20 June 2002, pp.782–784.] A foundational building block in the evolution story—that had become academic orthodoxy—has crumbled.
e . Hitching, p.65.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517649 wrote:
Chemical Elements of Life 1
The chemical evolution of life is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen (a). However, the closer one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.
Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon (b). One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, today’s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on the earth’s surface since the first fossils formed.
Oxygen. No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earth’s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many substances should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth (c). Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation (d). But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life (e). The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously—in other words, by creation.
a. The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%).
b. Carbon is only the 18th most abundant element, by weight, in the earth’s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite.
c. “The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem. Leigh Van Valen, “The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen, Science, Vol.171, 5 February 1971, p.442.
d. Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen. [See If]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 29.** Proteins no oxygen was in the atmosphere as life evolved, how did the atmosphere get its oxygen?
Cyanobacteria break down carbon dioxide and water and release oxygen. In 1987, William J. Schopf claimed that he and his graduate student had discovered fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cyanobacteria. This, he said, is how the atmosphere gained its oxygen after these bacteria—shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiation—evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved.
Schopf’s former graduate student and other experts have now charged Schopf with withholding evidence that those fossils were not cyanobacteria. Most experts feel betrayed by Schopf, who now accepts that his “specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all. [See Rex Dalton, “Squaring Up over Ancient Life, Nature, Vol.417, 20 June 2002, pp.782–784.] A foundational building block in the evolution story—that had become academic orthodoxy—has crumbled.
e . Hitching, p.65.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Congratulations on reaching a "whole new level of stupid" in your campaign to none scientifically argue that science "disproves" a scientific fact.
You never cease to amaze me with your utter ignorance.
Chemical Elements of Life 1
The chemical evolution of life is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen (a). However, the closer one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.
Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon (b). One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, today’s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on the earth’s surface since the first fossils formed.
Oxygen. No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earth’s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many substances should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth (c). Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation (d). But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life (e). The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously—in other words, by creation.
a. The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%).
b. Carbon is only the 18th most abundant element, by weight, in the earth’s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite.
c. “The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem. Leigh Van Valen, “The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen, Science, Vol.171, 5 February 1971, p.442.
d. Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen. [See If]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 29.** Proteins no oxygen was in the atmosphere as life evolved, how did the atmosphere get its oxygen?
Cyanobacteria break down carbon dioxide and water and release oxygen. In 1987, William J. Schopf claimed that he and his graduate student had discovered fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cyanobacteria. This, he said, is how the atmosphere gained its oxygen after these bacteria—shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiation—evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved.
Schopf’s former graduate student and other experts have now charged Schopf with withholding evidence that those fossils were not cyanobacteria. Most experts feel betrayed by Schopf, who now accepts that his “specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all. [See Rex Dalton, “Squaring Up over Ancient Life, Nature, Vol.417, 20 June 2002, pp.782–784.] A foundational building block in the evolution story—that had become academic orthodoxy—has crumbled.
e . Hitching, p.65.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Congratulations on reaching a "whole new level of stupid" in your campaign to none scientifically argue that science "disproves" a scientific fact.
You never cease to amaze me with your utter ignorance.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517650 wrote: Congratulations on reaching a "whole new level of stupid" in your campaign to none scientifically argue that science "disproves" a scientific fact.
You never cease to amaze me with your utter ignorance.
What scientific fact have I "disproved"?
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Study Finds Molecules Evolving in Wrong Direction
Which is more complex—a typical man walking across a street, or a blind man carrying a legless man across the street?
The blind and legless partners are more complex simply because they have more interacting parts. But this increased complexity not only results in less functionality, it also doesn't provide any additional information about how sight and mobility could have originated.
Evolution is supposed to explain how complicated biological machines, such as legs and eyes, developed without an intelligent person to design and build them. A paper in Nature described one way nature may have added complexity to a biological machine. However, the study also showed how powerless natural processes are to generate complicated working machinery.1
Biologist Joe Thornton, University of Oregon professor and the study's senior author, has a laboratory with facilities dedicated to "reconstructing history with the experimental strategies of molecular biology and biochemistry to rigorously test hypotheses about the mechanisms of evolution," according to his university website.2
His latest attempt involved rebuilding hypothetical protein components of the ring-shaped base of a vital molecular machine called V-ATPase, which is found in yeast.3 The idea was that if his team could reconstruct "prior" versions of this protein, then they could put together a story explaining each evolutionary change that led to today's V-ATPase structure.
But the best they could do was to explain how it de-evolved. The version of V-ATPase found in today's yeast appeared to the researchers to be like the previously mentioned blind and legless men—damaged versions of an originally more effective V-ATPase.
The study authors wrote that because "losses occurred" in the history of V-ATPase, "the complexity of the ring increased," and that their study results "provide no evidence that VmaII [a V-ATPase protein component] evolved novel functions in addition to those that it inherited."1
In response to this research, biochemist and well-known critic of neo-Darwinian evolution Michael Behe told Evolution News:
The most glaringly obvious point is that, like the results of [evolutionary microbiologist Richard] Lenski's work [with 50,000 generations of a bacteria], this is evolution by degradation. All of the functional parts of the system were already in place before random mutation began to degrade them. Thus it is of no help to Darwinists, who require a mechanism that will construct new, functional systems.4
Behe also wrote:
One can say, if one wishes, that a congenitally blind man teaming up with a congenitally legless man to safely move around the environment is an increase in "complexity" over a sighted, ambulatory person. But it certainly is no improvement, nor does it give the slightest clue how vision and locomotion arose.4
So, even though today's version of V-ATPase might be more complex than the original version, it is not better, more efficient, or more effective.5 In fact, it only shows that natural processes like mutations degrade living systems—the opposite of evolution.
The Institute for Creation Research
You never cease to amaze me with your utter ignorance.
What scientific fact have I "disproved"?
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Study Finds Molecules Evolving in Wrong Direction
Which is more complex—a typical man walking across a street, or a blind man carrying a legless man across the street?
The blind and legless partners are more complex simply because they have more interacting parts. But this increased complexity not only results in less functionality, it also doesn't provide any additional information about how sight and mobility could have originated.
Evolution is supposed to explain how complicated biological machines, such as legs and eyes, developed without an intelligent person to design and build them. A paper in Nature described one way nature may have added complexity to a biological machine. However, the study also showed how powerless natural processes are to generate complicated working machinery.1
Biologist Joe Thornton, University of Oregon professor and the study's senior author, has a laboratory with facilities dedicated to "reconstructing history with the experimental strategies of molecular biology and biochemistry to rigorously test hypotheses about the mechanisms of evolution," according to his university website.2
His latest attempt involved rebuilding hypothetical protein components of the ring-shaped base of a vital molecular machine called V-ATPase, which is found in yeast.3 The idea was that if his team could reconstruct "prior" versions of this protein, then they could put together a story explaining each evolutionary change that led to today's V-ATPase structure.
But the best they could do was to explain how it de-evolved. The version of V-ATPase found in today's yeast appeared to the researchers to be like the previously mentioned blind and legless men—damaged versions of an originally more effective V-ATPase.
The study authors wrote that because "losses occurred" in the history of V-ATPase, "the complexity of the ring increased," and that their study results "provide no evidence that VmaII [a V-ATPase protein component] evolved novel functions in addition to those that it inherited."1
In response to this research, biochemist and well-known critic of neo-Darwinian evolution Michael Behe told Evolution News:
The most glaringly obvious point is that, like the results of [evolutionary microbiologist Richard] Lenski's work [with 50,000 generations of a bacteria], this is evolution by degradation. All of the functional parts of the system were already in place before random mutation began to degrade them. Thus it is of no help to Darwinists, who require a mechanism that will construct new, functional systems.4
Behe also wrote:
One can say, if one wishes, that a congenitally blind man teaming up with a congenitally legless man to safely move around the environment is an increase in "complexity" over a sighted, ambulatory person. But it certainly is no improvement, nor does it give the slightest clue how vision and locomotion arose.4
So, even though today's version of V-ATPase might be more complex than the original version, it is not better, more efficient, or more effective.5 In fact, it only shows that natural processes like mutations degrade living systems—the opposite of evolution.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517653 wrote: What scientific fact have I "disproved"?
"Study Finds Molecules Evolving in Wrong Direction"
You have, and Science has, disproved nothing. At least nothing to do with Evolution.
You don't even seem to know what Evolution is, and none of what you offer is proof of anything useful.
Pahu;1517653 wrote: ...Evolution is supposed to explain how complicated biological machines, such as legs and eyes, developed without an intelligent person to design and build them. A paper in Nature described one way nature may have added complexity to a biological machine. However, the study also showed how powerless natural processes are to generate complicated working machinery...
Evolution is change. Simply change. Evolution has nothing to do with whether creation becomes more complex, or more simple. If it changes over time, you have witnessed evolution.
As creatures adapt to the changing conditions they find in their environment, they evolve. Some of the changes are behavioral, some are actually physical.
That, my friend, is Evolution. Plain and simple.
"Study Finds Molecules Evolving in Wrong Direction"
You have, and Science has, disproved nothing. At least nothing to do with Evolution.
You don't even seem to know what Evolution is, and none of what you offer is proof of anything useful.
Pahu;1517653 wrote: ...Evolution is supposed to explain how complicated biological machines, such as legs and eyes, developed without an intelligent person to design and build them. A paper in Nature described one way nature may have added complexity to a biological machine. However, the study also showed how powerless natural processes are to generate complicated working machinery...
Evolution is change. Simply change. Evolution has nothing to do with whether creation becomes more complex, or more simple. If it changes over time, you have witnessed evolution.
As creatures adapt to the changing conditions they find in their environment, they evolve. Some of the changes are behavioral, some are actually physical.
That, my friend, is Evolution. Plain and simple.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517654 wrote: You have, and Science has, disproved nothing. At least nothing to do with Evolution.
You don't even seem to know what Evolution is, and none of what you offer is proof of anything useful.
Evolution is change. Simply change. Evolution has nothing to do with whether creation becomes more complex, or more simple. If it changes over time, you have witnessed evolution.
As creatures adapt to the changing conditions they find in their environment, they evolve. Some of the changes are behavioral, some are actually physical.
That, my friend, is Evolution. Plain and simple.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Flower Color Changes: Evolution or Creation in Action?
Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara investigated the genetics behind color changes in flower species by studying the columbine, a wild flower native to North America. The columbine’s capacity to change colors from generation to generation has been called an example of “adaptive radiation, referring to the rapid changes in a specific plant or animal trait such as the color of a flower.
Adaptive radiation is a rapid phenomenon because the variation is fully observable in many wild populations. Since macroevolutionary hypotheses of simple-to-complex evolutionary progress require vast eons, alterations produced by adaptive radiation occur quickly by comparison.
In the case of columbine flowers, the change in color results in a shift in pollinators (certain moths and hummingbirds) that prefer certain colors. A UC Santa Barbara press release referred to this process as “evolution in action.1 But this color variation is nowhere close to representing a mechanism that could drive evolution on the grand scale of the amoeba-to-man scenario. Are these closely-related interbreeding organisms turning into something completely different? Are beneficial changes in the DNA creating whole new traits? Not in the case of these columbines.
Flower color in the columbine shifts from blue to red, and then from white to yellow, and the study’s authors “believe that a color shift from red to white or yellow has happened five times in North America.1 Research indicates that the changes in color are based on the destruction of key genes through mutation in the DNA. The loss of a key gene in the pigment production pathway results in a “hiccup in the normal system. In cases where multiple genes are disabled by mutation, the flowers are white because absolutely no pigment is produced.
The UC Santa Barbara researchers mapped out the specialized proteins in the biochemical pathway that produces flower pigments. Many of them, as well as other supporting proteins, must be in place and fully functional for pigment to be produced. This complicated machinery manufactures a highly specified photo-reactive macromolecule. Neither this study of adaptive radiation nor any other study has yet to show how these kinds of molecular assembly lines could have formed naturally.
The researchers found 34 different genes involved in the production of pigments that make the various flower colors.2 Thus, there are a number of places in this system where flower color can be changed through mutation•not by the creation of new genes, but by the alteration of existing ones. While this corruption of the genetic code has resulted in some interesting genetic variation in flower color, for evolution to occur on a grand scale, new functional genes and novel genetic information would have to be created. What is actually observed in columbines is quite the opposite. Certain trait variations may occur, but the flowers that carry the traits were and still are columbines.
Many scientists, such as the ones in this study, ignore the destructive genetic changes that lie behind flower color variation and instead focus on how the resulting shades of color are acted upon by various types of pollinators, presupposing that the flowers are somehow changing to match the available birds and insects. But while the diverse pollinators may serve to propagate different flowers of certain colors, they induce no new structures. They actually show off the resiliency built into creation by the Creator, who made flying creatures with just the right kinds of mouth parts to pollinate these plants, as well as enough flexibility in their visual systems to still be able to recognize mutant, degenerate flower colors.
The Institute for Creation Research
You don't even seem to know what Evolution is, and none of what you offer is proof of anything useful.
Evolution is change. Simply change. Evolution has nothing to do with whether creation becomes more complex, or more simple. If it changes over time, you have witnessed evolution.
As creatures adapt to the changing conditions they find in their environment, they evolve. Some of the changes are behavioral, some are actually physical.
That, my friend, is Evolution. Plain and simple.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Flower Color Changes: Evolution or Creation in Action?
Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara investigated the genetics behind color changes in flower species by studying the columbine, a wild flower native to North America. The columbine’s capacity to change colors from generation to generation has been called an example of “adaptive radiation, referring to the rapid changes in a specific plant or animal trait such as the color of a flower.
Adaptive radiation is a rapid phenomenon because the variation is fully observable in many wild populations. Since macroevolutionary hypotheses of simple-to-complex evolutionary progress require vast eons, alterations produced by adaptive radiation occur quickly by comparison.
In the case of columbine flowers, the change in color results in a shift in pollinators (certain moths and hummingbirds) that prefer certain colors. A UC Santa Barbara press release referred to this process as “evolution in action.1 But this color variation is nowhere close to representing a mechanism that could drive evolution on the grand scale of the amoeba-to-man scenario. Are these closely-related interbreeding organisms turning into something completely different? Are beneficial changes in the DNA creating whole new traits? Not in the case of these columbines.
Flower color in the columbine shifts from blue to red, and then from white to yellow, and the study’s authors “believe that a color shift from red to white or yellow has happened five times in North America.1 Research indicates that the changes in color are based on the destruction of key genes through mutation in the DNA. The loss of a key gene in the pigment production pathway results in a “hiccup in the normal system. In cases where multiple genes are disabled by mutation, the flowers are white because absolutely no pigment is produced.
The UC Santa Barbara researchers mapped out the specialized proteins in the biochemical pathway that produces flower pigments. Many of them, as well as other supporting proteins, must be in place and fully functional for pigment to be produced. This complicated machinery manufactures a highly specified photo-reactive macromolecule. Neither this study of adaptive radiation nor any other study has yet to show how these kinds of molecular assembly lines could have formed naturally.
The researchers found 34 different genes involved in the production of pigments that make the various flower colors.2 Thus, there are a number of places in this system where flower color can be changed through mutation•not by the creation of new genes, but by the alteration of existing ones. While this corruption of the genetic code has resulted in some interesting genetic variation in flower color, for evolution to occur on a grand scale, new functional genes and novel genetic information would have to be created. What is actually observed in columbines is quite the opposite. Certain trait variations may occur, but the flowers that carry the traits were and still are columbines.
Many scientists, such as the ones in this study, ignore the destructive genetic changes that lie behind flower color variation and instead focus on how the resulting shades of color are acted upon by various types of pollinators, presupposing that the flowers are somehow changing to match the available birds and insects. But while the diverse pollinators may serve to propagate different flowers of certain colors, they induce no new structures. They actually show off the resiliency built into creation by the Creator, who made flying creatures with just the right kinds of mouth parts to pollinate these plants, as well as enough flexibility in their visual systems to still be able to recognize mutant, degenerate flower colors.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Again, not science. Speculation.
Besides, most gardeners know that many plants will see changes in the flower color depending on the minerals in the soil where the plant grows. The wild strains of Columbine in the Colorado Rockies are almost exclusively deep Blue. Different color variants brought up to the high country and planted by humans will revert to the same deep blue within a couple of seasons. Since the Columbine is a perennial, this suggests that far more than simple genetics are responsible for the color of the bloom.
Besides, most gardeners know that many plants will see changes in the flower color depending on the minerals in the soil where the plant grows. The wild strains of Columbine in the Colorado Rockies are almost exclusively deep Blue. Different color variants brought up to the high country and planted by humans will revert to the same deep blue within a couple of seasons. Since the Columbine is a perennial, this suggests that far more than simple genetics are responsible for the color of the bloom.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517663 wrote: Again, not science. Speculation.
Besides, most gardeners know that many plants will see changes in the flower color depending on the minerals in the soil where the plant grows. The wild strains of Columbine in the Colorado Rockies are almost exclusively deep Blue. Different color variants brought up to the high country and planted by humans will revert to the same deep blue within a couple of seasons. Since the Columbine is a perennial, this suggests that far more than simple genetics are responsible for the color of the bloom.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird?
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit." (Matthew 7:18)
Evolutionists have expended great effort in trying to establish that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Some skeletal similarities do exist—encouraging them to minimize the differences and to champion any possible clue (like hints of feathers in theropod dinosaurs) that the two classes might be related. Now it appears that some would even resort to fraud to establish such a lineage. It behooves us to step back and take a look. What structural and physiological transformations must occur to change one into the other? The following abridged list of evolutionary obstacles might be helpful.
Wings: The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs. Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four. Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles.
Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin.
Bones: Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. The placement and design of bird bones may be analogous to those in dinosaurs, but they are actually quite different. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight. And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors.
Warm blooded: Birds are warmblooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style.
Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.
Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.
Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Evolutionary stories don't fit the facts.
The Institute for Creation Research
Besides, most gardeners know that many plants will see changes in the flower color depending on the minerals in the soil where the plant grows. The wild strains of Columbine in the Colorado Rockies are almost exclusively deep Blue. Different color variants brought up to the high country and planted by humans will revert to the same deep blue within a couple of seasons. Since the Columbine is a perennial, this suggests that far more than simple genetics are responsible for the color of the bloom.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird?
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit." (Matthew 7:18)
Evolutionists have expended great effort in trying to establish that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Some skeletal similarities do exist—encouraging them to minimize the differences and to champion any possible clue (like hints of feathers in theropod dinosaurs) that the two classes might be related. Now it appears that some would even resort to fraud to establish such a lineage. It behooves us to step back and take a look. What structural and physiological transformations must occur to change one into the other? The following abridged list of evolutionary obstacles might be helpful.
Wings: The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs. Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four. Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles.
Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin.
Bones: Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. The placement and design of bird bones may be analogous to those in dinosaurs, but they are actually quite different. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight. And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors.
Warm blooded: Birds are warmblooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style.
Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.
Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.
Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Evolutionary stories don't fit the facts.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517669 wrote: Still waiting
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Dallas Hospital Thwarts 'Evolving' Bacteria
Methodist Dallas Medical Center in 2009 averted an impending outbreak of dangerously infectious bacteria called Acinetobacter baumannii. Although less prevalent than MRSA, Acinetobacter has acquired a similar resistance to common antibiotics. Would it be accurate to refer to this change in bacteria as "evolution"?
Most Acinetobacter species are widely found in soils, where they play a key ecological role by transforming organic compounds into inert mineral forms. They appear to have been expertly equipped to survive the rigors of outdoor life, thriving in both wet and dry environments. In fact, they have such robust genetic structure that some species are being developed for use in biotechnological manufacturing processes.
But those are also the qualities of Acinetobacter that make it more dangerous to people with severe wounds or compromised immune systems. Only a few species of the bacteria have become threatening, but those that have developed resistance to standard antibiotics are surviving even on such dry places as hospital equipment.
An Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology press release highlighted the success of the Dallas hospital in taking aggressive control of the situation to thwart an outbreak. The release also stated, "Acinetobacter has effectively developed resistance to most common antibiotics and continues to evolve against the medicines used to fight its infections"1 (emphasis added). Two aspects of this comment are imprecise.
First, the bacteria are not clever. They are only passive recipients of random mutations that debilitate cellular function by causing a misshapen protein. The antibiotic would normally kill most species by binding to this protein and shutting down the vital system adjoining it, but the antibiotic cannot attach to the mutant protein. Thus, the mutated antibiotic-resistant bacteria did not in fact proactively "develop" anything, but merely suffered a corruption in genetic expression.
Second, although it has become a matter of course to refer to any and all biological change as "evolution," none of the changes that are actually observed are at all relevant to the grand particles-to-people evolutionary story. One bacterium out of millions may happen to have a particular mutation that both hampers its health (when grown alongside wild cousins outside the presence of antibiotics) and inadvertently obstructs antibiotic mechanisms. But how are larger life forms supposed to have "evolved" from bacteria by such a breakdown of internal equipment?
Instead of providing an example of evolution, antibiotic-resistant species of Acinetobacter are clear examples of well-designed creations that were once very good but are now under sin's curse and are falling apart.
The Institute for Creation Research
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Dallas Hospital Thwarts 'Evolving' Bacteria
Methodist Dallas Medical Center in 2009 averted an impending outbreak of dangerously infectious bacteria called Acinetobacter baumannii. Although less prevalent than MRSA, Acinetobacter has acquired a similar resistance to common antibiotics. Would it be accurate to refer to this change in bacteria as "evolution"?
Most Acinetobacter species are widely found in soils, where they play a key ecological role by transforming organic compounds into inert mineral forms. They appear to have been expertly equipped to survive the rigors of outdoor life, thriving in both wet and dry environments. In fact, they have such robust genetic structure that some species are being developed for use in biotechnological manufacturing processes.
But those are also the qualities of Acinetobacter that make it more dangerous to people with severe wounds or compromised immune systems. Only a few species of the bacteria have become threatening, but those that have developed resistance to standard antibiotics are surviving even on such dry places as hospital equipment.
An Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology press release highlighted the success of the Dallas hospital in taking aggressive control of the situation to thwart an outbreak. The release also stated, "Acinetobacter has effectively developed resistance to most common antibiotics and continues to evolve against the medicines used to fight its infections"1 (emphasis added). Two aspects of this comment are imprecise.
First, the bacteria are not clever. They are only passive recipients of random mutations that debilitate cellular function by causing a misshapen protein. The antibiotic would normally kill most species by binding to this protein and shutting down the vital system adjoining it, but the antibiotic cannot attach to the mutant protein. Thus, the mutated antibiotic-resistant bacteria did not in fact proactively "develop" anything, but merely suffered a corruption in genetic expression.
Second, although it has become a matter of course to refer to any and all biological change as "evolution," none of the changes that are actually observed are at all relevant to the grand particles-to-people evolutionary story. One bacterium out of millions may happen to have a particular mutation that both hampers its health (when grown alongside wild cousins outside the presence of antibiotics) and inadvertently obstructs antibiotic mechanisms. But how are larger life forms supposed to have "evolved" from bacteria by such a breakdown of internal equipment?
Instead of providing an example of evolution, antibiotic-resistant species of Acinetobacter are clear examples of well-designed creations that were once very good but are now under sin's curse and are falling apart.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
So, you've abandoned science, altogether,, now.
At least there is some honesty in your efforts, at last.
Perhaps now you will change your thread title to something more true to your claims.
At least there is some honesty in your efforts, at last.
Perhaps now you will change your thread title to something more true to your claims.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517671 wrote: So, you've abandoned science, altogether,, now.
At least there is some honesty in your efforts, at last.
Perhaps now you will change your thread title to something more true to your claims.
Why do you believe that? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Butterfly Evolution in Action? Not Likely.
One hundred and fifty years ago, Charles Darwin published his proposal that all creatures on earth emerged naturally from a common ancestor through a process of gradual change. Although this hypothesis rapidly pervaded Western thinking about origins, substantial corroborating evidence for such morphing between various organisms has not materialized. And a new report of “evolution in action still fails to add support.
In a study recently published in Current Biology, researchers studied museum specimens collected over a period of 130 years in Fiji of butterflies called Great Eggflies (Hypolimnas bolina). They found that some of the source populations rapidly alternated between having a predominance of females and having an even number of both sexes. They correlated this phenomenon with the activity of the bacterial parasite Wolbachia, which infects only the males. While the bacteria were active, one population contained ten times more females than males. When the bacteria lost their ability to infect, the number of males and females equalized.
These observations led the researchers to conclude that this is a rare example of being able to “directly observe evolution over short time periods.1
However, the changes that apparently occurred in these butterfly populations were even less an example of Darwinism than those known to occur with Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands. The famed evolutionist cited these birds as evidence for his theory, but although their beak sizes fluctuate every generation, they remain finches. Likewise, after the alternating ratios of males to females within populations of these particular butterflies stabilized, they were still Great Eggflies.
Thus, “evolution only really occurred if that term is applied to any kind of change, whether subtle, fluctuating, rapid, or imaginary. But since Great Eggflies, and their bacterial parasites for that matter, remain to this day perfectly identifiable as such, evolution in the grand Darwinian sense has not actually been observed.
If, however, both of these organisms originated from an all-wise Creator, as depicted in the Bible, then variation within stable reproducing kinds would be expected. And that scenario accurately describes the actual observations of Great Eggflies, Wolbachia, Darwin’s finches, and other living things.
Darwin’s personal journals demonstrate that he increasingly rejected a Creator based mostly on the presence of evil in the world. He noticed parasitism among arthropods, similar to the bacteria infecting the Great Eggfly. But such now-harmful organisms may not always have had this destructive function. Genesis 3 describes the intrusion of a multifaceted sin-caused curse upon all creation. God originally made these kinds of creatures to be “very good (Genesis 1:31), but they have since fallen into a state of disrepair and corruption.2
Small-scale differences in butterfly populations do not add up to Darwin’s grand-scale evolution. These particular changes fluctuate rapidly, but leave no permanent and fundamental alteration to the created kind. This and similar studies, though presented as evolution in action, actually show a fallen creation in action.
The Institute for Creation Research
At least there is some honesty in your efforts, at last.
Perhaps now you will change your thread title to something more true to your claims.
Why do you believe that? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Butterfly Evolution in Action? Not Likely.
One hundred and fifty years ago, Charles Darwin published his proposal that all creatures on earth emerged naturally from a common ancestor through a process of gradual change. Although this hypothesis rapidly pervaded Western thinking about origins, substantial corroborating evidence for such morphing between various organisms has not materialized. And a new report of “evolution in action still fails to add support.
In a study recently published in Current Biology, researchers studied museum specimens collected over a period of 130 years in Fiji of butterflies called Great Eggflies (Hypolimnas bolina). They found that some of the source populations rapidly alternated between having a predominance of females and having an even number of both sexes. They correlated this phenomenon with the activity of the bacterial parasite Wolbachia, which infects only the males. While the bacteria were active, one population contained ten times more females than males. When the bacteria lost their ability to infect, the number of males and females equalized.
These observations led the researchers to conclude that this is a rare example of being able to “directly observe evolution over short time periods.1
However, the changes that apparently occurred in these butterfly populations were even less an example of Darwinism than those known to occur with Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands. The famed evolutionist cited these birds as evidence for his theory, but although their beak sizes fluctuate every generation, they remain finches. Likewise, after the alternating ratios of males to females within populations of these particular butterflies stabilized, they were still Great Eggflies.
Thus, “evolution only really occurred if that term is applied to any kind of change, whether subtle, fluctuating, rapid, or imaginary. But since Great Eggflies, and their bacterial parasites for that matter, remain to this day perfectly identifiable as such, evolution in the grand Darwinian sense has not actually been observed.
If, however, both of these organisms originated from an all-wise Creator, as depicted in the Bible, then variation within stable reproducing kinds would be expected. And that scenario accurately describes the actual observations of Great Eggflies, Wolbachia, Darwin’s finches, and other living things.
Darwin’s personal journals demonstrate that he increasingly rejected a Creator based mostly on the presence of evil in the world. He noticed parasitism among arthropods, similar to the bacteria infecting the Great Eggfly. But such now-harmful organisms may not always have had this destructive function. Genesis 3 describes the intrusion of a multifaceted sin-caused curse upon all creation. God originally made these kinds of creatures to be “very good (Genesis 1:31), but they have since fallen into a state of disrepair and corruption.2
Small-scale differences in butterfly populations do not add up to Darwin’s grand-scale evolution. These particular changes fluctuate rapidly, but leave no permanent and fundamental alteration to the created kind. This and similar studies, though presented as evolution in action, actually show a fallen creation in action.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Chemical Elements of Life 2
Nitrogen. Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments [f].
Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life [g].
f. “If there ever was a primitive soup [to provide the chemical compounds for evolving life] , then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. Indeed to the contrary, the very oldest of sediments ... are extremely short of nitrogen. J. Brooks and G. Shaw, Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p.359.
“No evidence exists that such a soup ever existed. Abel and Trevors, p.3.
g. “The acceptance of this theory [life’s evolution on earth] and its promulgation by many workers [scientists and researchers] who have certainly not always considered all the facts in great detail has in our opinion reached proportions which could be regarded as dangerous. Ibid., p.355.
Certainly, ignoring indisputable, basic evidence in most scientific fields is expensive and wasteful. Failure to explain the evidence to students betrays a trust and misleads future teachers and leaders.
Readers should consider why, despite the improbabilities and lack of proper chemistry, many educators and the media have taught for a century that life evolved on earth. Abandoning or questioning that belief leaves only one strong contender—creation. Questioning evolution in some circles invites ostracism, much like stating that the proverbial emperor “has no clothes.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
All you have done is to repeat the same line which I have already proven is oncorrect, after having given you plenty of opportunity to prove the contray. I have challenged you to complete the details outlining the Disciplines of Science & to quantify how they apply to your claims. I stated that failure to do so IN YOUR OWN WORDS WITHOUT THE USE OF PASTING would be concession of defeat & that you were wrong. Not once have you been able to satisfy any of the conditions. Therefore, you have already conceded that everything you have said is total Bollocks. Every post you have included consists of your same vague statement, followed by some totally unrelated pasting. Nobody is interested in the pastings. Everyone just scrolls pasts them all. The same old crap has appeared in this thread more than it has on the original site you keep copying it from. If you wish to simply include a link, then fine. Anyone who's in the slightest bit interested can go & look it over. But, of course, you know the truth of it, and know that no-one's interested, so you seem to believe that forcing it in everyone's faces will somehow make them take notice & suddenly change their general opinion of you from the nutjob idiot that everyone knows you as, to some sort of inspired genius. Well, I can assure you it's not going to happed.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1517798 wrote: All you have done is to repeat the same line which I have already proven is oncorrect, after having given you plenty of opportunity to prove the contray. I have challenged you to complete the details outlining the Disciplines of Science & to quantify how they apply to your claims. I stated that failure to do so IN YOUR OWN WORDS WITHOUT THE USE OF PASTING would be concession of defeat & that you were wrong. Not once have you been able to satisfy any of the conditions. Therefore, you have already conceded that everything you have said is total Bollocks.
So if I don't satisfy your conditions, I have conceded defeat and everything I have share is totally wrong.? What nonsense!
[quorte]Every post you have included consists of your same vague statement, followed by some totally unrelated pasting. Nobody is interested in the pastings. Everyone just scrolls pasts them all. The same old crap has appeared in this thread more than it has on the original site you keep copying it from. If you wish to simply include a link, then fine. Anyone who's in the slightest bit interested can go & look it over. But, of course, you know the truth of it, and know that no-one's interested, so you seem to believe that forcing it in everyone's faces will somehow make them take notice & suddenly change their general opinion of you from the nutjob idiot that everyone knows you as, to some sort of inspired genius. Well, I can assure you it's not going to happed.
How can you be sure no-one is interested in what I am sharing? Have you discussed it with everyone? Even if you are right, I will continue to share the scientific facts that disprove the myth of evolution.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Lowly Plankton Packs High-Caliber Heat
BY FRANK SHERWIN, M.A.
Plankton is the general name for the tiny creatures that drift with ocean tides and currents and form the basis of the ocean’s food chain. Phytoplankton (plants) undergo photosynthesis and are made up mainly of diatoms. Zooplankton (animals) include protozoa which feed on diatoms, and baleen whales (the non-toothed variety) feast on both kinds of plankton.
One particular group of plankton is called dinoflagellates, a sophisticated marine protozoa with two flagella—the microscopic tails that enable these creatures to swim. Recently, these dinoflagellates were discovered to possess an amazing hunting mechanism that acts like a Gatling gun.1 This ring of projectile-firing capsules (extrusomes) was found in Nematodinium sp by University of British Columbia biologists.
As is typically the case with evolution theory, scientists were not expecting to find such sophistication and intricacy in the “lowly plankton; after all, most are single-celled organisms. Gregory Gavelis at Arizona State University Tempe states, “People hadn’t been able to figure out how these dinoflagellates attack their prey because their ballistic mechanisms are so unexpectedly complex.1
Regardless of the unexpected complexity, the article attempts to put a positive evolutionary spin on this discovery saying, “The researchers also found new evidence for the evolutionary origins of these extrusomes.1
But the opposite is actually the case. They predicted that this unique form of ballistic mechanism would be much like the amazing stinging organelles called nematocysts found in jellyfish (cnidarians). Instead what they discovered was “a very exciting example of convergent evolution. But convergent evolution is not a scientific explanation.2 It’s nothing more than an escape, a rescuing device to explain similar structures in unrelated organisms, such as similar external fin and flipper designs found in fish, whales, dolphins, and extinct aquatic reptiles. They also found that nematocysts of cnidarians evidently do not share any of their extrusome genes. Because this discovery contradicts evolutionary predictions, it was simply labeled “exciting.4
Creation scientists see these gun-like extrusomes as complete, fully-formed mechanisms and functioning perfectly with no indication of having evolved. These fascinating shooting structures were designed as a method of obtaining food (detritus perhaps) both before and after the Fall. Even the smallest and “lowliest creatures show incredible design.
The Institute for Creation Research
So if I don't satisfy your conditions, I have conceded defeat and everything I have share is totally wrong.? What nonsense!
[quorte]Every post you have included consists of your same vague statement, followed by some totally unrelated pasting. Nobody is interested in the pastings. Everyone just scrolls pasts them all. The same old crap has appeared in this thread more than it has on the original site you keep copying it from. If you wish to simply include a link, then fine. Anyone who's in the slightest bit interested can go & look it over. But, of course, you know the truth of it, and know that no-one's interested, so you seem to believe that forcing it in everyone's faces will somehow make them take notice & suddenly change their general opinion of you from the nutjob idiot that everyone knows you as, to some sort of inspired genius. Well, I can assure you it's not going to happed.
How can you be sure no-one is interested in what I am sharing? Have you discussed it with everyone? Even if you are right, I will continue to share the scientific facts that disprove the myth of evolution.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Lowly Plankton Packs High-Caliber Heat
BY FRANK SHERWIN, M.A.
Plankton is the general name for the tiny creatures that drift with ocean tides and currents and form the basis of the ocean’s food chain. Phytoplankton (plants) undergo photosynthesis and are made up mainly of diatoms. Zooplankton (animals) include protozoa which feed on diatoms, and baleen whales (the non-toothed variety) feast on both kinds of plankton.
One particular group of plankton is called dinoflagellates, a sophisticated marine protozoa with two flagella—the microscopic tails that enable these creatures to swim. Recently, these dinoflagellates were discovered to possess an amazing hunting mechanism that acts like a Gatling gun.1 This ring of projectile-firing capsules (extrusomes) was found in Nematodinium sp by University of British Columbia biologists.
As is typically the case with evolution theory, scientists were not expecting to find such sophistication and intricacy in the “lowly plankton; after all, most are single-celled organisms. Gregory Gavelis at Arizona State University Tempe states, “People hadn’t been able to figure out how these dinoflagellates attack their prey because their ballistic mechanisms are so unexpectedly complex.1
Regardless of the unexpected complexity, the article attempts to put a positive evolutionary spin on this discovery saying, “The researchers also found new evidence for the evolutionary origins of these extrusomes.1
But the opposite is actually the case. They predicted that this unique form of ballistic mechanism would be much like the amazing stinging organelles called nematocysts found in jellyfish (cnidarians). Instead what they discovered was “a very exciting example of convergent evolution. But convergent evolution is not a scientific explanation.2 It’s nothing more than an escape, a rescuing device to explain similar structures in unrelated organisms, such as similar external fin and flipper designs found in fish, whales, dolphins, and extinct aquatic reptiles. They also found that nematocysts of cnidarians evidently do not share any of their extrusome genes. Because this discovery contradicts evolutionary predictions, it was simply labeled “exciting.4
Creation scientists see these gun-like extrusomes as complete, fully-formed mechanisms and functioning perfectly with no indication of having evolved. These fascinating shooting structures were designed as a method of obtaining food (detritus perhaps) both before and after the Fall. Even the smallest and “lowliest creatures show incredible design.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
So come on - list the disciplines & state how they have been used to prove what you claim. I've already asked you over & over again, and each time you have failed to do so. The reason is simple. It simply isn't true. There are strict disciplines to Science. You don't seem to have a clue about any of them, least of all about how it's supposed to apply to your case.
So come on - list the disciplines & state how they have been used to prove what you claim. I've already asked you over & over again, and each time you have failed to do so. The reason is simple. It simply isn't true. There are strict disciplines to Science. You don't seem to have a clue about any of them, least of all about how it's supposed to apply to your case.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1517802 wrote: So come on - list the disciplines & state how they have been used to prove what you claim. I've already asked you over & over again, and each time you have failed to do so. The reason is simple. It simply isn't true. There are strict disciplines to Science. You don't seem to have a clue about any of them, least of all about how it's supposed to apply to your case.
Really? Your evidence free denial is useless. Here is more: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Smart and Stealthy Cuttlefish
BY FRANK SHERWIN, M.A.
Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) belong to an order of cephalopods called Sepioidea. They appear suddenly in the fossil record as cephalopods. "Ancestral cephalopods" are unknown. Using hydropropulsion as their primary locomotion, cuttlefish are quite mobile and extremely agile.
Many zoologists consider cuttlefish to be the most intelligent invertebrate species, which is quite a problem from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionists view intelligence evolving through social interactions and long life spans. But cuttlefish are cephalopods. They don't have a complex social structure and live only about a year—the lifespan of a butterfly. How did cuttlefish become so bright?
In addition, these animals have a kind of visual "superpower," in that they can "see" information in light waves we humans cannot. Sometimes electric fields, of which light is composed, can become preferentially aligned in a certain direction, a phenomenon called polarization. Cuttlefish have been designed to sense when the direction of polarized light changes. Other animals have polarized vision, but the cuttlefish's appears to be the best: It's in high definition.1
Cuttlefish have the unfortunate quality of being delicious to oceanic predators such as sharks. This is why these "chameleons of the sea" are also designed with camouflage—and a recently discovered electrical stealth technology.2 They emit a weak electrical field (a tiny artifact really, about 75,000 times fainter than a AAA battery) from four parts of its body. A shark can detect these microvolt emissions using its array of sensitive detectors studding its snout.
What's a cuttlefish to do? Upon sensing a shark it immediately freezes and covers its body openings (its mouth and the siphon it uses for hydropropulsion) with its arms while clamping down on its mantle (the large fold of soft tissue on its back). This results in a drop in the current the cuttlefish emits. Reducing the cuttlefish's tell-tale electrical signal lowers the chances of being discovered... and eaten.
The appealing cuttlefish therefore has two ways to evade being consumed: visual camouflage operating in less than a second, and the recently discovered electrical stealth.
Both stealth camo and technology requires a stealthy designer.
The Institute for Creation Research
Really? Your evidence free denial is useless. Here is more: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Smart and Stealthy Cuttlefish
BY FRANK SHERWIN, M.A.
Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) belong to an order of cephalopods called Sepioidea. They appear suddenly in the fossil record as cephalopods. "Ancestral cephalopods" are unknown. Using hydropropulsion as their primary locomotion, cuttlefish are quite mobile and extremely agile.
Many zoologists consider cuttlefish to be the most intelligent invertebrate species, which is quite a problem from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionists view intelligence evolving through social interactions and long life spans. But cuttlefish are cephalopods. They don't have a complex social structure and live only about a year—the lifespan of a butterfly. How did cuttlefish become so bright?
In addition, these animals have a kind of visual "superpower," in that they can "see" information in light waves we humans cannot. Sometimes electric fields, of which light is composed, can become preferentially aligned in a certain direction, a phenomenon called polarization. Cuttlefish have been designed to sense when the direction of polarized light changes. Other animals have polarized vision, but the cuttlefish's appears to be the best: It's in high definition.1
Cuttlefish have the unfortunate quality of being delicious to oceanic predators such as sharks. This is why these "chameleons of the sea" are also designed with camouflage—and a recently discovered electrical stealth technology.2 They emit a weak electrical field (a tiny artifact really, about 75,000 times fainter than a AAA battery) from four parts of its body. A shark can detect these microvolt emissions using its array of sensitive detectors studding its snout.
What's a cuttlefish to do? Upon sensing a shark it immediately freezes and covers its body openings (its mouth and the siphon it uses for hydropropulsion) with its arms while clamping down on its mantle (the large fold of soft tissue on its back). This results in a drop in the current the cuttlefish emits. Reducing the cuttlefish's tell-tale electrical signal lowers the chances of being discovered... and eaten.
The appealing cuttlefish therefore has two ways to evade being consumed: visual camouflage operating in less than a second, and the recently discovered electrical stealth.
Both stealth camo and technology requires a stealthy designer.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Just as I said - you cannot quantify your claims & once again have to rely on pasting irrelevant material. You really should get some professional help to get over your pasting fetish.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517809 wrote: Really? Your evidence free denial is useless. Here is more: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
...
Your ramblings are the epitome of "evidence free"
No discipline, no science, Nothing but opinion and evidence free speculation.
...
Your ramblings are the epitome of "evidence free"
No discipline, no science, Nothing but opinion and evidence free speculation.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1517810 wrote: Just as I said - you cannot quantify your claims & once again have to rely on pasting irrelevant material. You really should get some professional help to get over your pasting fetish.
I am sorry scientific facts bother you. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Amazing Animal Designs
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Every year scientists discover new and amazing animal designs, and 2015 was no exception. Each find brings a new reminder of the same message every generation needs to hear: “The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours; The world and all its fullness, You have founded them. The north and the south, You have created them.1
In the category of “wacky but wonderful, biologists detailed the means by which jungle bats in Borneo find pitcher plants to use as parasite-free daytime roosts. These plants collect nutrients from bat waste, so the creatures help each other quite nicely. Amazing sonic reflectors grow right above each pitcher’s opening—informing nearby bats of a perfect place to hang out. Bat vocalizations reflecting off the concave plant reflectors sound louder than normal jungle plants. The reflectors also have tiny ridges spaced just right for this particular bat’s high-pitched voice to form a recognizable three-dimensional pattern. Thus, the bat’s sonar detects the reflector’s sides. That way, it knows where to fly to quickly find the front entrance.2 How did these precisely coded construction blueprints enter plant DNA? Bat calls don’t write code.
Like tiny bats in Borneo, giant blue whales also need precise design features. This year biologists described a necessary feature for a baleen whale’s life. For example, the majestic blue whale uses bungee-cord-like tissues to retract its tongue nerve after opening its mouth extra-wide when lunge-feeding—when their mouths unfold like a Chinese fan to swallow whole schools of krill. Baleen whales could die without the vital sensory information the nerve sends to the whale’s brain. Someone must have fashioned its flexibility so that it could interface with the suite of other essential baleen whale features.3
Inside animal and human ears, vestibular organs (VO) maintain balance. Biophysics research this year unraveled clever communication between the body and its VO. Not just the parts, but their arrangement and protocols—all operating automatically—prevent us from getting motion sickness when we run. The brain sends a nerve signal to activate muscles, the signal gets duplicated, the spinal cord sends one copy to the VO, and a fraction of a second later sends an identical copy to the correct muscles. This way, the VO knows what’s coming, so the body discerns self-intended motion from externally-caused motion.4 Unlike natural forces, this exquisitely designed setup allows VOs to anticipate body motions. Therefore, natural forces did not craft it.
Even scientists who study fossils contributed animal design discoveries in 2015. Certain dinosaurs used cervical ribs—slender cartilaginous supports attached to each vertebra—to support their long necks. Cutting-edge biomechanical modeling revealed that the precise construction of these cervical ribs stabilized sauropod necks by dampening vibrations and keeping the animals’ heads from wobbling.5 Even the orientation of fitted joints between sauropod vertebrae revealed amazing animal design by maximizing range of motion without sacrificing strength between each joint.6
2015 provided enough new discoveries to remind a new generation, “The works of the Lord are great, studied by all who have pleasure in them.7
The Institute for Creation Research
I am sorry scientific facts bother you. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Amazing Animal Designs
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Every year scientists discover new and amazing animal designs, and 2015 was no exception. Each find brings a new reminder of the same message every generation needs to hear: “The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours; The world and all its fullness, You have founded them. The north and the south, You have created them.1
In the category of “wacky but wonderful, biologists detailed the means by which jungle bats in Borneo find pitcher plants to use as parasite-free daytime roosts. These plants collect nutrients from bat waste, so the creatures help each other quite nicely. Amazing sonic reflectors grow right above each pitcher’s opening—informing nearby bats of a perfect place to hang out. Bat vocalizations reflecting off the concave plant reflectors sound louder than normal jungle plants. The reflectors also have tiny ridges spaced just right for this particular bat’s high-pitched voice to form a recognizable three-dimensional pattern. Thus, the bat’s sonar detects the reflector’s sides. That way, it knows where to fly to quickly find the front entrance.2 How did these precisely coded construction blueprints enter plant DNA? Bat calls don’t write code.
Like tiny bats in Borneo, giant blue whales also need precise design features. This year biologists described a necessary feature for a baleen whale’s life. For example, the majestic blue whale uses bungee-cord-like tissues to retract its tongue nerve after opening its mouth extra-wide when lunge-feeding—when their mouths unfold like a Chinese fan to swallow whole schools of krill. Baleen whales could die without the vital sensory information the nerve sends to the whale’s brain. Someone must have fashioned its flexibility so that it could interface with the suite of other essential baleen whale features.3
Inside animal and human ears, vestibular organs (VO) maintain balance. Biophysics research this year unraveled clever communication between the body and its VO. Not just the parts, but their arrangement and protocols—all operating automatically—prevent us from getting motion sickness when we run. The brain sends a nerve signal to activate muscles, the signal gets duplicated, the spinal cord sends one copy to the VO, and a fraction of a second later sends an identical copy to the correct muscles. This way, the VO knows what’s coming, so the body discerns self-intended motion from externally-caused motion.4 Unlike natural forces, this exquisitely designed setup allows VOs to anticipate body motions. Therefore, natural forces did not craft it.
Even scientists who study fossils contributed animal design discoveries in 2015. Certain dinosaurs used cervical ribs—slender cartilaginous supports attached to each vertebra—to support their long necks. Cutting-edge biomechanical modeling revealed that the precise construction of these cervical ribs stabilized sauropod necks by dampening vibrations and keeping the animals’ heads from wobbling.5 Even the orientation of fitted joints between sauropod vertebrae revealed amazing animal design by maximizing range of motion without sacrificing strength between each joint.6
2015 provided enough new discoveries to remind a new generation, “The works of the Lord are great, studied by all who have pleasure in them.7
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517813 wrote: I am sorry scientific facts bother you. ...
I am sure that scientific facts don't bother FourPart. They don't bother me, either.
It is the lack of scientific facts in your posts that we find silly.
I am sure that scientific facts don't bother FourPart. They don't bother me, either.
It is the lack of scientific facts in your posts that we find silly.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517814 wrote: I am sure that scientific facts don't bother FourPart. They don't bother me, either.
It is the lack of scientific facts in your posts that we find silly.
Which only reveals your lack of discernment.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Jesus Lizard Runs on Water, Tramples Evolution
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Jesus lizards literally run across the surface of ponds in Central and South America. According to evolutionary thinking, all reptiles—snakes, turtles, gavials, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, chameleons, skinks, and Jesus lizards—descended from an unknown original reptilian form. What evidence might demonstrate this? Strings of fossils should clearly connect each basic reptile kind back to that supposed key ancestor. It should have interchangeable or adjustable body features that natural forces could have manipulated without disrupting the evolving creature's essential functions. A newly discovered fossil of a Jesus lizard in Wyoming shows just the opposite evidence.
Jack Conrad, a resident research associate of vertebrate paleontology at New York City's American Museum of Natural History described the fossil (found in 2008) in the online journal PloS ONE.1 He described the skull and gave it a new name, but it looks basically like today's Jesus lizards.
So, where is the string of fossils that clearly connects the Jesus lizard back to an ancestor supposed to be common to all reptiles? The string is nowhere to be found—there are no fossil connections and no primordial reptile ancestor paleontologists can point to. Instead, this fossil looks like its living lizard counterpart.
Does the absence for fossil evidence of Jesus lizard evolution disprove all of evolutionary thinking? No, but it falls right in line with biblical creation. If God made a certain kind of lizard with all the parts needed for it to scamper across a watery surface in the beginning, then we would expect to see either that created kind or a different created kind—just what this and other fossils show.
According to LiveScience, the sedimentary Bridger Formation which contained the Jesus lizard fossil was deposited "about 48 million years ago."2 So, there's no trace of Jesus lizard ancestry in rocks below the Bridger Formation, and there's no change to the Jesus lizard's basic form since. Wouldn't 48 million years of mutations and natural selection have left at least some traces of change?
[continue]
It is the lack of scientific facts in your posts that we find silly.
Which only reveals your lack of discernment.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Jesus Lizard Runs on Water, Tramples Evolution
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Jesus lizards literally run across the surface of ponds in Central and South America. According to evolutionary thinking, all reptiles—snakes, turtles, gavials, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, chameleons, skinks, and Jesus lizards—descended from an unknown original reptilian form. What evidence might demonstrate this? Strings of fossils should clearly connect each basic reptile kind back to that supposed key ancestor. It should have interchangeable or adjustable body features that natural forces could have manipulated without disrupting the evolving creature's essential functions. A newly discovered fossil of a Jesus lizard in Wyoming shows just the opposite evidence.
Jack Conrad, a resident research associate of vertebrate paleontology at New York City's American Museum of Natural History described the fossil (found in 2008) in the online journal PloS ONE.1 He described the skull and gave it a new name, but it looks basically like today's Jesus lizards.
So, where is the string of fossils that clearly connects the Jesus lizard back to an ancestor supposed to be common to all reptiles? The string is nowhere to be found—there are no fossil connections and no primordial reptile ancestor paleontologists can point to. Instead, this fossil looks like its living lizard counterpart.
Does the absence for fossil evidence of Jesus lizard evolution disprove all of evolutionary thinking? No, but it falls right in line with biblical creation. If God made a certain kind of lizard with all the parts needed for it to scamper across a watery surface in the beginning, then we would expect to see either that created kind or a different created kind—just what this and other fossils show.
According to LiveScience, the sedimentary Bridger Formation which contained the Jesus lizard fossil was deposited "about 48 million years ago."2 So, there's no trace of Jesus lizard ancestry in rocks below the Bridger Formation, and there's no change to the Jesus lizard's basic form since. Wouldn't 48 million years of mutations and natural selection have left at least some traces of change?
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Jesus Lizard Runs on Water, Tramples Evolution
[continued]
Again, this absence of evolution does not disprove the whole caboodle, but it does cast a vote in favor of the idea that God created this creature in the beginning to reproduce according to its kind.
Are the body features of this lizard evolvable? Researchers in 2004 investigated the anatomy and physiology that enables this slender, roughly two-foot long reptile to scamper on water, publishing their results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.3
They discovered that moving across water requires unique features. This lizard doesn't really crawl across water—it motors. The study authors wrote,
The hindlimb no longer functions like a spring but instead acts more like a piston, limited to only generating force during a step. The slap phase of a step is critical for generating sufficient vertical force to balance the basilisk's body weight, whereas both slap and stroke phases are important for generating fore–aft force.3
Their hind legs also slide away from the body's center during each step. This keeps the lizard from sinking much like the way forward motion keeps a bicycler from toppling. Its long toes provide just enough surface area. In short, it has every trait and habit required to tread water, including a lightweight body and complicated muscle coordination.
Why has nobody even proposed a step-by-step scenario by which these traits and habits could have evolved by any purely natural means? Even if they did, this type of imaginative evolutionary storytelling would be a poor substitute for science.
That science shows no hint of the adjustable or swappable Jesus-lizard body parts with which evolution could tinker, but instead shows a fully integrated suite of water-walking features. Did God simply make it this way from the beginning? The absence of evidence for evolution confirms the recent creation of Jesus lizards.
The Institute for Creation Research
[continued]
Again, this absence of evolution does not disprove the whole caboodle, but it does cast a vote in favor of the idea that God created this creature in the beginning to reproduce according to its kind.
Are the body features of this lizard evolvable? Researchers in 2004 investigated the anatomy and physiology that enables this slender, roughly two-foot long reptile to scamper on water, publishing their results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.3
They discovered that moving across water requires unique features. This lizard doesn't really crawl across water—it motors. The study authors wrote,
The hindlimb no longer functions like a spring but instead acts more like a piston, limited to only generating force during a step. The slap phase of a step is critical for generating sufficient vertical force to balance the basilisk's body weight, whereas both slap and stroke phases are important for generating fore–aft force.3
Their hind legs also slide away from the body's center during each step. This keeps the lizard from sinking much like the way forward motion keeps a bicycler from toppling. Its long toes provide just enough surface area. In short, it has every trait and habit required to tread water, including a lightweight body and complicated muscle coordination.
Why has nobody even proposed a step-by-step scenario by which these traits and habits could have evolved by any purely natural means? Even if they did, this type of imaginative evolutionary storytelling would be a poor substitute for science.
That science shows no hint of the adjustable or swappable Jesus-lizard body parts with which evolution could tinker, but instead shows a fully integrated suite of water-walking features. Did God simply make it this way from the beginning? The absence of evidence for evolution confirms the recent creation of Jesus lizards.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517815 wrote: Which only reveals your lack of discernment.
I discern that you have a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes "Science"
I discern that you have a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes "Science"
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517818 wrote: I discern that you have a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes "Science"
He doesn't even have any idea of what constitutes Evolution either. He seems to believe in the single linear version of Evolution - the age old Creationist Idiot's question of "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys"? Every time he pastes he further confirms this much. The bit in the paste about the Jesus lizard about a fossilised Jesus Lizard having been found. Just what is that supposed to prove? All it shows is that a genus of Jesus Lizard had evolved by that time, and that there were other genuses evolved before it & since. It's a lizard which survived by running fast - so fast that it ran faster than it took to sink, and in so doing survived to pass on its genes to the next generation. A good example of Evolution in action. The slower, more cumbersome ones either grew to become predators themselves or got eaten, yet somehow this is supposed to prove the non-existence of Evolution.
I have even itemised the Disciplines of Science for him & laid them out ready to list in what way they have proved anything. Not once has he been able to do so. All he does is continue to use his fallacious, meaningless soundbite about the "Disciplines of Science", when he has no concept of what they are or how they relate to anything.
He doesn't even have any idea of what constitutes Evolution either. He seems to believe in the single linear version of Evolution - the age old Creationist Idiot's question of "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys"? Every time he pastes he further confirms this much. The bit in the paste about the Jesus lizard about a fossilised Jesus Lizard having been found. Just what is that supposed to prove? All it shows is that a genus of Jesus Lizard had evolved by that time, and that there were other genuses evolved before it & since. It's a lizard which survived by running fast - so fast that it ran faster than it took to sink, and in so doing survived to pass on its genes to the next generation. A good example of Evolution in action. The slower, more cumbersome ones either grew to become predators themselves or got eaten, yet somehow this is supposed to prove the non-existence of Evolution.
I have even itemised the Disciplines of Science for him & laid them out ready to list in what way they have proved anything. Not once has he been able to do so. All he does is continue to use his fallacious, meaningless soundbite about the "Disciplines of Science", when he has no concept of what they are or how they relate to anything.