Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
My discernment tells me that evolution is the reality of life on this planet. And pigs fly.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1517824 wrote: My discernment tells me that evolution is the reality of life on this planet. And pigs fly.
Now, I've seen a Horse Fly, and a Dragon Fly, and a House Fly, ...
Now, I've seen a Horse Fly, and a Dragon Fly, and a House Fly, ...
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"
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Comb Jelly Genome Gums Up Evolution
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.
Comb jellies (ctenophores) look like disco balls with flashing lights that dance and spin as they float around the ocean. These creatures are so fascinating that one neuroscientist likened them to "aliens who've come to earth."1,2 The genome of comb jellies has been sequenced, and it's as alien as the creature looks—utterly defying all predictions about its evolutionary origins.3
Even prior to recent advances in genome sequencing, comb jellies perplexed evolutionists. While they resemble a jelly fish in some ways, they have complex nervous systems that detect light, sense prey, flash a colorful spectrum of bioluminescence, and move with unique musculature and tentacles. Scientists first placed them as evolving from animals without nervous systems such as sea sponges and flattened pancake-like creatures called placozoans. Others placed them earlier in the evolutionary tree—claiming that their spectacular nervous systems were later "lost" during animal evolution and then magically reappeared again. Now with the new wealth of genomics data, scientists are placing them at the very earliest stage of animal life—branching off into their own evolutionary lineage.
The baffling story of the comb jelly genome of the species Pleurobrachia bachei (Pacific sea gooseberry) is two-fold. The first oddity is characterized by allegedly missing genes representing cellular systems normally found in other animal genomes that are considered both more primitive and more advanced. The second baffling scenario is depicted by the discovery of many new types of genes representing biological and biochemical systems never seen before in any other animal.
First, the story of the supposed missing genes. The genome sequencing data showed that comb jellies lack many genes found in allegedly evolution-related creatures. For example, the researchers were unable to find many of the normal types of genes that regulate and control the patterning and development of the organism. Also lacking were the identifiable presence of an important class of small regulatory molecules called micro RNAs that are commonly found in both animals that lack a nervous system and those with more complicated nervous systems. Finally, the basic proteins that initiate many types of immunity responses in other more simple and complex creatures were entirely missing.
In contrast to the story of the many allegedly missing genes is the amazing presence of many novel and unique genes. This oddity was highlighted by the fact that for the 19,523 predicted protein-coding genes the scientists were able to identify in the comb jelly, only 44% had any similarity to known genes in other animals. Many of the new genes that were discovered are related to the unique development of the comb jelly during its life cycle, including the organization and function of its incredibly bizarre nervous system—a system biochemically unlike any other known creature.
Another interesting aspect of genetic novelty is the presence of many types of genes representing highly complex information processing systems. For example, the comb jelly genome was found to contain the highest number of RNA editing enzyme-encoding genes reported so far in animals. RNA editing is the process whereby specialized cellular machines literally change the code of gene sequences encoded in RNA molecules after they are copied (transcribed) from DNA. In line with this incredible level of post-transcriptional processing, scientists also discovered dozens of novel RNA-binding protein genes that produce specialized machines that participate in other aspects of the complex informational processing of RNA molecules.
These profound discoveries led the researchers to absurdly proclaim "ctenophores, despite being active predators, underwent massive loss of neuronal and signaling toolkits and then replaced them with novel neurogenic and signaling molecules and receptors." How and why could the random and mindless naturalistic process of evolution eject a fully functioning set of complex cellular systems consisting of hundreds of interlocking/interacting genes and then replace them with something else that is completely different? Why can't researchers state the obvious—that these marvelous and fascinating examples of extreme biocomplexity are the handiwork of an Omnipotent Creator?
The Institute for Creation Research
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Comb Jelly Genome Gums Up Evolution
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.
Comb jellies (ctenophores) look like disco balls with flashing lights that dance and spin as they float around the ocean. These creatures are so fascinating that one neuroscientist likened them to "aliens who've come to earth."1,2 The genome of comb jellies has been sequenced, and it's as alien as the creature looks—utterly defying all predictions about its evolutionary origins.3
Even prior to recent advances in genome sequencing, comb jellies perplexed evolutionists. While they resemble a jelly fish in some ways, they have complex nervous systems that detect light, sense prey, flash a colorful spectrum of bioluminescence, and move with unique musculature and tentacles. Scientists first placed them as evolving from animals without nervous systems such as sea sponges and flattened pancake-like creatures called placozoans. Others placed them earlier in the evolutionary tree—claiming that their spectacular nervous systems were later "lost" during animal evolution and then magically reappeared again. Now with the new wealth of genomics data, scientists are placing them at the very earliest stage of animal life—branching off into their own evolutionary lineage.
The baffling story of the comb jelly genome of the species Pleurobrachia bachei (Pacific sea gooseberry) is two-fold. The first oddity is characterized by allegedly missing genes representing cellular systems normally found in other animal genomes that are considered both more primitive and more advanced. The second baffling scenario is depicted by the discovery of many new types of genes representing biological and biochemical systems never seen before in any other animal.
First, the story of the supposed missing genes. The genome sequencing data showed that comb jellies lack many genes found in allegedly evolution-related creatures. For example, the researchers were unable to find many of the normal types of genes that regulate and control the patterning and development of the organism. Also lacking were the identifiable presence of an important class of small regulatory molecules called micro RNAs that are commonly found in both animals that lack a nervous system and those with more complicated nervous systems. Finally, the basic proteins that initiate many types of immunity responses in other more simple and complex creatures were entirely missing.
In contrast to the story of the many allegedly missing genes is the amazing presence of many novel and unique genes. This oddity was highlighted by the fact that for the 19,523 predicted protein-coding genes the scientists were able to identify in the comb jelly, only 44% had any similarity to known genes in other animals. Many of the new genes that were discovered are related to the unique development of the comb jelly during its life cycle, including the organization and function of its incredibly bizarre nervous system—a system biochemically unlike any other known creature.
Another interesting aspect of genetic novelty is the presence of many types of genes representing highly complex information processing systems. For example, the comb jelly genome was found to contain the highest number of RNA editing enzyme-encoding genes reported so far in animals. RNA editing is the process whereby specialized cellular machines literally change the code of gene sequences encoded in RNA molecules after they are copied (transcribed) from DNA. In line with this incredible level of post-transcriptional processing, scientists also discovered dozens of novel RNA-binding protein genes that produce specialized machines that participate in other aspects of the complex informational processing of RNA molecules.
These profound discoveries led the researchers to absurdly proclaim "ctenophores, despite being active predators, underwent massive loss of neuronal and signaling toolkits and then replaced them with novel neurogenic and signaling molecules and receptors." How and why could the random and mindless naturalistic process of evolution eject a fully functioning set of complex cellular systems consisting of hundreds of interlocking/interacting genes and then replace them with something else that is completely different? Why can't researchers state the obvious—that these marvelous and fascinating examples of extreme biocomplexity are the handiwork of an Omnipotent Creator?
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517834 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Comb Jelly Genome Gums Up Evolution
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.
Comb jellies (ctenophores) look like disco balls with flashing lights that dance and spin as they float around the ocean. These creatures are so fascinating that one neuroscientist likened them to "aliens who've come to earth."1,2 The genome of comb jellies has been sequenced, and it's as alien as the creature looks—utterly defying all predictions about its evolutionary origins.3
Even prior to recent advances in genome sequencing, comb jellies perplexed evolutionists. While they resemble a jelly fish in some ways, they have complex nervous systems that detect light, sense prey, flash a colorful spectrum of bioluminescence, and move with unique musculature and tentacles. Scientists first placed them as evolving from animals without nervous systems such as sea sponges and flattened pancake-like creatures called placozoans. Others placed them earlier in the evolutionary tree—claiming that their spectacular nervous systems were later "lost" during animal evolution and then magically reappeared again. Now with the new wealth of genomics data, scientists are placing them at the very earliest stage of animal life—branching off into their own evolutionary lineage.
The baffling story of the comb jelly genome of the species Pleurobrachia bachei (Pacific sea gooseberry) is two-fold. The first oddity is characterized by allegedly missing genes representing cellular systems normally found in other animal genomes that are considered both more primitive and more advanced. The second baffling scenario is depicted by the discovery of many new types of genes representing biological and biochemical systems never seen before in any other animal.
First, the story of the supposed missing genes. The genome sequencing data showed that comb jellies lack many genes found in allegedly evolution-related creatures. For example, the researchers were unable to find many of the normal types of genes that regulate and control the patterning and development of the organism. Also lacking were the identifiable presence of an important class of small regulatory molecules called micro RNAs that are commonly found in both animals that lack a nervous system and those with more complicated nervous systems. Finally, the basic proteins that initiate many types of immunity responses in other more simple and complex creatures were entirely missing.
In contrast to the story of the many allegedly missing genes is the amazing presence of many novel and unique genes. This oddity was highlighted by the fact that for the 19,523 predicted protein-coding genes the scientists were able to identify in the comb jelly, only 44% had any similarity to known genes in other animals. Many of the new genes that were discovered are related to the unique development of the comb jelly during its life cycle, including the organization and function of its incredibly bizarre nervous system—a system biochemically unlike any other known creature.
Another interesting aspect of genetic novelty is the presence of many types of genes representing highly complex information processing systems. For example, the comb jelly genome was found to contain the highest number of RNA editing enzyme-encoding genes reported so far in animals. RNA editing is the process whereby specialized cellular machines literally change the code of gene sequences encoded in RNA molecules after they are copied (transcribed) from DNA. In line with this incredible level of post-transcriptional processing, scientists also discovered dozens of novel RNA-binding protein genes that produce specialized machines that participate in other aspects of the complex informational processing of RNA molecules.
These profound discoveries led the researchers to absurdly proclaim "ctenophores, despite being active predators, underwent massive loss of neuronal and signaling toolkits and then replaced them with novel neurogenic and signaling molecules and receptors." How and why could the random and mindless naturalistic process of evolution eject a fully functioning set of complex cellular systems consisting of hundreds of interlocking/interacting genes and then replace them with something else that is completely different? Why can't researchers state the obvious—that these marvelous and fascinating examples of extreme biocomplexity are the handiwork of an Omnipotent Creator?
The Institute for Creation Research
Agin, A very interesting article. Quite fascinating.
But, again, how is this actually science that "disproves" anything?
Comb Jelly Genome Gums Up Evolution
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.
Comb jellies (ctenophores) look like disco balls with flashing lights that dance and spin as they float around the ocean. These creatures are so fascinating that one neuroscientist likened them to "aliens who've come to earth."1,2 The genome of comb jellies has been sequenced, and it's as alien as the creature looks—utterly defying all predictions about its evolutionary origins.3
Even prior to recent advances in genome sequencing, comb jellies perplexed evolutionists. While they resemble a jelly fish in some ways, they have complex nervous systems that detect light, sense prey, flash a colorful spectrum of bioluminescence, and move with unique musculature and tentacles. Scientists first placed them as evolving from animals without nervous systems such as sea sponges and flattened pancake-like creatures called placozoans. Others placed them earlier in the evolutionary tree—claiming that their spectacular nervous systems were later "lost" during animal evolution and then magically reappeared again. Now with the new wealth of genomics data, scientists are placing them at the very earliest stage of animal life—branching off into their own evolutionary lineage.
The baffling story of the comb jelly genome of the species Pleurobrachia bachei (Pacific sea gooseberry) is two-fold. The first oddity is characterized by allegedly missing genes representing cellular systems normally found in other animal genomes that are considered both more primitive and more advanced. The second baffling scenario is depicted by the discovery of many new types of genes representing biological and biochemical systems never seen before in any other animal.
First, the story of the supposed missing genes. The genome sequencing data showed that comb jellies lack many genes found in allegedly evolution-related creatures. For example, the researchers were unable to find many of the normal types of genes that regulate and control the patterning and development of the organism. Also lacking were the identifiable presence of an important class of small regulatory molecules called micro RNAs that are commonly found in both animals that lack a nervous system and those with more complicated nervous systems. Finally, the basic proteins that initiate many types of immunity responses in other more simple and complex creatures were entirely missing.
In contrast to the story of the many allegedly missing genes is the amazing presence of many novel and unique genes. This oddity was highlighted by the fact that for the 19,523 predicted protein-coding genes the scientists were able to identify in the comb jelly, only 44% had any similarity to known genes in other animals. Many of the new genes that were discovered are related to the unique development of the comb jelly during its life cycle, including the organization and function of its incredibly bizarre nervous system—a system biochemically unlike any other known creature.
Another interesting aspect of genetic novelty is the presence of many types of genes representing highly complex information processing systems. For example, the comb jelly genome was found to contain the highest number of RNA editing enzyme-encoding genes reported so far in animals. RNA editing is the process whereby specialized cellular machines literally change the code of gene sequences encoded in RNA molecules after they are copied (transcribed) from DNA. In line with this incredible level of post-transcriptional processing, scientists also discovered dozens of novel RNA-binding protein genes that produce specialized machines that participate in other aspects of the complex informational processing of RNA molecules.
These profound discoveries led the researchers to absurdly proclaim "ctenophores, despite being active predators, underwent massive loss of neuronal and signaling toolkits and then replaced them with novel neurogenic and signaling molecules and receptors." How and why could the random and mindless naturalistic process of evolution eject a fully functioning set of complex cellular systems consisting of hundreds of interlocking/interacting genes and then replace them with something else that is completely different? Why can't researchers state the obvious—that these marvelous and fascinating examples of extreme biocomplexity are the handiwork of an Omnipotent Creator?
The Institute for Creation Research
Agin, A very interesting article. Quite fascinating.
But, again, how is this actually science that "disproves" anything?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517835 wrote: Agin, A very interesting article. Quite fascinating.
But, again, how is this actually science that "disproves" anything?
I am sure, with your superior intelligence, you can figure it out, unless your pro-evolution bias blinds you.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
'Simple and Elegant' Insect Design Showcases Creation
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Sometimes little things matter a lot. For example, consider how some tiny creatures fully depend upon each other for survival in a relationship called symbiosis. This very clearly showcases divine creation. How could two unrelated creatures have this relationship unless they were intentionally crafted that way from the beginning? Otherwise, they would die while waiting for a perfect partner to evolve. Has evolutionary faith blinded biologists from seeing the forensic clues within the insect symbiosis they study?
A leaf-green creature called the pea aphid feeds on the plant sap it extracts from leaf veins, but the sap lacks some required amino acids. Bacteria living inside the aphid's body manufacture and export the vital nutrients to their aphid host. The aphid and the bacteria actually swap these nutrients in a regulated and coordinated assembly-and-shipping system that rapidly responds to supply and demand.
What if either creature manufactured or exported too many, too few, or the wrong kinds of amino acids?
Researchers found the machine that regulates the amino acids—but it was in an unexpected place. An active protein gate called a transporter shuttles amino acids between aphids and bacteria. The biologists published their discovery of the transporter's second function in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.1
First author of the study Daniel Price told the University of Miami, "To our surprise, the transporter is a key regulator of the factory production line."2
Senior author Alex Wilson said, "The system is simple and elegant."2
The Miami University press release said, "The findings of these studies show that symbiotic relationships have the power to shape animal evolution at the genetic level." Wait a second. Do any of their observations really show that "the power" to shape genetics came from "symbiotic relationships" instead of from the Lord?
Evolutionary speculation—not observations—suggest that long ago, before these creatures' lives merged into a symbiotic dance, they were making extra gene copies, including copies of transporter genes, for no functional purpose. According to their explanation, these extra copies accidentally mutated into the vital protein tools we see today.
Wilson said, "Given the extensive gene duplication of the amino acid transporter gene families that took place multiple times independently in sap-feeding insects, it makes sense that gene duplication might be important for recruiting amino acid transporters."
How does he know that gene duplication was extensive? He didn't witness the supposed duplications, but inferred them from an evolutionary mindset. For all he really knows, God could have created the varieties of transporter genes we find among insects.
Also, does the gene duplication story really make as much sense as Wilson suggests? It doesn't explain how the aphids would have survived before its symbionts were supplying vital amino acids.3 And how can any unthinking natural process help with "recruiting amino acid transporters?" Only intelligent recruiters are known to recruit.
How would those ancient imaginary pea aphid ancestors have made any transporter protein back when it didn't have its bacteria, and thus didn't have the very amino acids out of which those transporters are built? The evolutionary scenario seems essentially impossible.
Incredible stories require crystal clear support. So, if we are to buy into this story of how symbiosis supposedly evolved, researchers should at least supply examples of other creatures developing new and functional proteins like this transporter. They should also supply examples of how those creatures incorporated the new proteins into a biochemically intricate symbiosis between two previously unassociated organisms.
These studies do not actually reveal that symbiotic relationships or gene duplications led to symbiotic-specific genes in these dissimilar creatures. They simply show that all those required genes exist. Where they came from falls outside the realm of direct experiments and instead fits the realm of forensic clue-gathering.
And one key forensic clue reveals that nobody has ever witnessed this kind of symbiosis emerge. The second clue is that nobody has ever witnessed gene products like dual-function transporter/regulators arising from mutated gene duplications. Third, painstaking research has virtually disproven the general notion of evolving new and functionally integrated proteins.4
To see why creation best explains these "simple and elegant" symbiosis-specific proteins, we only need to try making one ourselves.
The Institute for Creation Research
But, again, how is this actually science that "disproves" anything?
I am sure, with your superior intelligence, you can figure it out, unless your pro-evolution bias blinds you.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
'Simple and Elegant' Insect Design Showcases Creation
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Sometimes little things matter a lot. For example, consider how some tiny creatures fully depend upon each other for survival in a relationship called symbiosis. This very clearly showcases divine creation. How could two unrelated creatures have this relationship unless they were intentionally crafted that way from the beginning? Otherwise, they would die while waiting for a perfect partner to evolve. Has evolutionary faith blinded biologists from seeing the forensic clues within the insect symbiosis they study?
A leaf-green creature called the pea aphid feeds on the plant sap it extracts from leaf veins, but the sap lacks some required amino acids. Bacteria living inside the aphid's body manufacture and export the vital nutrients to their aphid host. The aphid and the bacteria actually swap these nutrients in a regulated and coordinated assembly-and-shipping system that rapidly responds to supply and demand.
What if either creature manufactured or exported too many, too few, or the wrong kinds of amino acids?
Researchers found the machine that regulates the amino acids—but it was in an unexpected place. An active protein gate called a transporter shuttles amino acids between aphids and bacteria. The biologists published their discovery of the transporter's second function in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.1
First author of the study Daniel Price told the University of Miami, "To our surprise, the transporter is a key regulator of the factory production line."2
Senior author Alex Wilson said, "The system is simple and elegant."2
The Miami University press release said, "The findings of these studies show that symbiotic relationships have the power to shape animal evolution at the genetic level." Wait a second. Do any of their observations really show that "the power" to shape genetics came from "symbiotic relationships" instead of from the Lord?
Evolutionary speculation—not observations—suggest that long ago, before these creatures' lives merged into a symbiotic dance, they were making extra gene copies, including copies of transporter genes, for no functional purpose. According to their explanation, these extra copies accidentally mutated into the vital protein tools we see today.
Wilson said, "Given the extensive gene duplication of the amino acid transporter gene families that took place multiple times independently in sap-feeding insects, it makes sense that gene duplication might be important for recruiting amino acid transporters."
How does he know that gene duplication was extensive? He didn't witness the supposed duplications, but inferred them from an evolutionary mindset. For all he really knows, God could have created the varieties of transporter genes we find among insects.
Also, does the gene duplication story really make as much sense as Wilson suggests? It doesn't explain how the aphids would have survived before its symbionts were supplying vital amino acids.3 And how can any unthinking natural process help with "recruiting amino acid transporters?" Only intelligent recruiters are known to recruit.
How would those ancient imaginary pea aphid ancestors have made any transporter protein back when it didn't have its bacteria, and thus didn't have the very amino acids out of which those transporters are built? The evolutionary scenario seems essentially impossible.
Incredible stories require crystal clear support. So, if we are to buy into this story of how symbiosis supposedly evolved, researchers should at least supply examples of other creatures developing new and functional proteins like this transporter. They should also supply examples of how those creatures incorporated the new proteins into a biochemically intricate symbiosis between two previously unassociated organisms.
These studies do not actually reveal that symbiotic relationships or gene duplications led to symbiotic-specific genes in these dissimilar creatures. They simply show that all those required genes exist. Where they came from falls outside the realm of direct experiments and instead fits the realm of forensic clue-gathering.
And one key forensic clue reveals that nobody has ever witnessed this kind of symbiosis emerge. The second clue is that nobody has ever witnessed gene products like dual-function transporter/regulators arising from mutated gene duplications. Third, painstaking research has virtually disproven the general notion of evolving new and functionally integrated proteins.4
To see why creation best explains these "simple and elegant" symbiosis-specific proteins, we only need to try making one ourselves.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517838 wrote: I am sure, with your superior intelligence, you can figure it out, unless your pro-evolution bias blinds you.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.
So, I see that you have shifted your focus.
That is not a bad thing, entirely.
But you keep saying, "The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. "
Nothing you have posted supports that statement.
They neither Disprove Evolution - Even the Evolution as you describe it, which is not really Evolution at all - nor prove Creation.
And really, all you are doing is copying other peoples' work, and posting it here.
Have you nothing original in your little head to offer to an actual discussion of the wonders of creation?
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.
So, I see that you have shifted your focus.
That is not a bad thing, entirely.
But you keep saying, "The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. "
Nothing you have posted supports that statement.
They neither Disprove Evolution - Even the Evolution as you describe it, which is not really Evolution at all - nor prove Creation.
And really, all you are doing is copying other peoples' work, and posting it here.
Have you nothing original in your little head to offer to an actual discussion of the wonders of creation?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517839 wrote: So, I see that you have shifted your focus.
That is not a bad thing, entirely.
But you keep saying, "The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. "
Nothing you have posted supports that statement.
Everything I have posted supports that statement.
They neither Disprove Evolution - Even the Evolution as you describe it, which is not really Evolution at all - nor prove Creation.
And really, all you are doing is copying other peoples' work, and posting it here.
Have you nothing original in your little head to offer to an actual discussion of the wonders of creation?
Scientists, with whom I agree, say it better than I.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
How Do Mother Butterflies Avoid the Poison?
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Colorful Heliconius butterflies grace the tropics with their beautiful wide wings. Their survival depends on more features than what simply resides in their physical bodies. The challenge is trying to explain the origins of the way their body parts not only mesh perfectly with each other, but also with their butterfly behavior.
Passion flower vines supply food for Heliconius butterflies. The larvae eat the leaves, and the adults consume the Passion flower's nectar and pollen. Like many plants, the vine's leaves contain chemical deterrents. So, the female butterfly meticulously selects just the right leaf on which to lay her eggs, avoiding the leaves that contain too much poisonous chemistry. She also avoids those that already have larvae, and those too old or unhealthy.
How does she do all this intricate detecting and determining? Butterfly experts recently studied the genetics underlying Heliconius leaf-tasting behavior. They wrote in PLoS Genetics, "Female butterflies drum with their legs on the surface of leaves before laying eggs. This behaviour presumably allows the female to taste¦ Consistent with this behaviour, adult nymphalid butterfly legs are known to contain gustatory sensilla."1
Gustatory sensilla can be likened to taste buds embedded in tiny fibers on the insect's legs. The study found that the females have more sensilla on their legs, and more different kinds of taste receptor genes expressed in sensilla tissue, than males of the same species.
[continue]
That is not a bad thing, entirely.
But you keep saying, "The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. "
Nothing you have posted supports that statement.
Everything I have posted supports that statement.
They neither Disprove Evolution - Even the Evolution as you describe it, which is not really Evolution at all - nor prove Creation.
And really, all you are doing is copying other peoples' work, and posting it here.
Have you nothing original in your little head to offer to an actual discussion of the wonders of creation?
Scientists, with whom I agree, say it better than I.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
How Do Mother Butterflies Avoid the Poison?
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Colorful Heliconius butterflies grace the tropics with their beautiful wide wings. Their survival depends on more features than what simply resides in their physical bodies. The challenge is trying to explain the origins of the way their body parts not only mesh perfectly with each other, but also with their butterfly behavior.
Passion flower vines supply food for Heliconius butterflies. The larvae eat the leaves, and the adults consume the Passion flower's nectar and pollen. Like many plants, the vine's leaves contain chemical deterrents. So, the female butterfly meticulously selects just the right leaf on which to lay her eggs, avoiding the leaves that contain too much poisonous chemistry. She also avoids those that already have larvae, and those too old or unhealthy.
How does she do all this intricate detecting and determining? Butterfly experts recently studied the genetics underlying Heliconius leaf-tasting behavior. They wrote in PLoS Genetics, "Female butterflies drum with their legs on the surface of leaves before laying eggs. This behaviour presumably allows the female to taste¦ Consistent with this behaviour, adult nymphalid butterfly legs are known to contain gustatory sensilla."1
Gustatory sensilla can be likened to taste buds embedded in tiny fibers on the insect's legs. The study found that the females have more sensilla on their legs, and more different kinds of taste receptor genes expressed in sensilla tissue, than males of the same species.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
How Do Mother Butterflies Avoid the Poison?
[continued]
Heliconius mothers come fully equipped. They have wings and eyes for travel, dual-purpose landing-gear legs with taste sensors, internal egg-manufacturing facilities, and the appropriate insight to select just the right plant—even just the right leaves on that plant—required to meet her larvae's future needs.
How important is this gustatory sensillae and leaf-tasting behavior? According to UC Irvine News, "It's vital to their larvae's survival that the butterflies pick the right kind [of leaf]."2 Lead author Adriana Briscoe works at the University of California, Irvine Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.
This butterfly's "host plant specializations require specialized sensors by the insects," according to the PLoS Genetics authors.1 No sensors, no butterfly. Removing her sensors, possibly including her gustatory sensillae, would likely result in dead larvae—killed by the passion flower vine's poisons.
[continue]
[continued]
Heliconius mothers come fully equipped. They have wings and eyes for travel, dual-purpose landing-gear legs with taste sensors, internal egg-manufacturing facilities, and the appropriate insight to select just the right plant—even just the right leaves on that plant—required to meet her larvae's future needs.
How important is this gustatory sensillae and leaf-tasting behavior? According to UC Irvine News, "It's vital to their larvae's survival that the butterflies pick the right kind [of leaf]."2 Lead author Adriana Briscoe works at the University of California, Irvine Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.
This butterfly's "host plant specializations require specialized sensors by the insects," according to the PLoS Genetics authors.1 No sensors, no butterfly. Removing her sensors, possibly including her gustatory sensillae, would likely result in dead larvae—killed by the passion flower vine's poisons.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[QUOTE=Pahu;1517841]How Do Mother Butterflies Avoid the Poison?
[continued]
The study authors similarly wrote, "All of these insect host-plant interactions are mediated primarily by adult female butterflies, which must correctly identify suitable host plants for oviposition, or risk the survival of their offspring."1 And these interactions include both physical and nonphysical components. Not only must the female somehow detect leaf chemistry, she must also know what to do with the information once she has it. The study authors wrote, "Adult females of each Heliconius species only lay eggs on a limited number of host plants, and therefore need to recognize different species from among the large and diverse Passifloraceae family."1 And "recognizing" involves both detecting factors like leaf chemicals and knowing what to do with them.
Her little butterfly babies wouldn't have millions of years to wait while she slowly figured out how to react to her taste sensations.
These observations rule out evolutionary origins ideas that propose adding parts piecemeal over long ages of time. If all these factors, including wings, eyes, eggs, chemical sensors and plant-selecting behaviors are necessary for basic survival, then the only way this butterfly could have begun was all at once. And an all at once creation exactly matches the biblical record of origins.
The Institute for Creation Research
[continued]
The study authors similarly wrote, "All of these insect host-plant interactions are mediated primarily by adult female butterflies, which must correctly identify suitable host plants for oviposition, or risk the survival of their offspring."1 And these interactions include both physical and nonphysical components. Not only must the female somehow detect leaf chemistry, she must also know what to do with the information once she has it. The study authors wrote, "Adult females of each Heliconius species only lay eggs on a limited number of host plants, and therefore need to recognize different species from among the large and diverse Passifloraceae family."1 And "recognizing" involves both detecting factors like leaf chemicals and knowing what to do with them.
Her little butterfly babies wouldn't have millions of years to wait while she slowly figured out how to react to her taste sensations.
These observations rule out evolutionary origins ideas that propose adding parts piecemeal over long ages of time. If all these factors, including wings, eyes, eggs, chemical sensors and plant-selecting behaviors are necessary for basic survival, then the only way this butterfly could have begun was all at once. And an all at once creation exactly matches the biblical record of origins.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You guys make Flat-Earthers seem intelligent.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517844 wrote: You guys make Flat-Earthers seem intelligent.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Coelacanths: Evolutionists Still Fishing in Shallow Water
by Tim Clarey, Ph.D., and Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
A recent report, published in Nature,1 on the genome sequence of the so-called living fish fossil, the African coelacanth, has some evolutionists scrambling to defend their story. This is because the coelacanth's DNA is similar to other types of fish and not land animals, thus forcing the evolutionists to postulate that the coelacanth evolved slowly.1
Although modern coelacanths are found in water about 500 feet deep, Axel Meyer, a member of the study team believes that ancient coelacanths may have lived in shallow water, stating, "Other coelacanths lived in more shallow, estuary-like environments 400 million years ago, and you can envisage them using fins more like walking legs."2 In the overall evolutionary scenario, fish are believed to have transitioned to land and then continued evolving into amphibians and eventually into other land creatures.
The ancestral lineage of the coelacanth was thought to have gone extinct 70 million years ago, during the Cretaceous Period—an era most famous for the presence of dinosaurs. In other words, there are no known fossils of this fish in subsequent, younger sedimentary units. Therefore, finding a living coelacanth in 1938 off the east coast of Africa created quite a shock among scientists. This placed the coelacanth in the "living fossil" category, as an example of an organism thought to be extinct, and yet found living today virtually unchanged.
Only 309 individual occurrences of a live coelacanth have been recorded since it was first identified in 1938.1 Studies of modern specimens have taught scientists a lot about this unique fish. A French team found that coelacanths possess a swim bladder filled with oil, giving it neutral buoyancy between the depths of 600-900 feet.3 Many sharks use a similar type of system that allows them to swim freely without having to exert energy to keep from sinking or rising.
Studies of the coelacanth's eye have also shown it to have vision perfectly suited for the dark depths between 300-600 feet, rather than eyes more appropriate for light in shallow water.3 Direct eyewitness evidence from fisherman and deep-sea submersibles have placed the fish living between depths of 450-600 feet.3
So, evidence from the fish's swim bladder and eye structure, as well as fisherman reports and direct underwater observance all show that the coelacanth lives at depths of about 500 feet below the surface. A deep sea environment that it is uniquely designed to inhabit.
The coelacanth has long been hailed as an ancestor to amphibians and other tetrapods as their lineage goes back a supposed 300 million years.1 However, the exact origin of coelacanths has never been established by evolutionary scientists, the fish just seem to appear in the rocks "suddenly" like most all fossil organisms.4 And modern coelacanths were also found to give birth to live young (like some sharks), unlike their supposed descendants, the amphibians.3
The substantial evidence is stacking up. Modern coelacanths were designed to live in deep water, they do not lay eggs like amphibians, and they have DNA that is clearly fish like.
It's a good thing paleontologists didn't lead the search for the coelacanth as they would have no doubt set their fishing lines in water far too shallow. Clearly the coelacanth is a uniquely designed fish engineered by the Creator to live in deep water, and not a predecessor to some fictional crawling creature that decided to transition from shallow water to land.
The Institute for Creation Research
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Coelacanths: Evolutionists Still Fishing in Shallow Water
by Tim Clarey, Ph.D., and Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
A recent report, published in Nature,1 on the genome sequence of the so-called living fish fossil, the African coelacanth, has some evolutionists scrambling to defend their story. This is because the coelacanth's DNA is similar to other types of fish and not land animals, thus forcing the evolutionists to postulate that the coelacanth evolved slowly.1
Although modern coelacanths are found in water about 500 feet deep, Axel Meyer, a member of the study team believes that ancient coelacanths may have lived in shallow water, stating, "Other coelacanths lived in more shallow, estuary-like environments 400 million years ago, and you can envisage them using fins more like walking legs."2 In the overall evolutionary scenario, fish are believed to have transitioned to land and then continued evolving into amphibians and eventually into other land creatures.
The ancestral lineage of the coelacanth was thought to have gone extinct 70 million years ago, during the Cretaceous Period—an era most famous for the presence of dinosaurs. In other words, there are no known fossils of this fish in subsequent, younger sedimentary units. Therefore, finding a living coelacanth in 1938 off the east coast of Africa created quite a shock among scientists. This placed the coelacanth in the "living fossil" category, as an example of an organism thought to be extinct, and yet found living today virtually unchanged.
Only 309 individual occurrences of a live coelacanth have been recorded since it was first identified in 1938.1 Studies of modern specimens have taught scientists a lot about this unique fish. A French team found that coelacanths possess a swim bladder filled with oil, giving it neutral buoyancy between the depths of 600-900 feet.3 Many sharks use a similar type of system that allows them to swim freely without having to exert energy to keep from sinking or rising.
Studies of the coelacanth's eye have also shown it to have vision perfectly suited for the dark depths between 300-600 feet, rather than eyes more appropriate for light in shallow water.3 Direct eyewitness evidence from fisherman and deep-sea submersibles have placed the fish living between depths of 450-600 feet.3
So, evidence from the fish's swim bladder and eye structure, as well as fisherman reports and direct underwater observance all show that the coelacanth lives at depths of about 500 feet below the surface. A deep sea environment that it is uniquely designed to inhabit.
The coelacanth has long been hailed as an ancestor to amphibians and other tetrapods as their lineage goes back a supposed 300 million years.1 However, the exact origin of coelacanths has never been established by evolutionary scientists, the fish just seem to appear in the rocks "suddenly" like most all fossil organisms.4 And modern coelacanths were also found to give birth to live young (like some sharks), unlike their supposed descendants, the amphibians.3
The substantial evidence is stacking up. Modern coelacanths were designed to live in deep water, they do not lay eggs like amphibians, and they have DNA that is clearly fish like.
It's a good thing paleontologists didn't lead the search for the coelacanth as they would have no doubt set their fishing lines in water far too shallow. Clearly the coelacanth is a uniquely designed fish engineered by the Creator to live in deep water, and not a predecessor to some fictional crawling creature that decided to transition from shallow water to land.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Proteins 1
Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link together if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earth’s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed (a). Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen (b).
a. An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that “imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers. Philip Morrison, “Earth’s Earliest Biosphere, Scientific American, Vol.250, April 1984, pp.30–31.
Charles F. Davidson, “Geochemical Aspects of Atmospheric Evolution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol.53, 15 June 1965, pp.1194–1205.
Steven A. Austin, “Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere? ICR Impact, No.109, July 1982.
“In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved sedimentary rocks. Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, “Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol.13, No. 9, September 1976, p.1161.
“What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it. Philip H. Abelson, “Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol.55, June 1966, p.1365.
b. R. T. Brinkmann, “Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.74, No.23, 20 October 1969, pp.5355–5368.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
What a load of BS. Trying to live in the ancient past.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1517876 wrote: What a load of BS. Trying to live in the ancient past.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
'Talking' Ants Are Evidence for Creation
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.
New surprises revealing complex bio-engineering keep emerging as evolutionary scientists continue to unwittingly obey the biblical command to "observe the ant"(Proverbs 6:6; 30:25). The latest bio-engineering discovery is that a key component of ant colony survival is based on sound (acoustic) communication systems.1
One of the long-standing paradigms of animal communication is the use of airborne chemical messages called pheromones. Ants use pheromones to leave chemical trails that can be followed by other members and to also identify which nest an ant is from, along with its social status in the colony. Now, scientists can add yet another layer of complexity and communication in ant colonies based on acoustics.
Scientists have been studying a type of ant commonly found in Europe. This ant has a specialized appendage on its abdomen that it strokes with its hind legs to create sound signals. Other ants can detect and process these signals, resulting in various complex social responses that are key to survival of the colony. Several years ago, researchers found that, in adult ants, these signals can act like an emergency beacon when an ant is threatened by a predator.2
If the discovery of this complex signaling in adult ants was not enough of a surprise, scientists have now determined that developing larvae back in the nest also use this technique, which is important for the ant colony's survival. Everything in an ant colony is performed in an orderly manner.
When an ant nest is disturbed and threatened, the worker ants immediately go about rescuing the nest. First, they grab and remove the mature larvae and then the immature larvae and pupae. As it turns out, the mature larvae use acoustic communication via their early maturing acoustic appendage, which the younger larvae and pupae lack, to signal their social status to the worker ants, enabling them to be extricated first (see image below). In the event of settling a new colony, the mature larvae would hatch first and thus be more valuable assets than the younger larvae, which require more resources.
It is also noteworthy that the acoustic signals are not performed in isolation, but co-processed along with other pheromone sensory signals using complex internal bioprocessing systems. Several other news articles from the Institute for Creation Research have discussed the complexity of ant colonies and their management through highly engineered bioprocessing systems.3,4,5
The combination of various sensory communication and processing systems are a clear example of an all-or-nothing suite of features referred to as irreducible complexity. All the ants would die in one generation if you remove any one of these features: 1) early maturing abdominal acoustic appendage, 2) instinct to "strum"it, 3) sensors in adults to detect it, 4) ant brains to interpret the sounds, and 5) the instinct to protect the mature larvae.
These new discoveries are amazing testimonies to the intelligence of the powerful Creator who engineered these remarkable living systems that utterly defy evolutionary dogma.
The Institute for Creation Research
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
'Talking' Ants Are Evidence for Creation
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.
New surprises revealing complex bio-engineering keep emerging as evolutionary scientists continue to unwittingly obey the biblical command to "observe the ant"(Proverbs 6:6; 30:25). The latest bio-engineering discovery is that a key component of ant colony survival is based on sound (acoustic) communication systems.1
One of the long-standing paradigms of animal communication is the use of airborne chemical messages called pheromones. Ants use pheromones to leave chemical trails that can be followed by other members and to also identify which nest an ant is from, along with its social status in the colony. Now, scientists can add yet another layer of complexity and communication in ant colonies based on acoustics.
Scientists have been studying a type of ant commonly found in Europe. This ant has a specialized appendage on its abdomen that it strokes with its hind legs to create sound signals. Other ants can detect and process these signals, resulting in various complex social responses that are key to survival of the colony. Several years ago, researchers found that, in adult ants, these signals can act like an emergency beacon when an ant is threatened by a predator.2
If the discovery of this complex signaling in adult ants was not enough of a surprise, scientists have now determined that developing larvae back in the nest also use this technique, which is important for the ant colony's survival. Everything in an ant colony is performed in an orderly manner.
When an ant nest is disturbed and threatened, the worker ants immediately go about rescuing the nest. First, they grab and remove the mature larvae and then the immature larvae and pupae. As it turns out, the mature larvae use acoustic communication via their early maturing acoustic appendage, which the younger larvae and pupae lack, to signal their social status to the worker ants, enabling them to be extricated first (see image below). In the event of settling a new colony, the mature larvae would hatch first and thus be more valuable assets than the younger larvae, which require more resources.
It is also noteworthy that the acoustic signals are not performed in isolation, but co-processed along with other pheromone sensory signals using complex internal bioprocessing systems. Several other news articles from the Institute for Creation Research have discussed the complexity of ant colonies and their management through highly engineered bioprocessing systems.3,4,5
The combination of various sensory communication and processing systems are a clear example of an all-or-nothing suite of features referred to as irreducible complexity. All the ants would die in one generation if you remove any one of these features: 1) early maturing abdominal acoustic appendage, 2) instinct to "strum"it, 3) sensors in adults to detect it, 4) ant brains to interpret the sounds, and 5) the instinct to protect the mature larvae.
These new discoveries are amazing testimonies to the intelligence of the powerful Creator who engineered these remarkable living systems that utterly defy evolutionary dogma.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1517876 wrote: What a load of BS. Trying to live in the ancient past.
Oh ,no. A lot of this is quite fascinating.
I just don't see the part that supposedly debunks Evolutionary thinking. Nor do I see where it proves any Creation thought.
It, indeed, show how marvelous our world can be in all its scientific glory.
Oh ,no. A lot of this is quite fascinating.
I just don't see the part that supposedly debunks Evolutionary thinking. Nor do I see where it proves any Creation thought.
It, indeed, show how marvelous our world can be in all its scientific glory.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517885 wrote: Oh ,no. A lot of this is quite fascinating.
I just don't see the part that supposedly debunks Evolutionary thinking. Nor do I see where it proves any Creation thought.
It, indeed, show how marvelous our world can be in all its scientific glory.
Perhaps it would help if you looked at the material without your evidence free evolution bias.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Deer in Black and White
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
White-tailed deer are generally brown, but sometimes they can appear all black or all white. Photographer Richard Buquoi captured striking photographs of a dark fawn in 20101 and verified the images when some questioned whether his photographs were real: "I took the photos of the black fawn near Austin, TX. That area of central Texas seems to have a concentration of black 'white-tailed' deer, although it is still extremely rare to find them. This is a wild deer, but resides in a greenbelt near a neighborhood."2
Melanism is the name of the darkened coat effect in animals, but what causes it?
"[Researchers] admit that they aren't sure, but they say the mutation likely has been perpetuated because it offers a survival advantage," according to an article appearing on the North American Whitetail magazine's website.3
Well, the reason that evolutionary researchers would say that the trait was born from "survival advantage" is because that is standard Darwinian doctrine. But it does not express the results of scientific tests. Alternatives deserve consideration and could also be tested. For example, what if the darker color is not caused by an accidental mutation but by a purposefully designed genetic switch? Evolutionists have had trying times interpreting evidence for non-random mutation.4, 5
And just because something "offers a survival advantage" does not mean it becomes a real creature feature. An instinct to avoid traffic would give squirrels a survival advantage, but they persist in trying to juke straight-rolling tires.
So, the melanistic deer trait could have arisen by an accidental genetic mutation or by unfolding an aspect of a pre-planned genetic suite of coat color options. How would a biologist test these ideas?
One would first need to discover the genetic cause of this trait—a difficult and costly task. Is melanism caused by a rare allele, a difference in regulatory sequence, a combination of these, or some other genetic cue? Even knowing that would not necessarily reveal the true history of how the allele or other DNA difference arose. Did it arise by mutation, or by any of the increasingly discovered numbers of genetic shuffling algorithms?6 The answers may not come soon.
Meanwhile, deer express other rare coat colors. Some visitors to the Seneca Army Depot in New York state have seen dozens of bright white deer among the hundreds protected there. They are not truly albino, because although their hair lacks pigment, their eyes and hooves do not. The ratio of white to normal brown deer has risen since the first observation of a white buck and fawn in the late 1940s.
From the perspective of Scripture, God would have given deer effective survival traits, including the potential for those traits to shift in preparation for survival or fitting into a changed environment as its generations fill the earth. But who is to say that He would not also have planted within the deer kind creative expressions of His painter's palette?
The Institute for Creation Research
I just don't see the part that supposedly debunks Evolutionary thinking. Nor do I see where it proves any Creation thought.
It, indeed, show how marvelous our world can be in all its scientific glory.
Perhaps it would help if you looked at the material without your evidence free evolution bias.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Deer in Black and White
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
White-tailed deer are generally brown, but sometimes they can appear all black or all white. Photographer Richard Buquoi captured striking photographs of a dark fawn in 20101 and verified the images when some questioned whether his photographs were real: "I took the photos of the black fawn near Austin, TX. That area of central Texas seems to have a concentration of black 'white-tailed' deer, although it is still extremely rare to find them. This is a wild deer, but resides in a greenbelt near a neighborhood."2
Melanism is the name of the darkened coat effect in animals, but what causes it?
"[Researchers] admit that they aren't sure, but they say the mutation likely has been perpetuated because it offers a survival advantage," according to an article appearing on the North American Whitetail magazine's website.3
Well, the reason that evolutionary researchers would say that the trait was born from "survival advantage" is because that is standard Darwinian doctrine. But it does not express the results of scientific tests. Alternatives deserve consideration and could also be tested. For example, what if the darker color is not caused by an accidental mutation but by a purposefully designed genetic switch? Evolutionists have had trying times interpreting evidence for non-random mutation.4, 5
And just because something "offers a survival advantage" does not mean it becomes a real creature feature. An instinct to avoid traffic would give squirrels a survival advantage, but they persist in trying to juke straight-rolling tires.
So, the melanistic deer trait could have arisen by an accidental genetic mutation or by unfolding an aspect of a pre-planned genetic suite of coat color options. How would a biologist test these ideas?
One would first need to discover the genetic cause of this trait—a difficult and costly task. Is melanism caused by a rare allele, a difference in regulatory sequence, a combination of these, or some other genetic cue? Even knowing that would not necessarily reveal the true history of how the allele or other DNA difference arose. Did it arise by mutation, or by any of the increasingly discovered numbers of genetic shuffling algorithms?6 The answers may not come soon.
Meanwhile, deer express other rare coat colors. Some visitors to the Seneca Army Depot in New York state have seen dozens of bright white deer among the hundreds protected there. They are not truly albino, because although their hair lacks pigment, their eyes and hooves do not. The ratio of white to normal brown deer has risen since the first observation of a white buck and fawn in the late 1940s.
From the perspective of Scripture, God would have given deer effective survival traits, including the potential for those traits to shift in preparation for survival or fitting into a changed environment as its generations fill the earth. But who is to say that He would not also have planted within the deer kind creative expressions of His painter's palette?
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517890 wrote: Perhaps it would help if you looked at the material without your evidence free evolution bias.
You keep saying that, but reading through this thread, it seems to be you who is Evidence free, and biased.
All I have ever said, really, is show me the Science.
All you have done is prattle on with opinions.
You keep saying that, but reading through this thread, it seems to be you who is Evidence free, and biased.
All I have ever said, really, is show me the Science.
All you have done is prattle on with opinions.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517899 wrote: You keep saying that, but reading through this thread, it seems to be you who is Evidence free, and biased.
All I have ever said, really, is show me the Science.
All you have done is prattle on with opinions.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Scientists Discover Secret to Fast Swimming Penguins
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Penguins are fast swimmers, but they shouldn't be. As they rocket themselves through the water and onto overlying ice shelves, the drag of water friction is supposed to be too great. Researchers familiar with recent attempts to use air as a lubricant for ships noticed air bubbles jacketing penguins during their boisterous ascents, and that led them to question if penguins use air to accelerate underwater.
National Geographic recently reported on how Bangor University biologist Roger Hughes, inspired by a 2001 BBC documentary that featured emperor penguins leaping out of the water,1 partnered with an engineer in Denmark and two other researchers to investigate how the penguins could do this. Their results appeared in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series in 2011, where they showed penguins' unique and remarkable design for fast swimming.2
The study authors admitted that without a "control" penguin that does not release air bubbles, they cannot scientifically prove the hypothesis that emperor penguins, and by extension other penguins with similar capabilities, use tiny air bubbles to accelerate underwater. However, they found plenty of evidence to favor the idea.
When the penguins are out of the water, they preen their feathers and fluff them up all over their streamlined bodies, adding about an inch of air between the skin and outermost layer of feathers. Preening also adds waterproofing oil to the feathers. Penguins carry this air jacket with them when they dive into the water.
The researchers carefully studied BBC footage of penguins diving and rising, estimating they rise on average "2.8 times the descending speed."2 The buoyancy of their air jacket when they swim downward requires more energy than swimming upward. In essence, the penguins store that energy and use it later to accelerate upward.
The study authors surmise that the penguins lock their feathers down over the air compressed at depth. When they swim upward, the air expands. But they hold their feathers down against the force of expanding air that "will automatically issue as small bubbles."2
These tiny bubbles remove a huge portion of friction between the feathers and water—up to 100 percent. Experiments with bubbles against flat sheets, representing the sides of tankers, showed over 80 percent reduction in friction, according to Hughes and his co-authors. The penguin slides through the bubble jacket that it creates, leaving bubbles along its trailing wake. This must be how penguins rocket out of the water at 18 miles per hour!
How do the penguins manage their air jackets? They must first have the instinctive know-how for preening. They also require a streamlined body formed to permit their beaks to reach plenty of body feathers when preening. Plus, "Penguin plumage is unlike that of other birds."2 Their feathers are spread uniformly over their whole body in a tiny mesh of fine strands. They look like they were intentionally designed to trap air. Penguins also need to manufacture the proper oil to condition and waterproof those feathers.
And "emperor penguins need to have considerable control over their plumage."2 With muscles attached to each feather, it is reasonable to believe that penguins have just such feather control. The interconnected parts all fit, and all are required.
Hughes and his co-authors could empirically test their idea by building model penguins, but "this would be a technically difficult task as the complexity of penguin plumage would be difficult to replicate in a man-made porous membrane or mesh."2 And what is technically difficult for intelligent man to construct is utterly impossible for mere natural forces. But it is no problem for the Lord Jesus Christ, for "by him all things consist"— even penguin feathers.3
The Institute for Creation Research
All I have ever said, really, is show me the Science.
All you have done is prattle on with opinions.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Scientists Discover Secret to Fast Swimming Penguins
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Penguins are fast swimmers, but they shouldn't be. As they rocket themselves through the water and onto overlying ice shelves, the drag of water friction is supposed to be too great. Researchers familiar with recent attempts to use air as a lubricant for ships noticed air bubbles jacketing penguins during their boisterous ascents, and that led them to question if penguins use air to accelerate underwater.
National Geographic recently reported on how Bangor University biologist Roger Hughes, inspired by a 2001 BBC documentary that featured emperor penguins leaping out of the water,1 partnered with an engineer in Denmark and two other researchers to investigate how the penguins could do this. Their results appeared in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series in 2011, where they showed penguins' unique and remarkable design for fast swimming.2
The study authors admitted that without a "control" penguin that does not release air bubbles, they cannot scientifically prove the hypothesis that emperor penguins, and by extension other penguins with similar capabilities, use tiny air bubbles to accelerate underwater. However, they found plenty of evidence to favor the idea.
When the penguins are out of the water, they preen their feathers and fluff them up all over their streamlined bodies, adding about an inch of air between the skin and outermost layer of feathers. Preening also adds waterproofing oil to the feathers. Penguins carry this air jacket with them when they dive into the water.
The researchers carefully studied BBC footage of penguins diving and rising, estimating they rise on average "2.8 times the descending speed."2 The buoyancy of their air jacket when they swim downward requires more energy than swimming upward. In essence, the penguins store that energy and use it later to accelerate upward.
The study authors surmise that the penguins lock their feathers down over the air compressed at depth. When they swim upward, the air expands. But they hold their feathers down against the force of expanding air that "will automatically issue as small bubbles."2
These tiny bubbles remove a huge portion of friction between the feathers and water—up to 100 percent. Experiments with bubbles against flat sheets, representing the sides of tankers, showed over 80 percent reduction in friction, according to Hughes and his co-authors. The penguin slides through the bubble jacket that it creates, leaving bubbles along its trailing wake. This must be how penguins rocket out of the water at 18 miles per hour!
How do the penguins manage their air jackets? They must first have the instinctive know-how for preening. They also require a streamlined body formed to permit their beaks to reach plenty of body feathers when preening. Plus, "Penguin plumage is unlike that of other birds."2 Their feathers are spread uniformly over their whole body in a tiny mesh of fine strands. They look like they were intentionally designed to trap air. Penguins also need to manufacture the proper oil to condition and waterproof those feathers.
And "emperor penguins need to have considerable control over their plumage."2 With muscles attached to each feather, it is reasonable to believe that penguins have just such feather control. The interconnected parts all fit, and all are required.
Hughes and his co-authors could empirically test their idea by building model penguins, but "this would be a technically difficult task as the complexity of penguin plumage would be difficult to replicate in a man-made porous membrane or mesh."2 And what is technically difficult for intelligent man to construct is utterly impossible for mere natural forces. But it is no problem for the Lord Jesus Christ, for "by him all things consist"— even penguin feathers.3
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I just have to drop this here.
Ingredients for life found in meteors
Two wayward space rocks, which separately crashed to Earth in 1998 after circulating in our solar system's asteroid belt for billions of years, share something else in common: the ingredients for life. They are the first meteorites found to contain both liquid water and a mix of complex organic compounds such as hydrocarbons and amino acids.
A detailed study of the chemical makeup within tiny blue and purple salt crystals sampled from these meteorites, which included results from X-ray experiments at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), also found evidence for the pair's past intermingling and likely parents.
Ingredients for life found in meteors
Two wayward space rocks, which separately crashed to Earth in 1998 after circulating in our solar system's asteroid belt for billions of years, share something else in common: the ingredients for life. They are the first meteorites found to contain both liquid water and a mix of complex organic compounds such as hydrocarbons and amino acids.
A detailed study of the chemical makeup within tiny blue and purple salt crystals sampled from these meteorites, which included results from X-ray experiments at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), also found evidence for the pair's past intermingling and likely parents.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517925 wrote: I just have to drop this here.
Ingredients for life found in meteors
Two wayward space rocks, which separately crashed to Earth in 1998 after circulating in our solar system's asteroid belt for billions of years, share something else in common: the ingredients for life. They are the first meteorites found to contain both liquid water and a mix of complex organic compounds such as hydrocarbons and amino acids.
A detailed study of the chemical makeup within tiny blue and purple salt crystals sampled from these meteorites, which included results from X-ray experiments at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), also found evidence for the pair's past intermingling and likely parents.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Meteorites Return Home
Figure 187: Salt of the Earth. On 22 March 1998, this 2 3/4 pound meteorite landed 40 feet from boys playing basketball in Monahans, Texas. While the rock was still warm, police were called. Hours later, NASA scientists cracked the meteorite open in a clean-room laboratory, eliminating any possibility of contamination. Inside were salt (NaCl) crystals 0.1 inch (3 mm) in diameter and liquid water!86 Some salt crystals are shown in the blue circle, highly magnified and in true color. Bubble (B) is inside a liquid, which itself is inside a salt crystal. Eleven quivering bubbles were found in about 40 fluid pockets. Shown in the green circle is another bubble (V) inside a liquid (L). The horizontal black bar represents 0.005 mm, about 1/25 the diameter of a human hair.
NASA scientists who investigated this meteorite believe it came from an asteroid, but that is highly unlikely. Asteroids, having little gravity and being in the vacuum of space, cannot sustain liquid water, which is required to form salt crystals. (Earth is the only planet, indeed the only body in the solar system, that can sustain liquid water on its surface.) Nor could surface water (gas, liquid, or solid) on asteroids withstand high-velocity impacts. Even more perplexing for the evolutionist: What is the salt's origin?
Figure 41 on page 110 []In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II: illustrates the origin of meteoroids. Dust-sized meteoroids often come from comets. Most larger meteoroids are rock fragments that never merged into a comet or asteroid.
Much evidence supports Earth as the origin of meteorites.
Minerals and isotopes in meteorites are remarkably similar to those on Earth.
Some meteorites contain sugars, salt crystals containing liquid water,89 and possible cellulose.
Other meteorites contain limestone, which, on Earth, forms only in liquid water. [See The Origin of Limestone on pages 251-256.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Limestone
Many meteorites contain excess amounts of left-handed amino acids-a sign of once-living matter. [See Handedness: Left and Right on page 19.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 35. Handedness: Left and Right
NASA has found DNA components in 12 meteorites.
A few meteorites show that "salt-rich fluids similar to terrestrial brines" flowed through their veins.
Some meteorites have about twice the heavy hydrogen concentration as Earth's water today. As explained in the preceding chapter and in Endnote 89 on page 414, this heavy hydrogen came from the subterranean chambers. About 86% of all meteorites contain chondrules, which are best explained by the hydroplate theory. [See Chondrules on page 399.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Evidence Requiring an Explanation
Bacteria fossils have been found in three meteorites.
Seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source-and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects
Ingredients for life found in meteors
Two wayward space rocks, which separately crashed to Earth in 1998 after circulating in our solar system's asteroid belt for billions of years, share something else in common: the ingredients for life. They are the first meteorites found to contain both liquid water and a mix of complex organic compounds such as hydrocarbons and amino acids.
A detailed study of the chemical makeup within tiny blue and purple salt crystals sampled from these meteorites, which included results from X-ray experiments at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), also found evidence for the pair's past intermingling and likely parents.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Meteorites Return Home
Figure 187: Salt of the Earth. On 22 March 1998, this 2 3/4 pound meteorite landed 40 feet from boys playing basketball in Monahans, Texas. While the rock was still warm, police were called. Hours later, NASA scientists cracked the meteorite open in a clean-room laboratory, eliminating any possibility of contamination. Inside were salt (NaCl) crystals 0.1 inch (3 mm) in diameter and liquid water!86 Some salt crystals are shown in the blue circle, highly magnified and in true color. Bubble (B) is inside a liquid, which itself is inside a salt crystal. Eleven quivering bubbles were found in about 40 fluid pockets. Shown in the green circle is another bubble (V) inside a liquid (L). The horizontal black bar represents 0.005 mm, about 1/25 the diameter of a human hair.
NASA scientists who investigated this meteorite believe it came from an asteroid, but that is highly unlikely. Asteroids, having little gravity and being in the vacuum of space, cannot sustain liquid water, which is required to form salt crystals. (Earth is the only planet, indeed the only body in the solar system, that can sustain liquid water on its surface.) Nor could surface water (gas, liquid, or solid) on asteroids withstand high-velocity impacts. Even more perplexing for the evolutionist: What is the salt's origin?
Figure 41 on page 110 []In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II: illustrates the origin of meteoroids. Dust-sized meteoroids often come from comets. Most larger meteoroids are rock fragments that never merged into a comet or asteroid.
Much evidence supports Earth as the origin of meteorites.
Minerals and isotopes in meteorites are remarkably similar to those on Earth.
Some meteorites contain sugars, salt crystals containing liquid water,89 and possible cellulose.
Other meteorites contain limestone, which, on Earth, forms only in liquid water. [See The Origin of Limestone on pages 251-256.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Limestone
Many meteorites contain excess amounts of left-handed amino acids-a sign of once-living matter. [See Handedness: Left and Right on page 19.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 35. Handedness: Left and Right
NASA has found DNA components in 12 meteorites.
A few meteorites show that "salt-rich fluids similar to terrestrial brines" flowed through their veins.
Some meteorites have about twice the heavy hydrogen concentration as Earth's water today. As explained in the preceding chapter and in Endnote 89 on page 414, this heavy hydrogen came from the subterranean chambers. About 86% of all meteorites contain chondrules, which are best explained by the hydroplate theory. [See Chondrules on page 399.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Evidence Requiring an Explanation
Bacteria fossils have been found in three meteorites.
Seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source-and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517927 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Meteorites Return Home
Figure 187: Salt of the Earth. On 22 March 1998, this 2 3/4 pound meteorite landed 40 feet from boys playing basketball in Monahans, Texas. While the rock was still warm, police were called. Hours later, NASA scientists cracked the meteorite open in a clean-room laboratory, eliminating any possibility of contamination. Inside were salt (NaCl) crystals 0.1 inch (3 mm) in diameter and liquid water!86 Some salt crystals are shown in the blue circle, highly magnified and in true color. Bubble (B) is inside a liquid, which itself is inside a salt crystal. Eleven quivering bubbles were found in about 40 fluid pockets. Shown in the green circle is another bubble (V) inside a liquid (L). The horizontal black bar represents 0.005 mm, about 1/25 the diameter of a human hair.
NASA scientists who investigated this meteorite believe it came from an asteroid, but that is highly unlikely. Asteroids, having little gravity and being in the vacuum of space, cannot sustain liquid water, which is required to form salt crystals. (Earth is the only planet, indeed the only body in the solar system, that can sustain liquid water on its surface.) Nor could surface water (gas, liquid, or solid) on asteroids withstand high-velocity impacts. Even more perplexing for the evolutionist: What is the salt's origin?
Figure 41 on page 110 []In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II: illustrates the origin of meteoroids. Dust-sized meteoroids often come from comets. Most larger meteoroids are rock fragments that never merged into a comet or asteroid.
Much evidence supports Earth as the origin of meteorites.
Minerals and isotopes in meteorites are remarkably similar to those on Earth.
Some meteorites contain sugars, salt crystals containing liquid water,89 and possible cellulose.
Other meteorites contain limestone, which, on Earth, forms only in liquid water. [See The Origin of Limestone on pages 251-256.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Limestone
Many meteorites contain excess amounts of left-handed amino acids-a sign of once-living matter. [See Handedness: Left and Right on page 19.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 35.** Handedness: Left and Right
NASA has found DNA components in 12 meteorites.
A few meteorites show that "salt-rich fluids similar to terrestrial brines" flowed through their veins.
Some meteorites have about twice the heavy hydrogen concentration as Earth's water today. As explained in the preceding chapter and in Endnote 89 on page 414, this heavy hydrogen came from the subterranean chambers. About 86% of all meteorites contain chondrules, which are best explained by the hydroplate theory. [See Chondrules on page 399.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Evidence Requiring an Explanation
Bacteria fossils have been found in three meteorites.
Seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source-and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects
The logic here is... , well, ... Illogical
Meteorites Return Home
Figure 187: Salt of the Earth. On 22 March 1998, this 2 3/4 pound meteorite landed 40 feet from boys playing basketball in Monahans, Texas. While the rock was still warm, police were called. Hours later, NASA scientists cracked the meteorite open in a clean-room laboratory, eliminating any possibility of contamination. Inside were salt (NaCl) crystals 0.1 inch (3 mm) in diameter and liquid water!86 Some salt crystals are shown in the blue circle, highly magnified and in true color. Bubble (B) is inside a liquid, which itself is inside a salt crystal. Eleven quivering bubbles were found in about 40 fluid pockets. Shown in the green circle is another bubble (V) inside a liquid (L). The horizontal black bar represents 0.005 mm, about 1/25 the diameter of a human hair.
NASA scientists who investigated this meteorite believe it came from an asteroid, but that is highly unlikely. Asteroids, having little gravity and being in the vacuum of space, cannot sustain liquid water, which is required to form salt crystals. (Earth is the only planet, indeed the only body in the solar system, that can sustain liquid water on its surface.) Nor could surface water (gas, liquid, or solid) on asteroids withstand high-velocity impacts. Even more perplexing for the evolutionist: What is the salt's origin?
Figure 41 on page 110 []In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II: illustrates the origin of meteoroids. Dust-sized meteoroids often come from comets. Most larger meteoroids are rock fragments that never merged into a comet or asteroid.
Much evidence supports Earth as the origin of meteorites.
Minerals and isotopes in meteorites are remarkably similar to those on Earth.
Some meteorites contain sugars, salt crystals containing liquid water,89 and possible cellulose.
Other meteorites contain limestone, which, on Earth, forms only in liquid water. [See The Origin of Limestone on pages 251-256.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Limestone
Many meteorites contain excess amounts of left-handed amino acids-a sign of once-living matter. [See Handedness: Left and Right on page 19.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 35.** Handedness: Left and Right
NASA has found DNA components in 12 meteorites.
A few meteorites show that "salt-rich fluids similar to terrestrial brines" flowed through their veins.
Some meteorites have about twice the heavy hydrogen concentration as Earth's water today. As explained in the preceding chapter and in Endnote 89 on page 414, this heavy hydrogen came from the subterranean chambers. About 86% of all meteorites contain chondrules, which are best explained by the hydroplate theory. [See Chondrules on page 399.]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Evidence Requiring an Explanation
Bacteria fossils have been found in three meteorites.
Seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source-and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects
The logic here is... , well, ... Illogical
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517929 wrote: The logic here is... , well, ... Illogical
Not at all. Much evidence supports Earth as the origin of meteorites. Where is the illogic in that? Especially after seeing that evidence, which you apparently choose to reject, probably because it doesn't conform to your erroneous presuppositions.
Not at all. Much evidence supports Earth as the origin of meteorites. Where is the illogic in that? Especially after seeing that evidence, which you apparently choose to reject, probably because it doesn't conform to your erroneous presuppositions.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517939 wrote: Not at all. Much evidence supports Earth as the origin of meteorites. Where is the illogic in that? Especially after seeing that evidence, which you apparently choose to reject, probably because it doesn't conform to your erroneous presuppositions.
I don't reject, I simple don't see the causal chain that the author claims.
If you see a person in New York wearing a Silk shirt, would you assume that he is from China?
There are many other probable, yet untested possibilities to explore before drawing the conclusions your author does.
I don't reject, I simple don't see the causal chain that the author claims.
If you see a person in New York wearing a Silk shirt, would you assume that he is from China?
There are many other probable, yet untested possibilities to explore before drawing the conclusions your author does.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517940 wrote: I don't reject, I simple don't see the causal chain that the author claims.
If you see a person in New York wearing a Silk shirt, would you assume that he is from China?
There are many other probable, yet untested possibilities to explore before drawing the conclusions your author does.
Then you are willingly blind, refusing to see the logical conclusions the evidence demands, that supports Earth as the origin of meteorites. Your analogy of a person in New York wearing a Silk shirt is just an irrelevantly desperate attempt to change the subject. Also, your appeal to probable, yet untested possibilities is pathetic. If they are untested possibilities, how can they be probable?
If you see a person in New York wearing a Silk shirt, would you assume that he is from China?
There are many other probable, yet untested possibilities to explore before drawing the conclusions your author does.
Then you are willingly blind, refusing to see the logical conclusions the evidence demands, that supports Earth as the origin of meteorites. Your analogy of a person in New York wearing a Silk shirt is just an irrelevantly desperate attempt to change the subject. Also, your appeal to probable, yet untested possibilities is pathetic. If they are untested possibilities, how can they be probable?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517941 wrote: Then you are willingly blind, refusing to see the logical conclusions the evidence demands, that supports Earth as the origin of meteorites. Your analogy of a person in New York wearing a Silk shirt is just an irrelevantly desperate attempt to change the subject. Also, your appeal to probable, yet untested possibilities is pathetic. If they are untested possibilities, how can they be probable?
You did not just post that. I refuse to believe that you can be as ignorant as that sounds.
You did not just post that. I refuse to believe that you can be as ignorant as that sounds.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517944 wrote: You did not just post that. I refuse to believe that you can be as ignorant as that sounds.
Because you are unable or unwilling to grasp the facts, you lash out with pathetic attacks. I can only advise you to try thinking.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
'Relatively Simple'
BY FRANK SHERWIN, M.A.
In his book Why Evolution Is True, evolutionist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago made the following jaw-dropping statement:
Around 600 million years ago a whole gamut of relatively simple but multicelled organisms arise, including worms, jellyfish, and sponges. These groups diversify over the next several million years, with terrestrial plants and tetrapods (four-legged animals, the earliest of which were lobe-finned fish) appearing about 400 million years ago.1
The phrase “relatively simple is awash with subjective interpretations. “Relatively simple compared to what? Creation scientists maintain that if it’s living, it’s complex. Living things bear the indelible stamp of detailed complexity that science—in this 21st century—continues to discover.2
It would seem that Coyne is betting readers of his book will not bother to investigate to see how “simple jellyfish are. If they did, they would discover that jellyfish are exceedingly complicated.
Secular authors Thain and Hickman, in their brief description of jellyfish (Scyphozoa), manage to use the word “complex twice.3 Jellyfish have the sophisticated medusoid stage composed of endodermal gonads, two nerve rings or tracts, a four-pouch enteron (that receives the gametes), and “a complex system of radial canals branches out from the pouches to a ring canal in the margin and makes up a part of the gastrovascular cavity.4
Coyne mistakenly thinks that sponges (Porifera) are relatively simple—but experts on this cryptic phylum would not agree. Indeed, three evolutionists state how complex “the many types of spicules are,5 and that the sponges’ “unique water-current system has “various degrees of complexity, as well as spongin (a specialized collagen)6 and the amazing ameboid archaeocytes that aid in digestion and can differentiate (assume specialized function) into specialized cells such as sclerocytes, collencytes and spongocytes.
Some sponges employ “a very strange developmental pattern, illustrating how so many varieties add up to vast amounts of complicated information, all within supposedly “simple sponges.7 What evolutionist is prepared to say that any creature (like the sponge) that produces oocytes and sperm is simple? In addition, a member of the Demospongiae (the largest class in the sponge phylum) living off Australia has “more than 18,000 individual genes—unexpected complexity that is confounding evolutionists.8 Humans have about 24,000 genes.
Finally, worms pound the last nail into the coffin of Coyne’s simplicity argument. As far back as the Ediacaran (“550 million years ago, according to evolutionists), worms have been worms in all their features and sophistication. The segmented organism Spriggina is a good example of incredible detail when life was supposedly just getting started. Scientists think this three-centimeter-long creature may have been annelid. If that’s the case, then “simple is the last word one would use to describe Spriggina. Annelids have structures called nephridia (ciliated tubular structures designed for excretion), a complex9 closed blood system, paired giant nerve cords ventral to the gut running the length of the body, and other design structures. Are worms simple? Hardly. The lowly worm instinctively applies the logic of calculus for food acquisition:
Worms calculate how much the strength of different tastes is changing—equivalent to the process of taking a derivative in calculus—to figure out if they are on their way toward food or should change direction and look elsewhere, says University of Oregon biologist Shawn Lockery.10
Let’s hear it for the “simple worms, jellyfish, and sponges!
The Institute for Creation Research
Because you are unable or unwilling to grasp the facts, you lash out with pathetic attacks. I can only advise you to try thinking.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
'Relatively Simple'
BY FRANK SHERWIN, M.A.
In his book Why Evolution Is True, evolutionist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago made the following jaw-dropping statement:
Around 600 million years ago a whole gamut of relatively simple but multicelled organisms arise, including worms, jellyfish, and sponges. These groups diversify over the next several million years, with terrestrial plants and tetrapods (four-legged animals, the earliest of which were lobe-finned fish) appearing about 400 million years ago.1
The phrase “relatively simple is awash with subjective interpretations. “Relatively simple compared to what? Creation scientists maintain that if it’s living, it’s complex. Living things bear the indelible stamp of detailed complexity that science—in this 21st century—continues to discover.2
It would seem that Coyne is betting readers of his book will not bother to investigate to see how “simple jellyfish are. If they did, they would discover that jellyfish are exceedingly complicated.
Secular authors Thain and Hickman, in their brief description of jellyfish (Scyphozoa), manage to use the word “complex twice.3 Jellyfish have the sophisticated medusoid stage composed of endodermal gonads, two nerve rings or tracts, a four-pouch enteron (that receives the gametes), and “a complex system of radial canals branches out from the pouches to a ring canal in the margin and makes up a part of the gastrovascular cavity.4
Coyne mistakenly thinks that sponges (Porifera) are relatively simple—but experts on this cryptic phylum would not agree. Indeed, three evolutionists state how complex “the many types of spicules are,5 and that the sponges’ “unique water-current system has “various degrees of complexity, as well as spongin (a specialized collagen)6 and the amazing ameboid archaeocytes that aid in digestion and can differentiate (assume specialized function) into specialized cells such as sclerocytes, collencytes and spongocytes.
Some sponges employ “a very strange developmental pattern, illustrating how so many varieties add up to vast amounts of complicated information, all within supposedly “simple sponges.7 What evolutionist is prepared to say that any creature (like the sponge) that produces oocytes and sperm is simple? In addition, a member of the Demospongiae (the largest class in the sponge phylum) living off Australia has “more than 18,000 individual genes—unexpected complexity that is confounding evolutionists.8 Humans have about 24,000 genes.
Finally, worms pound the last nail into the coffin of Coyne’s simplicity argument. As far back as the Ediacaran (“550 million years ago, according to evolutionists), worms have been worms in all their features and sophistication. The segmented organism Spriggina is a good example of incredible detail when life was supposedly just getting started. Scientists think this three-centimeter-long creature may have been annelid. If that’s the case, then “simple is the last word one would use to describe Spriggina. Annelids have structures called nephridia (ciliated tubular structures designed for excretion), a complex9 closed blood system, paired giant nerve cords ventral to the gut running the length of the body, and other design structures. Are worms simple? Hardly. The lowly worm instinctively applies the logic of calculus for food acquisition:
Worms calculate how much the strength of different tastes is changing—equivalent to the process of taking a derivative in calculus—to figure out if they are on their way toward food or should change direction and look elsewhere, says University of Oregon biologist Shawn Lockery.10
Let’s hear it for the “simple worms, jellyfish, and sponges!
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The phrase “relatively simple is awash with subjective interpretations.
Subjective interpretation pretty much defines your whole collection of posts.
Again, where is the science?
You now, after a couple of years of posting mostly subjective material, with no real foundation in the science that you claim "disproves' your Very Subjective notion of Evolution, accuse me of being ignorant to the subjective gobbledegook you offer in every post.
And, yet again, Where is the Science?
Subjective interpretation pretty much defines your whole collection of posts.
Again, where is the science?
You now, after a couple of years of posting mostly subjective material, with no real foundation in the science that you claim "disproves' your Very Subjective notion of Evolution, accuse me of being ignorant to the subjective gobbledegook you offer in every post.
And, yet again, Where is the Science?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517947 wrote: The phrase “relatively simple is awash with subjective interpretations.
Subjective interpretation pretty much defines your whole collection of posts.
Again, where is the science?
You now, after a couple of years of posting mostly subjective material, with no real foundation in the science that you claim "disproves' your Very Subjective notion of Evolution, accuse me of being ignorant to the subjective gobbledegook you offer in every post.
And, yet again, Where is the Science?
Your willful blindness prevents you from seeing it.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Genetic Stop Sign Halts Evolutionary Explanations
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Fruit flies, the subject of over a century of intense investigation, have not ceased yielding secrets. In a study published in 1980, core fruit fly genes were altered, one by one, and the resulting plethora of dead flies proved that there was no "wiggle room" to add the mutations that evolution would require.1 Now, researchers have found another way to break the fly. But instead of removing any genes, they removed a genetic "stop" signal.
Genes are DNA sequences that code for proteins and comprise a small minority of the total DNA material in flies as well as humans. The fruit fly gene the researchers analyzed, named polo, actually has two stop signals. These mark the places on DNA that copying should stop, so that the resulting messenger RNAs and proteins end up the correct length.
It was suspected that the duplicated stop sign served as double insurance that the gene would be copied correctly. So, the investigators removed the second one, thinking it would prove to be superfluous.
However, "the results were surprising and more dramatic than they could have expected," according to a news release from the Portuguese Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular. Research team coordinator Alexandra Moreira said, "When we make the fly using only the first stop-signal the effect is lethal."2 When the second stop signal was deleted, the fruit flies pupated with a malformed abdomen and the result was dead insects.
This research provides two arguments in favor of fruit fly creation, arguments that also show how the flies could not have evolved by any chance-based natural process.
First, in addition to the raw code for proteins carried in the gene, this particular stop sequence is also required for any fruit fly to survive. In other words, the genes plus the regulatory DNA comprise an all-or-nothing system that defies evolutionary ideas of the fruit fly being the product of a gradual accretion of its parts.
Moreira said that both full stop signs are required for "effective regulation of the levels of the resulting proteins."2 The correct numbers of proteins must be expressed during embryonic development.
Second, this result adds to an ever-growing list of regulatory DNA sequences that do not code for proteins but are nevertheless vital. It appears that a vast majority of any organism's genome is highly regulated, tightly packed with information (often double-layered), and therefore unable to tolerate many mutations without breaking down.3
But without mutations—which generations of students have been taught are the means by which evolution generates innovative change—the hypothetical engine of evolution comes to a screeching halt.
In an automobile, the steering wheel regulates the direction the car travels. Similarly, the number and position of stop signs in the fruit fly's DNA help regulate protein production during its development. In both cases, the removal of the regulatory feature also renders its whole entity useless. Just as the effect of removing the steering wheel from a car physically demonstrates that the whole car had to have been purposefully engineered, the removal of this one fly "stop sign" demonstrates that the whole fly must also have been purposefully engineered.
And the best candidate for having done that is the Creator God of the Bible.
The Institute for Creation Research
Subjective interpretation pretty much defines your whole collection of posts.
Again, where is the science?
You now, after a couple of years of posting mostly subjective material, with no real foundation in the science that you claim "disproves' your Very Subjective notion of Evolution, accuse me of being ignorant to the subjective gobbledegook you offer in every post.
And, yet again, Where is the Science?
Your willful blindness prevents you from seeing it.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Genetic Stop Sign Halts Evolutionary Explanations
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Fruit flies, the subject of over a century of intense investigation, have not ceased yielding secrets. In a study published in 1980, core fruit fly genes were altered, one by one, and the resulting plethora of dead flies proved that there was no "wiggle room" to add the mutations that evolution would require.1 Now, researchers have found another way to break the fly. But instead of removing any genes, they removed a genetic "stop" signal.
Genes are DNA sequences that code for proteins and comprise a small minority of the total DNA material in flies as well as humans. The fruit fly gene the researchers analyzed, named polo, actually has two stop signals. These mark the places on DNA that copying should stop, so that the resulting messenger RNAs and proteins end up the correct length.
It was suspected that the duplicated stop sign served as double insurance that the gene would be copied correctly. So, the investigators removed the second one, thinking it would prove to be superfluous.
However, "the results were surprising and more dramatic than they could have expected," according to a news release from the Portuguese Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular. Research team coordinator Alexandra Moreira said, "When we make the fly using only the first stop-signal the effect is lethal."2 When the second stop signal was deleted, the fruit flies pupated with a malformed abdomen and the result was dead insects.
This research provides two arguments in favor of fruit fly creation, arguments that also show how the flies could not have evolved by any chance-based natural process.
First, in addition to the raw code for proteins carried in the gene, this particular stop sequence is also required for any fruit fly to survive. In other words, the genes plus the regulatory DNA comprise an all-or-nothing system that defies evolutionary ideas of the fruit fly being the product of a gradual accretion of its parts.
Moreira said that both full stop signs are required for "effective regulation of the levels of the resulting proteins."2 The correct numbers of proteins must be expressed during embryonic development.
Second, this result adds to an ever-growing list of regulatory DNA sequences that do not code for proteins but are nevertheless vital. It appears that a vast majority of any organism's genome is highly regulated, tightly packed with information (often double-layered), and therefore unable to tolerate many mutations without breaking down.3
But without mutations—which generations of students have been taught are the means by which evolution generates innovative change—the hypothetical engine of evolution comes to a screeching halt.
In an automobile, the steering wheel regulates the direction the car travels. Similarly, the number and position of stop signs in the fruit fly's DNA help regulate protein production during its development. In both cases, the removal of the regulatory feature also renders its whole entity useless. Just as the effect of removing the steering wheel from a car physically demonstrates that the whole car had to have been purposefully engineered, the removal of this one fly "stop sign" demonstrates that the whole fly must also have been purposefully engineered.
And the best candidate for having done that is the Creator God of the Bible.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
No, it is not I being blind, Brother.
I see, and read all of your interesting science facts buried in some very nice articles about various critters, but there is very little actual science, and once the narrator takes off on his philosophical tangents, all the science is lost.
They are all very nice little essays, but there is no proof to support most of what they claim. Sorry. Not Science.
I see, and read all of your interesting science facts buried in some very nice articles about various critters, but there is very little actual science, and once the narrator takes off on his philosophical tangents, all the science is lost.
They are all very nice little essays, but there is no proof to support most of what they claim. Sorry. Not Science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517952 wrote: No, it is not I being blind, Brother.
I see, and read all of your interesting science facts buried in some very nice articles about various critters, but there is very little actual science, and once the narrator takes off on his philosophical tangents, all the science is lost.
They are all very nice little essays, but there is no proof to support most of what they claim. Sorry. Not Science.
If they are "science facts," as you observe, how can they not be science?
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Did Flower Study Catch Evolution in the Act?
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
When two species of daisy are crossed, the resulting daisies should look a little like each parent—right?
That's not what researchers recently discovered in a new study published in Current Biology. Co-author Doug Soltis and his colleagues found that these flowers' descendants changed appearance right before their eyes.1 Soltis, a biologist at the University of Florida, said in a university press release, "We caught evolution in the act."2 The flowers did change, but is it accurate to call that "evolution"?
The researchers examined differences in gene expression in many generations of this particular daisy hybrid called Tragopogon miscellus. They saw that genetic patterns that were stable in the parents became disrupted in the offspring through a genetic process they called "transcriptomic shock."1 But even with these changes, the researchers began their study with daisies and ended with daisies. The flower changes that they saw did not, and could not, account for the origin of the daisy itself, and this is still the biggest problem with big-picture evolution.
But they did find some very interesting results that give clues about how flowers may have rapidly changed their appearances in the context of a young world, and specifically how so many varieties were expressed after the Flood. When these two different parent daisy species cross-pollinated in the wild, some of the offspring ended up polyploid. This means that their DNA doubled, with an entire copy of all the chromosomes added to all the cells of the next generation. And that extra DNA sent the developing plants into a "reshuffling" mode.
Some genes were turned off, others turned on, and even more were readjusted like a genetic dimmer switch. All the while, the true-breeding parent populations, growing in parallel, continued to show consistent gene expression patterns.
The study authors wrote that the polyploid plants induced a kind of shock to the gene system, "causing a loss of tissue-specific expression patterns seen in the diploid parents." These changes were not random, either. The researchers wrote, "Our results suggest that regulation of gene expression is relaxed in a concerted manner upon hybridization, and new patterns of partitioned expression subsequently emerge over the generations following allopolyploidization" (emphasis added).1
The term "allopolyploidization" refers to the formation of a double-size set of genes in the very first generation of offspring. But when the densely packed information content in floral genes is adjusted, it must occur "in a concerted manner" so that vital genetic information is not garbled. And the "concerted manner" of genetic shuffling that these researchers observed strongly suggests that these flowers were purposefully engineered to quickly express variations.
In just one generation, the gene expression patterns began reshuffling as the hybrids lost the pattern of either parent. The study examined 40-generation-old wild polyploid daisies and concluded that gene expression patterns eventually settle into steady patterns over multiple generations as the plants interact with their environments.
The changes in the flowers were not random, but concerted, and they appear to have a purpose behind them. The study authors wrote, "The patterns of transcriptomic shock shown here are likely to affect profoundly the evolutionary success of the natural populations of allopolyploid Tragopogon miscellus."1 But in this context, "evolutionary success" actually refers to the potential to fill and pioneer different ecological niches, a capability that does not explain the origin of these flowers or their built-in potential for variation.
According to these study authors, the real source of change in these daisies was not their environment, but their DNA. And their DNA contains coded instructions to rearrange itself in an organized way, so that future generations might be better equipped to survive in different environments. It is God's marvelous biological design—not evolution—that has been caught in the act.
The Institute for Creation Research
I see, and read all of your interesting science facts buried in some very nice articles about various critters, but there is very little actual science, and once the narrator takes off on his philosophical tangents, all the science is lost.
They are all very nice little essays, but there is no proof to support most of what they claim. Sorry. Not Science.
If they are "science facts," as you observe, how can they not be science?
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Did Flower Study Catch Evolution in the Act?
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
When two species of daisy are crossed, the resulting daisies should look a little like each parent—right?
That's not what researchers recently discovered in a new study published in Current Biology. Co-author Doug Soltis and his colleagues found that these flowers' descendants changed appearance right before their eyes.1 Soltis, a biologist at the University of Florida, said in a university press release, "We caught evolution in the act."2 The flowers did change, but is it accurate to call that "evolution"?
The researchers examined differences in gene expression in many generations of this particular daisy hybrid called Tragopogon miscellus. They saw that genetic patterns that were stable in the parents became disrupted in the offspring through a genetic process they called "transcriptomic shock."1 But even with these changes, the researchers began their study with daisies and ended with daisies. The flower changes that they saw did not, and could not, account for the origin of the daisy itself, and this is still the biggest problem with big-picture evolution.
But they did find some very interesting results that give clues about how flowers may have rapidly changed their appearances in the context of a young world, and specifically how so many varieties were expressed after the Flood. When these two different parent daisy species cross-pollinated in the wild, some of the offspring ended up polyploid. This means that their DNA doubled, with an entire copy of all the chromosomes added to all the cells of the next generation. And that extra DNA sent the developing plants into a "reshuffling" mode.
Some genes were turned off, others turned on, and even more were readjusted like a genetic dimmer switch. All the while, the true-breeding parent populations, growing in parallel, continued to show consistent gene expression patterns.
The study authors wrote that the polyploid plants induced a kind of shock to the gene system, "causing a loss of tissue-specific expression patterns seen in the diploid parents." These changes were not random, either. The researchers wrote, "Our results suggest that regulation of gene expression is relaxed in a concerted manner upon hybridization, and new patterns of partitioned expression subsequently emerge over the generations following allopolyploidization" (emphasis added).1
The term "allopolyploidization" refers to the formation of a double-size set of genes in the very first generation of offspring. But when the densely packed information content in floral genes is adjusted, it must occur "in a concerted manner" so that vital genetic information is not garbled. And the "concerted manner" of genetic shuffling that these researchers observed strongly suggests that these flowers were purposefully engineered to quickly express variations.
In just one generation, the gene expression patterns began reshuffling as the hybrids lost the pattern of either parent. The study examined 40-generation-old wild polyploid daisies and concluded that gene expression patterns eventually settle into steady patterns over multiple generations as the plants interact with their environments.
The changes in the flowers were not random, but concerted, and they appear to have a purpose behind them. The study authors wrote, "The patterns of transcriptomic shock shown here are likely to affect profoundly the evolutionary success of the natural populations of allopolyploid Tragopogon miscellus."1 But in this context, "evolutionary success" actually refers to the potential to fill and pioneer different ecological niches, a capability that does not explain the origin of these flowers or their built-in potential for variation.
According to these study authors, the real source of change in these daisies was not their environment, but their DNA. And their DNA contains coded instructions to rearrange itself in an organized way, so that future generations might be better equipped to survive in different environments. It is God's marvelous biological design—not evolution—that has been caught in the act.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517961 wrote: If they are "science facts," as you observe, how can they not be science?
Um, a "fact" is not science
A fact is basically a point of data.
You can have a whole boatload of facts, and still not have any science.
As exhibited by your collection of posts to this thread.
Um, a "fact" is not science
A fact is basically a point of data.
You can have a whole boatload of facts, and still not have any science.
As exhibited by your collection of posts to this thread.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Proteins 2
To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid (c). However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur (d). Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids (e).
c. “It is difficult to imagine how a little pond with just these components, and no others [no contaminants], could have formed on the primitive earth. Nor is it easy to see exactly how the precursors would have arisen. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.
d. “But when multiple biopolymers must all converge at the same place at the same time to collectively interact in a controlled biochemical cooperative manner, faith in ‘self-organization’ becomes ‘blind belief.’ No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap. Abel and Trevors, p. 9.
e. “I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life]. George Wald, “The Origin of Life, p. 50.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517962 wrote: Um, a "fact" is not science
A fact is basically a point of data.
You can have a whole boatload of facts, and still not have any science.
As exhibited by your collection of posts to this thread.
Then why did you refer to them as "science facts"? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Towers of Hanoi No Match for Puzzle-Solving Ants
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
A game that has traditionally stumped many people has proven to be no problem for ants. They were even able to find alternate solutions when the old ones were blocked. Scientists are hoping this humble insect's amazing puzzle-solving abilities can offer new ways to improve man-made networks.
The object of the Towers of Hanoi puzzle is to transfer disks of tapering sizes among three pegs until they are stacked from largest to smallest on a different peg from the one on which they started. Two main rules govern the game: only one disk at a time can be moved and it cannot be placed on a smaller disk.
The traditional puzzle with four disks can be solved in fifteen moves. Many other moves could be added, but they only result in shuffling the disks.
In research appearing in the Journal of Experimental Biology, scientists employed the puzzle to test ants' "optimisation" abilities.1 Since ants do not lift discs and slide them onto pegs, scientists worked the different possible solutions of the Towers of Hanoi onto a maze of hexagons. The shortest route to a food source corresponded to the fewest steps to the puzzle's solution, and the lead insects discovered it and signalled their fellow ants to use it.
But the researchers went one step further. They tested whether or not the ants could re-work a new route when the original path was blocked. Sure enough, in just as much time as it took for them to find the shortest route, the ants found the second shortest. This result was "contrary to previous studies,"1 which never suspected that ants could solve puzzles like this in a dynamic environment.
How did the ants do it? Nobody knows yet, but what is known is that when computer simulations attempt to copy the ants' problem-solving abilities, they "can't compete with the real things [ants] at finding routes through constantly changing networks."2
The ants solved the puzzle partly through communication using tiny amounts of a very specific chemical called a pheromone. Each ant is equipped with a pheromone detector that can sense just a few—possibly only one—individual pheromone molecules of a certain type.
The researchers said that more mechanisms than just pheromones might be involved to enable ants to be efficient and adaptive problem-solvers when it comes to calculating routes. It seems very likely that "they use an internal compass to help them reach their goal."3
How did ants acquire their ability to collect and coordinate data from different chemical pheromones, as well as compass input, then interpret and integrate that together and use it to compute a solution to the Towers of Hanoi puzzle? Also, where did their equally astounding traffic-jam problem-solving abilities originate?4 One answer given is that they "have evolved"1 over "millions of years."3 The alternative is that they were purposefully engineered with the specific abilities they would need. Unlike the former, the latter answer provides a sufficient cause for this amazing ant capacity.
Simply saying that ants "evolved" these specified skills boils down to a faith-filled assertion. And considering that there is no known natural mechanism that produces pheromone producers, pheromone sensors, data processors, or Towers of Hanoi-solving algorithms from nothing, that faith must be quite strong. And an appeal to "millions of years" backfires as an "explanation" when one considers the reality that over time natural systems break down and wear out, rather than gain ever-increasing complexity and sophistication.
Just as assuredly as the ant's skill in solving the Towers of Hanoi puzzle surpasses that of man-made computers, ants and all their amazing abilities were made by a Maker.
The Institute for Creation Research
A fact is basically a point of data.
You can have a whole boatload of facts, and still not have any science.
As exhibited by your collection of posts to this thread.
Then why did you refer to them as "science facts"? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Towers of Hanoi No Match for Puzzle-Solving Ants
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
A game that has traditionally stumped many people has proven to be no problem for ants. They were even able to find alternate solutions when the old ones were blocked. Scientists are hoping this humble insect's amazing puzzle-solving abilities can offer new ways to improve man-made networks.
The object of the Towers of Hanoi puzzle is to transfer disks of tapering sizes among three pegs until they are stacked from largest to smallest on a different peg from the one on which they started. Two main rules govern the game: only one disk at a time can be moved and it cannot be placed on a smaller disk.
The traditional puzzle with four disks can be solved in fifteen moves. Many other moves could be added, but they only result in shuffling the disks.
In research appearing in the Journal of Experimental Biology, scientists employed the puzzle to test ants' "optimisation" abilities.1 Since ants do not lift discs and slide them onto pegs, scientists worked the different possible solutions of the Towers of Hanoi onto a maze of hexagons. The shortest route to a food source corresponded to the fewest steps to the puzzle's solution, and the lead insects discovered it and signalled their fellow ants to use it.
But the researchers went one step further. They tested whether or not the ants could re-work a new route when the original path was blocked. Sure enough, in just as much time as it took for them to find the shortest route, the ants found the second shortest. This result was "contrary to previous studies,"1 which never suspected that ants could solve puzzles like this in a dynamic environment.
How did the ants do it? Nobody knows yet, but what is known is that when computer simulations attempt to copy the ants' problem-solving abilities, they "can't compete with the real things [ants] at finding routes through constantly changing networks."2
The ants solved the puzzle partly through communication using tiny amounts of a very specific chemical called a pheromone. Each ant is equipped with a pheromone detector that can sense just a few—possibly only one—individual pheromone molecules of a certain type.
The researchers said that more mechanisms than just pheromones might be involved to enable ants to be efficient and adaptive problem-solvers when it comes to calculating routes. It seems very likely that "they use an internal compass to help them reach their goal."3
How did ants acquire their ability to collect and coordinate data from different chemical pheromones, as well as compass input, then interpret and integrate that together and use it to compute a solution to the Towers of Hanoi puzzle? Also, where did their equally astounding traffic-jam problem-solving abilities originate?4 One answer given is that they "have evolved"1 over "millions of years."3 The alternative is that they were purposefully engineered with the specific abilities they would need. Unlike the former, the latter answer provides a sufficient cause for this amazing ant capacity.
Simply saying that ants "evolved" these specified skills boils down to a faith-filled assertion. And considering that there is no known natural mechanism that produces pheromone producers, pheromone sensors, data processors, or Towers of Hanoi-solving algorithms from nothing, that faith must be quite strong. And an appeal to "millions of years" backfires as an "explanation" when one considers the reality that over time natural systems break down and wear out, rather than gain ever-increasing complexity and sophistication.
Just as assuredly as the ant's skill in solving the Towers of Hanoi puzzle surpasses that of man-made computers, ants and all their amazing abilities were made by a Maker.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517968 wrote: Then why did you refer to them as "science facts"?
Because that is what you seem to think they are. And you missed the part where I called them "your interesting science facts"
Because that is what you seem to think they are. And you missed the part where I called them "your interesting science facts"
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517971 wrote: Because that is what you seem to think they are. And you missed the part where I called them "your interesting science facts"
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
FOSSILS AND STRATA: 1
Here you will learn the truth about the evolutionary hoax in the fossils (paleontology) and the sedimentary rock strata (historical geology). Evolutionary theory is a myth. The truth is that God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Fossils and Strata: 1
Time to Tell the Truth: It is time to expose the fossil and strata hoax
Background of the Theory: Some facts you should know
Is Enough Evidence Available?: Literally millions of fossils have been found and identified—yet all are distinct species
Dating the Strata and Fossils: The circular reasoning used to date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks—and all of it by a theory
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, FOSSILS AND STRATA, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH
It is time to expose the fossil and strata hoax.
It is astounding that the evolutionists dare to trumpet the statement that the fossils in the rock strata prove that evolution has occurred over millions of years in the past—when the truth is that researchers have not found one evidence that any evolutionary changes in plants and animals has ever occurred!
In addition, another startling fact is that neither the rocks nor the sedimentary strata support the theory that long ages of time have existed on our planet!
The public must be told the true facts. Here is a brief overview of those facts. Far more will be found in our book, Fossils and Strata.
The evolutionists' problem is to explain away the fact that what we learn from the strata points to the Genesis Flood, and the fossils themselves clearly disprove species evolution.
The evolutionists' solution has been to invent a timing sequence that is pure theory and has no relation to reality. Consider these facts:
BACKGROUND OF THE THEORY
Some facts you should know.
Fossils and strata. Fossil remains provide evolutionists with their only real evidence that evolution might have occurred in the distant past. Yet there is an astounding amount of evidence to disprove their claims.
Fossils are the remains of living creatures, both plants and animals. These fossil remains may include shells, teeth, bones, entire skeletons, footprints, bird tracks, tail marks, or rain drops. They are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is composed of compacted sediments (sand, gravel, clay, etc.) laid down by flood waters, which have hardened into layers of stone piled up like a layered cake. Sedimentary rock is fossil bearing or fossiliferous rock.—pp. 13, 15.
Extremely important. Fossils are extremely important because they ought to provide evolutionists with all the evidence needed to show that one species has evolved into another.
Fossil evidence reveals whether evolution has occurred in the past. Genetic and mutational facts reveal whether it can occur now. (Genetics was discussed in DNA and Cells, and mutations in Mutations.)
Evidence from genetics and mutations shows that no evolution is occurring today.
Evidence from fossils is all the evolutionists have left! And, in this present article, we will find that no animals have changed into others at any time in the past.—pp. 15, 17.
Uniformitarianism. This, a basic theory of evolution, teaches that everything has occurred in the past just the way it occurs today. In other words, evolutionists maintain there have never been any catastrophes in the past, i.e., no great Flood which caused the strata and buried the plants and animals fossilized within it. But the evidence shown in this article clearly disproves that theory.—pp. 17-18.
The Cambrian explosion. This is a key factor. At the very bottom of the strata (which is presumed to be the oldest) is the Cambrian level. Many types of fossils are suddenly found there. Many of them (including the trilobite, which is quite common on that level) are very complex. The trilobite has a very complex lens system in its eye.
Evolutionary theory requires that there only be one or two species in the bottom fossil level, yet what we find agrees instead with the Genesis Flood.—p. 18.
The Genesis Flood. The solution to the mystery of the rock strata, and the fossils in them, is to be found in the first book in the Bible: Genesis, chapters 6 to 9. A sudden, worldwide Flood occurred which laid down the mud and sediment and buried the plants and animals in it.
First, in the lowest strata, the slow moving creatures were buried; then, in higher layers, faster moving creatures. This explains why larger, stronger creatures are in the upper levels. It also explains why remains of humans are rarely found in the strata: They were able to run to the tops of the mountains and were drowned above the laid-down sediments.—pp. 18-19.
IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE AVAILABLE?
Literally millions of fossils have been found and identified—yet all are distinct species.
This is a crucial question: Is enough fossil and strata evidence available to enable us to definitively arrive at answers?
Yes there is! According to *Kier, there are over 100 million fossils housed in museums and other collections! Geologists have been digging them out of the ground since the early 19th century.
If the evidence supporting evolutionary claims existed, it ought to have been discovered by now!
By the present time, the transitional forms (the halfway species between one species and the other it evolved into) ought to have been found. But such evidence does not exist.
Gish says that evolutionists maintain that it takes 100 million years to evolve a fish. Therefore, there ought to be thousands of transitional forms, halfway between the fish and what it evolved from.
For example, evolutionists teach that a land animal, such as a cow, went into the ocean and changed into a whale. (Don't laugh; that is what they believe.) But that would mean we ought to have thousands of halfway species between the two—but such creatures are not to be found in the fossil record or in the oceans today.—pp. 19-20.
DATING THE STRATA AND FOSSILS
The circular reasoning used to date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks—and all of it by a theory.
How are the rocks and fossils dated? Read anything on the subject by evolutionists, and you will quickly learn that the one obvious proof that the strata and fossils must be so ancient—is the fact that the strata all have dates going back into the multimillions of years!
Okay, but now let us go deeper into the matter: Exactly how are the strata and fossils dated?
Let me tell you in just one sentence: Evolutionary scientists dated the rocks from the fossils, and then dated the fossils from their theories! And they decided on nearly all those dates over a century ago—when only a few fossils had been found!
That may seem astounding, but it is true.—p. 20.
Real history. Real history only goes back about 4,500 years. Everything before that is guesswork. We know that to be true because the various ancient dating methods (C14, radiodating, etc.) have severe inherent dating flaws. (See Dating of Time in Evolution and The Truth about Archaeological Dating.)—p. 20.
Not dated by appearance. The strata are not dated by appearance, for various types of rocks, of all levels and "ages," may be found in strata. They are not dated by their mineral, metallic, or petroleum content.—p. 20.
Not dated by location. The strata are not dated by where they are found or by their structure, breaks, faults, or folds.—p. 20.
Not dated by vertical location. The rocks are not dated by their sequence in the strata, for "younger" strata may be below "older" strata.—pp. 20-21.
Not dated by radioactivity. To anyone familiar with the fact that radiodating dates are wildly inconsistent, it should come as no surprise that strata dates are not obtained by radiodating. (See Dating of Time in Evolution for more on that.)—p. 21.
Are the rocks dated by fossils? That is about all that is left,—yet the same fossils are found in many different strata! A full 99.8 percent of the fossils are useless for dating, because they are in so many different strata.
How then are the rocks dated?—pp. 21-23.
Rocks are dated by index fossils. It may seem incredible that all evolutionary geology is keyed to a few fossils, but it is true. In every strata, there are a few fossils which are mainly found in that one strata. The strata is then dated according to those index fossils.
That may seem like going out on the limb quite a bit, but it does seem sort of scientific. Okay, everything is dated by a certain few fossils.
But, wait a minute! How did the evolutionists decide what dates to apply to those index fossils?
They are dated by a theory!—p. 21.
Fossils dated by a theory. There is no way to tell the age of a certain fossil—any fossil. No possible way. The evolutionists do not even try to do so. Instead, they date the fossils by their theory of how old they think the fossils and those strata should be!
The whole idea of "index fossils" is a charade to hide the fact that each strata, and everything in it, is assigned an arbitrary date—according to what men imagine it ought to be!
(It is revealing that, every few years, another "index fossil" is found to be alive today! Then it must be removed from the "index fossil" list, since index fossils are supposed to have died out at a certain ancient date. Many of the index fossils are trilobites, tiny ancient sea creatures, generally less than an inch in length.)—pp. 21, 23.
Circular reasoning. Although it is called "fossil evidence," circular reasoning is the basis of the evidence used to prove evolution to be true.
Every thinking person knows that fossil evidence is supposed to be the primary basis for evolution. Yet we find that it is based on circular reasoning: They use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, and then use their theory of fossils to date the strata!
Although it is called "survival of the fittest," circular reasoning is also the basis of the means, or mechanism, by which evolution is supposed to occur.
The fittest survive because they are fittest or, to say it another way, the survivors survive because they survive; therefore they are the fittest. But all they do is survive; they do not evolve into something different!—pp. 23, 25.
FOSSILS AND STRATA - 1
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
FOSSILS AND STRATA: 1
Here you will learn the truth about the evolutionary hoax in the fossils (paleontology) and the sedimentary rock strata (historical geology). Evolutionary theory is a myth. The truth is that God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Fossils and Strata: 1
Time to Tell the Truth: It is time to expose the fossil and strata hoax
Background of the Theory: Some facts you should know
Is Enough Evidence Available?: Literally millions of fossils have been found and identified—yet all are distinct species
Dating the Strata and Fossils: The circular reasoning used to date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks—and all of it by a theory
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, FOSSILS AND STRATA, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH
It is time to expose the fossil and strata hoax.
It is astounding that the evolutionists dare to trumpet the statement that the fossils in the rock strata prove that evolution has occurred over millions of years in the past—when the truth is that researchers have not found one evidence that any evolutionary changes in plants and animals has ever occurred!
In addition, another startling fact is that neither the rocks nor the sedimentary strata support the theory that long ages of time have existed on our planet!
The public must be told the true facts. Here is a brief overview of those facts. Far more will be found in our book, Fossils and Strata.
The evolutionists' problem is to explain away the fact that what we learn from the strata points to the Genesis Flood, and the fossils themselves clearly disprove species evolution.
The evolutionists' solution has been to invent a timing sequence that is pure theory and has no relation to reality. Consider these facts:
BACKGROUND OF THE THEORY
Some facts you should know.
Fossils and strata. Fossil remains provide evolutionists with their only real evidence that evolution might have occurred in the distant past. Yet there is an astounding amount of evidence to disprove their claims.
Fossils are the remains of living creatures, both plants and animals. These fossil remains may include shells, teeth, bones, entire skeletons, footprints, bird tracks, tail marks, or rain drops. They are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is composed of compacted sediments (sand, gravel, clay, etc.) laid down by flood waters, which have hardened into layers of stone piled up like a layered cake. Sedimentary rock is fossil bearing or fossiliferous rock.—pp. 13, 15.
Extremely important. Fossils are extremely important because they ought to provide evolutionists with all the evidence needed to show that one species has evolved into another.
Fossil evidence reveals whether evolution has occurred in the past. Genetic and mutational facts reveal whether it can occur now. (Genetics was discussed in DNA and Cells, and mutations in Mutations.)
Evidence from genetics and mutations shows that no evolution is occurring today.
Evidence from fossils is all the evolutionists have left! And, in this present article, we will find that no animals have changed into others at any time in the past.—pp. 15, 17.
Uniformitarianism. This, a basic theory of evolution, teaches that everything has occurred in the past just the way it occurs today. In other words, evolutionists maintain there have never been any catastrophes in the past, i.e., no great Flood which caused the strata and buried the plants and animals fossilized within it. But the evidence shown in this article clearly disproves that theory.—pp. 17-18.
The Cambrian explosion. This is a key factor. At the very bottom of the strata (which is presumed to be the oldest) is the Cambrian level. Many types of fossils are suddenly found there. Many of them (including the trilobite, which is quite common on that level) are very complex. The trilobite has a very complex lens system in its eye.
Evolutionary theory requires that there only be one or two species in the bottom fossil level, yet what we find agrees instead with the Genesis Flood.—p. 18.
The Genesis Flood. The solution to the mystery of the rock strata, and the fossils in them, is to be found in the first book in the Bible: Genesis, chapters 6 to 9. A sudden, worldwide Flood occurred which laid down the mud and sediment and buried the plants and animals in it.
First, in the lowest strata, the slow moving creatures were buried; then, in higher layers, faster moving creatures. This explains why larger, stronger creatures are in the upper levels. It also explains why remains of humans are rarely found in the strata: They were able to run to the tops of the mountains and were drowned above the laid-down sediments.—pp. 18-19.
IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE AVAILABLE?
Literally millions of fossils have been found and identified—yet all are distinct species.
This is a crucial question: Is enough fossil and strata evidence available to enable us to definitively arrive at answers?
Yes there is! According to *Kier, there are over 100 million fossils housed in museums and other collections! Geologists have been digging them out of the ground since the early 19th century.
If the evidence supporting evolutionary claims existed, it ought to have been discovered by now!
By the present time, the transitional forms (the halfway species between one species and the other it evolved into) ought to have been found. But such evidence does not exist.
Gish says that evolutionists maintain that it takes 100 million years to evolve a fish. Therefore, there ought to be thousands of transitional forms, halfway between the fish and what it evolved from.
For example, evolutionists teach that a land animal, such as a cow, went into the ocean and changed into a whale. (Don't laugh; that is what they believe.) But that would mean we ought to have thousands of halfway species between the two—but such creatures are not to be found in the fossil record or in the oceans today.—pp. 19-20.
DATING THE STRATA AND FOSSILS
The circular reasoning used to date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks—and all of it by a theory.
How are the rocks and fossils dated? Read anything on the subject by evolutionists, and you will quickly learn that the one obvious proof that the strata and fossils must be so ancient—is the fact that the strata all have dates going back into the multimillions of years!
Okay, but now let us go deeper into the matter: Exactly how are the strata and fossils dated?
Let me tell you in just one sentence: Evolutionary scientists dated the rocks from the fossils, and then dated the fossils from their theories! And they decided on nearly all those dates over a century ago—when only a few fossils had been found!
That may seem astounding, but it is true.—p. 20.
Real history. Real history only goes back about 4,500 years. Everything before that is guesswork. We know that to be true because the various ancient dating methods (C14, radiodating, etc.) have severe inherent dating flaws. (See Dating of Time in Evolution and The Truth about Archaeological Dating.)—p. 20.
Not dated by appearance. The strata are not dated by appearance, for various types of rocks, of all levels and "ages," may be found in strata. They are not dated by their mineral, metallic, or petroleum content.—p. 20.
Not dated by location. The strata are not dated by where they are found or by their structure, breaks, faults, or folds.—p. 20.
Not dated by vertical location. The rocks are not dated by their sequence in the strata, for "younger" strata may be below "older" strata.—pp. 20-21.
Not dated by radioactivity. To anyone familiar with the fact that radiodating dates are wildly inconsistent, it should come as no surprise that strata dates are not obtained by radiodating. (See Dating of Time in Evolution for more on that.)—p. 21.
Are the rocks dated by fossils? That is about all that is left,—yet the same fossils are found in many different strata! A full 99.8 percent of the fossils are useless for dating, because they are in so many different strata.
How then are the rocks dated?—pp. 21-23.
Rocks are dated by index fossils. It may seem incredible that all evolutionary geology is keyed to a few fossils, but it is true. In every strata, there are a few fossils which are mainly found in that one strata. The strata is then dated according to those index fossils.
That may seem like going out on the limb quite a bit, but it does seem sort of scientific. Okay, everything is dated by a certain few fossils.
But, wait a minute! How did the evolutionists decide what dates to apply to those index fossils?
They are dated by a theory!—p. 21.
Fossils dated by a theory. There is no way to tell the age of a certain fossil—any fossil. No possible way. The evolutionists do not even try to do so. Instead, they date the fossils by their theory of how old they think the fossils and those strata should be!
The whole idea of "index fossils" is a charade to hide the fact that each strata, and everything in it, is assigned an arbitrary date—according to what men imagine it ought to be!
(It is revealing that, every few years, another "index fossil" is found to be alive today! Then it must be removed from the "index fossil" list, since index fossils are supposed to have died out at a certain ancient date. Many of the index fossils are trilobites, tiny ancient sea creatures, generally less than an inch in length.)—pp. 21, 23.
Circular reasoning. Although it is called "fossil evidence," circular reasoning is the basis of the evidence used to prove evolution to be true.
Every thinking person knows that fossil evidence is supposed to be the primary basis for evolution. Yet we find that it is based on circular reasoning: They use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, and then use their theory of fossils to date the strata!
Although it is called "survival of the fittest," circular reasoning is also the basis of the means, or mechanism, by which evolution is supposed to occur.
The fittest survive because they are fittest or, to say it another way, the survivors survive because they survive; therefore they are the fittest. But all they do is survive; they do not evolve into something different!—pp. 23, 25.
FOSSILS AND STRATA - 1
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517980 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
FOSSILS AND STRATA: 1
Here you will learn the truth about the evolutionary hoax in the fossils (paleontology) and the sedimentary rock strata (historical geology). Evolutionary theory is a myth. The truth is that God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
"Creation Science Facts"
???
Talk about circular dis-logic, and oxymoron.
FOSSILS AND STRATA: 1
Here you will learn the truth about the evolutionary hoax in the fossils (paleontology) and the sedimentary rock strata (historical geology). Evolutionary theory is a myth. The truth is that God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
"Creation Science Facts"
???
Talk about circular dis-logic, and oxymoron.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517981 wrote: "Creation Science Facts"
???
Talk about circular dis-logic, and oxymoron.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
FOSSILS AND STRATA: 2
In this article we will focus our attention on the rock strata itself. You will learn interesting facts about evolutionary falsehoods. Evolution is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Fossils and Strata: 2
19 Basic Problems: Here are the facts in the rocks which destroy evolutionary theory
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, FOSSILS AND STRATA, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
19 BASIC PROBLEMS
Here are the facts in the rocks which destroy evolutionary theory.
1: Lowest levels are just as complex. It is an astounding fact that the lowest strata, the Cambrian, contains a variety of creatures from every phylum, and they have complicated internal structures.
The mathematics needed to work out the lens structure of trilobites was not invented until the 19th century.—p. 25.
2: Sudden appearance of life. The lowest strata containing fossils is the Cambrian. (Below that is the Precambrian, with no fossils other than an occasional algae.) Called the "Cambrian explosion" by scientists, it is a sudden appearance of billions of fossils of over a thousand different life forms.
Yet they are all distinct species, with nothing leading up to them. Every major life group (phyla) has been found in the Cambrian strata.
This situation is contrary to evolutionary theory, but quite nicely agrees with what happened during the Genesis Flood. For example, plants would have been washed into higher levels, but their seeds could be found in the lower levels.—p. 27.
3: No life below the Cambrian. Below the Cambrian, in the Precambrian, essentially nothing living is to be found.
But above it, in the Cambrian, are over 1,500 different species, including one which is two-feet long.—pp. 28, 30.
4: No transitional species. This is one of the most significant findings of over a century of digs. Only distinct species have been found, no half species. This now amounts to over 100 million fossils in thousands of museums and collections.
In order for evolutionary theory to be correct, transitional species—partway between one true species and another which it is supposed to have evolved into—should have been found in massive numbers. But none have been found. Scientists are well-aware of this problem, and have a name for it. They call it "fossil gaps."
An example would be the squid and the octopus. They are the most complex of the invertebrates (animals without backbones). Yet they are found in most of the strata levels. Careful research has disclosed no transitional species leading to or from them. Regardless of the strata, the specimens are identical to those living today.
Another name for this problem is "missing links." The transitional species linking the species together are missing. They are not found; they never will be found.—pp. 30-31.
5: Abrupt appearance. Not only do the smaller, slower moving creatures, in the Cambrian, suddenly appear in the fossil record,—the larger creatures appear just as suddenly! And when they appear—they do so by the millions! Tigers, salmon, lions, pine trees, hawks, squirrels, horses, and on and on! And always with no transitional species leading to or away from them.—p. 33.
6: Stasis. "Stasis" means to retain a certain form, to remain unchanged. Each creature first appears in the fossil record with a certain shape and structure; it then continues on "for millions of years" through several strata, and then either becomes extinct or continues on to the present. Sometimes evolutionists declare it to have "become extinct millions of years ago,"—but then it is found alive today! Whichever of the three occurs, the creature does not change in shape or structure.—pp. 33-34.
7: Not enough species. According to evolutionary theory, there ought to have been a massive number of species changes in ancient times, yet we do not find any of them in the fossil record. We just do not find the intermediary species that link the species we have.—pp. 34-35.
8: Larger anciently than today. This is an odd fact, and it also opposes evolutionary theory. Ancient plants and animals tended to be larger—often much larger—than they are now. Many examples of this could be cited. But extinction and reduction in size run counter to evolutionary theory.—pp. 35, 37.
9: No family tree. We are often shown a sketch of the evolutionary family tree, yet no such tree exists. The tips of the branches represent the various species, but the branches and trunk are missing.—p. 37.
10: No geologic column. The rock strata is supposed to represent evolved species, but it is not a column.
Strata are missing and fossils are mixed together through many strata, and this includes index fossils. It is all one big confusion.—pp. 37-38.
11: Immense numbers of fossils. Why are there so many fossils? Immense numbers are to be found. Only an immense, worldwide catastrophe could have produced such a situation. All the evidence points to the fact that vast fossil beds of plants and animals were buried by the Flood.—pp. 40-41.
12: Not made now. It is impossible to make a fossil now. Researchers have tried to do it on dry ground and in swamps. But the plants rot; they do not turn to fossils. Rapid burial and immense pressure is needed to make a fossil.—p. 41.
13: Rapid burial. It is clear that the fossils were buried with extreme rapidity. There are many examples of one fish eating another—just as both were buried. Quick, high compression occurred. Sharks have been found flattened to ¼ inch in thickness, from one side to the other, but with their tail fully erect. They were not sick, but in the prime of health.—pp. 41-42.
14: Fossil footprints. Many instances of fossil footprints have been found. This evidence points to a worldwide flood. Birds were buried on or about the same levels as their footprints. But non-dinosaur reptiles and dinosaurs left tracks well below the levels where the bulk of their bodies were found. They were walking around earlier in the Flood and then later buried by it.—p. 42.
15: Plants and animals not together. Evolutionary theory teaches that plants and animals drop to the ground, die, and make fossils. Yet the evidence reveals that plants and animals are generally piled up separately. This would be the case if they were washed into place by a gigantic flood.—pp. 42-43.
16: Living fossils. A number of the creatures found in the fossil record no longer exist. This is proclaimed as a proof of evolution, but it is only evidence of extinction. Extinction is not evolution.
Many of the extinct creatures are said to have died out millions of years ago, for their bones are not found in "younger" strata.
Yet some of them have been found to be alive today! They are called "living fossils." One was the coelacanth fish, which has been "extinct" since the Cretaceous period, supposedly 70 million years ago. It was classified as an "index fossil" until 1938, when it was known to be alive and well in deep water, off the coast of South Africa.
If long ages elapsed between each strata, it would be impossible for the coelacanth to disappear for all that time. (Each species must either remain alive or become extinct. If a species becomes extinct, it cannot come back to life.)
But if the strata were caused by the worldwide Flood, which only occurred a few thousand years ago, there would be no problem. The strata were all laid down over a fairly short period of time.—pp. 44-45.
17: Extinct dinosaurs. Evolutionists point to the dinosaurs as outstanding evidence of evolution. Yet they only show that creatures died out in earlier times. Extinction is not evolution.
In order for the dinosaur to prove evolution, there would have to be transitional forms leading up to them. But, like everything else, the dinosaurs are distinct species.—pp. 45-46.
18: None of the fossils or strata are ancient. Fossils from every level have been analyzed by carbon 14 dating. Scientists have been shocked to find traces of amino acids in all strata levels! This means that all the fossil-bearing strata were laid down fairly recently and at about the same time.
For example, seashells from the Jurassic strata ("135-180 million years ago"), have amino acids and protein residue still within them. So they cannot be more than a few thousand years old.—pp. 46-47.
19: Human remains in ancient deposits. Modern men and women are only supposed to have existed on earth for the past 2 million years, and therefore should only be found in Quaternary strata.
Yet human fossils have been found in many different levels, and human footprints have been found in the Cambrian level. These facts totally violate evolutionary theory.—p. 47.
FOSSILS AND STRATA - 2
???
Talk about circular dis-logic, and oxymoron.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
FOSSILS AND STRATA: 2
In this article we will focus our attention on the rock strata itself. You will learn interesting facts about evolutionary falsehoods. Evolution is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Fossils and Strata: 2
19 Basic Problems: Here are the facts in the rocks which destroy evolutionary theory
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, FOSSILS AND STRATA, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
19 BASIC PROBLEMS
Here are the facts in the rocks which destroy evolutionary theory.
1: Lowest levels are just as complex. It is an astounding fact that the lowest strata, the Cambrian, contains a variety of creatures from every phylum, and they have complicated internal structures.
The mathematics needed to work out the lens structure of trilobites was not invented until the 19th century.—p. 25.
2: Sudden appearance of life. The lowest strata containing fossils is the Cambrian. (Below that is the Precambrian, with no fossils other than an occasional algae.) Called the "Cambrian explosion" by scientists, it is a sudden appearance of billions of fossils of over a thousand different life forms.
Yet they are all distinct species, with nothing leading up to them. Every major life group (phyla) has been found in the Cambrian strata.
This situation is contrary to evolutionary theory, but quite nicely agrees with what happened during the Genesis Flood. For example, plants would have been washed into higher levels, but their seeds could be found in the lower levels.—p. 27.
3: No life below the Cambrian. Below the Cambrian, in the Precambrian, essentially nothing living is to be found.
But above it, in the Cambrian, are over 1,500 different species, including one which is two-feet long.—pp. 28, 30.
4: No transitional species. This is one of the most significant findings of over a century of digs. Only distinct species have been found, no half species. This now amounts to over 100 million fossils in thousands of museums and collections.
In order for evolutionary theory to be correct, transitional species—partway between one true species and another which it is supposed to have evolved into—should have been found in massive numbers. But none have been found. Scientists are well-aware of this problem, and have a name for it. They call it "fossil gaps."
An example would be the squid and the octopus. They are the most complex of the invertebrates (animals without backbones). Yet they are found in most of the strata levels. Careful research has disclosed no transitional species leading to or from them. Regardless of the strata, the specimens are identical to those living today.
Another name for this problem is "missing links." The transitional species linking the species together are missing. They are not found; they never will be found.—pp. 30-31.
5: Abrupt appearance. Not only do the smaller, slower moving creatures, in the Cambrian, suddenly appear in the fossil record,—the larger creatures appear just as suddenly! And when they appear—they do so by the millions! Tigers, salmon, lions, pine trees, hawks, squirrels, horses, and on and on! And always with no transitional species leading to or away from them.—p. 33.
6: Stasis. "Stasis" means to retain a certain form, to remain unchanged. Each creature first appears in the fossil record with a certain shape and structure; it then continues on "for millions of years" through several strata, and then either becomes extinct or continues on to the present. Sometimes evolutionists declare it to have "become extinct millions of years ago,"—but then it is found alive today! Whichever of the three occurs, the creature does not change in shape or structure.—pp. 33-34.
7: Not enough species. According to evolutionary theory, there ought to have been a massive number of species changes in ancient times, yet we do not find any of them in the fossil record. We just do not find the intermediary species that link the species we have.—pp. 34-35.
8: Larger anciently than today. This is an odd fact, and it also opposes evolutionary theory. Ancient plants and animals tended to be larger—often much larger—than they are now. Many examples of this could be cited. But extinction and reduction in size run counter to evolutionary theory.—pp. 35, 37.
9: No family tree. We are often shown a sketch of the evolutionary family tree, yet no such tree exists. The tips of the branches represent the various species, but the branches and trunk are missing.—p. 37.
10: No geologic column. The rock strata is supposed to represent evolved species, but it is not a column.
Strata are missing and fossils are mixed together through many strata, and this includes index fossils. It is all one big confusion.—pp. 37-38.
11: Immense numbers of fossils. Why are there so many fossils? Immense numbers are to be found. Only an immense, worldwide catastrophe could have produced such a situation. All the evidence points to the fact that vast fossil beds of plants and animals were buried by the Flood.—pp. 40-41.
12: Not made now. It is impossible to make a fossil now. Researchers have tried to do it on dry ground and in swamps. But the plants rot; they do not turn to fossils. Rapid burial and immense pressure is needed to make a fossil.—p. 41.
13: Rapid burial. It is clear that the fossils were buried with extreme rapidity. There are many examples of one fish eating another—just as both were buried. Quick, high compression occurred. Sharks have been found flattened to ¼ inch in thickness, from one side to the other, but with their tail fully erect. They were not sick, but in the prime of health.—pp. 41-42.
14: Fossil footprints. Many instances of fossil footprints have been found. This evidence points to a worldwide flood. Birds were buried on or about the same levels as their footprints. But non-dinosaur reptiles and dinosaurs left tracks well below the levels where the bulk of their bodies were found. They were walking around earlier in the Flood and then later buried by it.—p. 42.
15: Plants and animals not together. Evolutionary theory teaches that plants and animals drop to the ground, die, and make fossils. Yet the evidence reveals that plants and animals are generally piled up separately. This would be the case if they were washed into place by a gigantic flood.—pp. 42-43.
16: Living fossils. A number of the creatures found in the fossil record no longer exist. This is proclaimed as a proof of evolution, but it is only evidence of extinction. Extinction is not evolution.
Many of the extinct creatures are said to have died out millions of years ago, for their bones are not found in "younger" strata.
Yet some of them have been found to be alive today! They are called "living fossils." One was the coelacanth fish, which has been "extinct" since the Cretaceous period, supposedly 70 million years ago. It was classified as an "index fossil" until 1938, when it was known to be alive and well in deep water, off the coast of South Africa.
If long ages elapsed between each strata, it would be impossible for the coelacanth to disappear for all that time. (Each species must either remain alive or become extinct. If a species becomes extinct, it cannot come back to life.)
But if the strata were caused by the worldwide Flood, which only occurred a few thousand years ago, there would be no problem. The strata were all laid down over a fairly short period of time.—pp. 44-45.
17: Extinct dinosaurs. Evolutionists point to the dinosaurs as outstanding evidence of evolution. Yet they only show that creatures died out in earlier times. Extinction is not evolution.
In order for the dinosaur to prove evolution, there would have to be transitional forms leading up to them. But, like everything else, the dinosaurs are distinct species.—pp. 45-46.
18: None of the fossils or strata are ancient. Fossils from every level have been analyzed by carbon 14 dating. Scientists have been shocked to find traces of amino acids in all strata levels! This means that all the fossil-bearing strata were laid down fairly recently and at about the same time.
For example, seashells from the Jurassic strata ("135-180 million years ago"), have amino acids and protein residue still within them. So they cannot be more than a few thousand years old.—pp. 46-47.
19: Human remains in ancient deposits. Modern men and women are only supposed to have existed on earth for the past 2 million years, and therefore should only be found in Quaternary strata.
Yet human fossils have been found in many different levels, and human footprints have been found in the Cambrian level. These facts totally violate evolutionary theory.—p. 47.
FOSSILS AND STRATA - 2
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517982 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Thou repeatest thyself. Redundantly.
And, yet, no science.
Thou repeatest thyself. Redundantly.
And, yet, no science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517986 wrote: Thou repeatest thyself. Redundantly.
And, yet, no science.
Repetion is sometimes necessary for those too dense to comprehend.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
FOSSILS AND STRATA: 3
In this article we will focus our attention on the rock strata itself. You will learn interesting facts about evolutionary falsehoods. Evolution is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENTS: Fossils and Strata: 3
Coal: Where did coal come from?
5 Problems with the Strata: Fundamental problems which destroy the evolutionary theory about the rock strata
Summary of the Strata Problems: Here are 13 reasons why the evolutionary strata theory is worthless
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, FOSSILS AND STRATA, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
COAL
Where did the coal come from?
What is coal? Coal comes from anciently buried plants, and petroleum is from animals. Yet neither are made in significant quantities today.
Rapidly buried plant and animal life, at some earlier time, produced both coal and petroleum.—p. 47.
Evidences that coal was laid down during the Flood. Coal can be made, and it is produced when plant remains are compressed and heated by the weight of overlying sediments.
Some coal seams are up to 30 or 40 feet thick and 300 to 400 feet wide. Enormous forests must have been rapidly buried in order to produce coal. There are no modern conditions which could duplicate such coal production.
Yet the evolutionary theory runs counter to these facts: Evolution requires that plants died, fell to the ground, and a little here and a little there were covered by dirt for millions of years. Then they turned into coal. But geologists know that the truth is far different: Great coal beds were produced by massive amounts of forests swept into place by flood waters and then quickly buried and compacted.
In addition, marine fossils, such as fish, mollusks, and brachiopods are commonly found in coal.
Many instances have been discovered of upright fossil trees in the rock strata. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this.
The hollow trunks of trees in coal seams will be filled with material not native to the coal—showing it was washed in at the time of burial.
Coal is found in layers. Between each layer will be material washed in from elsewhere (sandstone, shale, clay, etc.).
Under and over the coal will be found clays which are not natural to forest soils. The clay was washed in, then the trees, and then more clay.
Large rocks, not native to the area, are frequently found in coal beds.
Coal and petroleum are only found in sedimentary strata—the only place fossils are found. All the evidence points to a rising worldwide Flood as the event which laid down these strata.
Research scientists have discovered that coal and oil can be made fairly rapidly through quick burial and compression.—pp. 47-49.
You will find a discussion of the origin of petroleum in our book, Fossils and Strata.
5 BASIC PROBLEMS WITH THE STRATA
Here are fundamental problems which destroy the evolutionary theory about the rock strata.
As if the problems with fossils were not bad enough, we now turn our attention to the strata itself.
1: Fossils in wrong places. Fossils are frequently found far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.
The experts deal with this in one of three ways: Either ignore the evidence, state that the fossils "downwashed" through solid rock to lower levels, or say they "reworked" themselves to lower strata; that is, they slipped, slid, or fell through the solid rock.
How could a fragile fossil imprint, even half a foot long, "wash down" through rock to a lower level?—pp. 49-50.
2: Missing strata. This is one of the big secrets of evolutionary geologists. You are about to discover another fact the evolutionists do not want the public to learn:
Evolution teaches there is a "geologic column" of 12 major strata (Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, etc.). Each one lasted millions of years; one came after the other, and all the fossils within each were laid down during that time.
But now for the secret: Anywhere in the world you wish to go, most of the strata are missing! Most of the time, only two to eight of the 21 theoretical strata can be found. The classic of them all, the Grand Canyon, only has a little under half of the 12 major periods and epochs.
If the evolutionary theory were true, those strata would have to be there! How could millions of years of strata vanish?
Yet if the strata were laid down at the time of the Flood, then the situation would be exactly as we would expect to find it. Materials were washed in here and there. The result is strata which starts, covers an area, and then stops.
The scientists' name for this problem is "unconformities"; they dare not call them "missing strata."
There are not only "fossil gaps," there are "strata gaps" also!—pp. 50-52.
3: Geosynclines. Evolution teaches "uniformitarianism," the theory that everything has always been as it is now. But instead, we find evidences in the earth that a major catastrophe occurred. It was a worldwide Flood, which not only laid down strata, but then twisted and turned the strata. The name for those tortured layers are "geosynclines."
In many places, layers of sedimentary rocks have been buckled into folds. Some of these folded strata are small, others are massive and cover miles in area (folded mountains). In other places, the strata angles itself downward into the earth, or upward, breaking off as the sharp edge of high mountains (fault block mountains). At times, rocks are bent into right angles by such buckling.—p. 52.
4: Megabreccias. These are gigantic boulders which were moved by an immense flood. They are surrounded by rock strata. How could that happen?
Mud and sediment were washed into place, then the boulder was pushed there; then more mud and sediment were washed in around and over it.
The evidence in the earth agrees with Flood geology, but not with evolutionary geology.—p. 52.
5: Overthrusts. This is probably the strangest problem the evolutionists face as they try desperately to defend their theory. Overthrusts are the most shocking of the many evidences disproving evolutionary geology.
If the theory was correct, the strata, which the theory classifies as ages "older," would always be below the more recent strata. But if the theory was incorrect, the strata would often be confused—and that is the way it actually is.
In every mountainous region on every continent on the globe, there are numerous examples of supposedly "older" strata superimposed on top of "younger" strata! This just cannot be if each strata is millions of years younger than the one it rests upon!
Evolutionists call these situations "overthrusts," and they have devised a fantastic solution to the problem! They say that the giant masses of "older" strata, which are on top of "younger" strata,—slid sideways for 50, 100, or more miles and got there! Sometimes they had to "slide" uphill.
Many of these immense overthrust areas are hundreds and even thousands of square miles in size!
We are not talking about taking a bulldozer and shoveling a mountain from here to there. We are speaking of an immense layer of rock that has to be moved without disturbing it!
Evolutionists have to make up these myths, in order to defend their theory about fossils. If they lose their fossil theory, they really have little left.
Heart Mountain is 30 miles wide by 60 miles long, and is next to the northeast corner of Yellowstone Park. Within this area are 50 separate blocks of "older" strata on top of strata which is supposed to be 250 million years younger.
Geologists are unable to locate where the blocks came from! But they say they slid in from someplace, probably hundreds of miles away.
Yet the "older strata" which "slid in" is high above the surrounding area! It had to slide up from wherever it came from!
Lewis Overthrust is another example. It is 135 miles long and 3 miles thick, and includes all of Glacier National Park in western Canada.
Did you know that, according to the evolutionists, the famous Matterhorn, in the Swiss Alps, hopped over there from somewhere else? It is all "older" rock, which is on top of "younger" rock.
Then there is the Mythen Peak in Switzerland. The evolutionary geologists tell us it ran there—all the way from Africa! Also keep in mind the entire Appalachians. This is an enormous mountain range, stretching from eastern Canada to central Alabama. Did you know that it climbed up out of the Atlantic Ocean basin—and up onto "younger" strata?
The truth is that the overthrust theory is foolishness. The strata would crumble if any attempt were made to move it from one place to another. We are here dealing with fragile rock, massively weighted down. So many fractures would be produced that it would crumble. Yet scientists have analyzed it—and found that it is not fractured any more than other strata above or below it.—pp. 52-57.
SUMMARY OF THE STRATA PROBLEMS
Here are 13 reasons why the evolutionary strata theory is worthless.
What is really there? What we find in the strata agrees with Flood geology. Consider these facts:
1: We find pockets of certain animals and plants here and there, washed into place.
2: We find mixed up and missing strata everywhere we look.
3: We find geosynclines: twisted and folded mountains.
4: We find megabreccias: giant boulders washed into place, with strata washed in around it.
5: We find overthrusts and upside-down strata.
6: We find vertical tree trunks washed into place.
7: We find the slowest sea creatures in the bottom strata.
8: We find the slowest land animals higher up.
9: We find few birds, since they could fly to the highest points.
10: We find few apes and humans, since they could run to the highest places.
11: We find complex forms suddenly appearing in great confusion at the very bottom.
12: We find only separate, distinct, species.
13: We find species which have become extinct.
That is what we find, and it all agrees with Flood geology. And none of it agrees with evolutionary geology.—p. 52.
FOSSILS AND STRATA - 3
And, yet, no science.
Repetion is sometimes necessary for those too dense to comprehend.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
FOSSILS AND STRATA: 3
In this article we will focus our attention on the rock strata itself. You will learn interesting facts about evolutionary falsehoods. Evolution is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENTS: Fossils and Strata: 3
Coal: Where did coal come from?
5 Problems with the Strata: Fundamental problems which destroy the evolutionary theory about the rock strata
Summary of the Strata Problems: Here are 13 reasons why the evolutionary strata theory is worthless
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, FOSSILS AND STRATA, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
COAL
Where did the coal come from?
What is coal? Coal comes from anciently buried plants, and petroleum is from animals. Yet neither are made in significant quantities today.
Rapidly buried plant and animal life, at some earlier time, produced both coal and petroleum.—p. 47.
Evidences that coal was laid down during the Flood. Coal can be made, and it is produced when plant remains are compressed and heated by the weight of overlying sediments.
Some coal seams are up to 30 or 40 feet thick and 300 to 400 feet wide. Enormous forests must have been rapidly buried in order to produce coal. There are no modern conditions which could duplicate such coal production.
Yet the evolutionary theory runs counter to these facts: Evolution requires that plants died, fell to the ground, and a little here and a little there were covered by dirt for millions of years. Then they turned into coal. But geologists know that the truth is far different: Great coal beds were produced by massive amounts of forests swept into place by flood waters and then quickly buried and compacted.
In addition, marine fossils, such as fish, mollusks, and brachiopods are commonly found in coal.
Many instances have been discovered of upright fossil trees in the rock strata. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this.
The hollow trunks of trees in coal seams will be filled with material not native to the coal—showing it was washed in at the time of burial.
Coal is found in layers. Between each layer will be material washed in from elsewhere (sandstone, shale, clay, etc.).
Under and over the coal will be found clays which are not natural to forest soils. The clay was washed in, then the trees, and then more clay.
Large rocks, not native to the area, are frequently found in coal beds.
Coal and petroleum are only found in sedimentary strata—the only place fossils are found. All the evidence points to a rising worldwide Flood as the event which laid down these strata.
Research scientists have discovered that coal and oil can be made fairly rapidly through quick burial and compression.—pp. 47-49.
You will find a discussion of the origin of petroleum in our book, Fossils and Strata.
5 BASIC PROBLEMS WITH THE STRATA
Here are fundamental problems which destroy the evolutionary theory about the rock strata.
As if the problems with fossils were not bad enough, we now turn our attention to the strata itself.
1: Fossils in wrong places. Fossils are frequently found far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.
The experts deal with this in one of three ways: Either ignore the evidence, state that the fossils "downwashed" through solid rock to lower levels, or say they "reworked" themselves to lower strata; that is, they slipped, slid, or fell through the solid rock.
How could a fragile fossil imprint, even half a foot long, "wash down" through rock to a lower level?—pp. 49-50.
2: Missing strata. This is one of the big secrets of evolutionary geologists. You are about to discover another fact the evolutionists do not want the public to learn:
Evolution teaches there is a "geologic column" of 12 major strata (Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, etc.). Each one lasted millions of years; one came after the other, and all the fossils within each were laid down during that time.
But now for the secret: Anywhere in the world you wish to go, most of the strata are missing! Most of the time, only two to eight of the 21 theoretical strata can be found. The classic of them all, the Grand Canyon, only has a little under half of the 12 major periods and epochs.
If the evolutionary theory were true, those strata would have to be there! How could millions of years of strata vanish?
Yet if the strata were laid down at the time of the Flood, then the situation would be exactly as we would expect to find it. Materials were washed in here and there. The result is strata which starts, covers an area, and then stops.
The scientists' name for this problem is "unconformities"; they dare not call them "missing strata."
There are not only "fossil gaps," there are "strata gaps" also!—pp. 50-52.
3: Geosynclines. Evolution teaches "uniformitarianism," the theory that everything has always been as it is now. But instead, we find evidences in the earth that a major catastrophe occurred. It was a worldwide Flood, which not only laid down strata, but then twisted and turned the strata. The name for those tortured layers are "geosynclines."
In many places, layers of sedimentary rocks have been buckled into folds. Some of these folded strata are small, others are massive and cover miles in area (folded mountains). In other places, the strata angles itself downward into the earth, or upward, breaking off as the sharp edge of high mountains (fault block mountains). At times, rocks are bent into right angles by such buckling.—p. 52.
4: Megabreccias. These are gigantic boulders which were moved by an immense flood. They are surrounded by rock strata. How could that happen?
Mud and sediment were washed into place, then the boulder was pushed there; then more mud and sediment were washed in around and over it.
The evidence in the earth agrees with Flood geology, but not with evolutionary geology.—p. 52.
5: Overthrusts. This is probably the strangest problem the evolutionists face as they try desperately to defend their theory. Overthrusts are the most shocking of the many evidences disproving evolutionary geology.
If the theory was correct, the strata, which the theory classifies as ages "older," would always be below the more recent strata. But if the theory was incorrect, the strata would often be confused—and that is the way it actually is.
In every mountainous region on every continent on the globe, there are numerous examples of supposedly "older" strata superimposed on top of "younger" strata! This just cannot be if each strata is millions of years younger than the one it rests upon!
Evolutionists call these situations "overthrusts," and they have devised a fantastic solution to the problem! They say that the giant masses of "older" strata, which are on top of "younger" strata,—slid sideways for 50, 100, or more miles and got there! Sometimes they had to "slide" uphill.
Many of these immense overthrust areas are hundreds and even thousands of square miles in size!
We are not talking about taking a bulldozer and shoveling a mountain from here to there. We are speaking of an immense layer of rock that has to be moved without disturbing it!
Evolutionists have to make up these myths, in order to defend their theory about fossils. If they lose their fossil theory, they really have little left.
Heart Mountain is 30 miles wide by 60 miles long, and is next to the northeast corner of Yellowstone Park. Within this area are 50 separate blocks of "older" strata on top of strata which is supposed to be 250 million years younger.
Geologists are unable to locate where the blocks came from! But they say they slid in from someplace, probably hundreds of miles away.
Yet the "older strata" which "slid in" is high above the surrounding area! It had to slide up from wherever it came from!
Lewis Overthrust is another example. It is 135 miles long and 3 miles thick, and includes all of Glacier National Park in western Canada.
Did you know that, according to the evolutionists, the famous Matterhorn, in the Swiss Alps, hopped over there from somewhere else? It is all "older" rock, which is on top of "younger" rock.
Then there is the Mythen Peak in Switzerland. The evolutionary geologists tell us it ran there—all the way from Africa! Also keep in mind the entire Appalachians. This is an enormous mountain range, stretching from eastern Canada to central Alabama. Did you know that it climbed up out of the Atlantic Ocean basin—and up onto "younger" strata?
The truth is that the overthrust theory is foolishness. The strata would crumble if any attempt were made to move it from one place to another. We are here dealing with fragile rock, massively weighted down. So many fractures would be produced that it would crumble. Yet scientists have analyzed it—and found that it is not fractured any more than other strata above or below it.—pp. 52-57.
SUMMARY OF THE STRATA PROBLEMS
Here are 13 reasons why the evolutionary strata theory is worthless.
What is really there? What we find in the strata agrees with Flood geology. Consider these facts:
1: We find pockets of certain animals and plants here and there, washed into place.
2: We find mixed up and missing strata everywhere we look.
3: We find geosynclines: twisted and folded mountains.
4: We find megabreccias: giant boulders washed into place, with strata washed in around it.
5: We find overthrusts and upside-down strata.
6: We find vertical tree trunks washed into place.
7: We find the slowest sea creatures in the bottom strata.
8: We find the slowest land animals higher up.
9: We find few birds, since they could fly to the highest points.
10: We find few apes and humans, since they could run to the highest places.
11: We find complex forms suddenly appearing in great confusion at the very bottom.
12: We find only separate, distinct, species.
13: We find species which have become extinct.
That is what we find, and it all agrees with Flood geology. And none of it agrees with evolutionary geology.—p. 52.
FOSSILS AND STRATA - 3
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517989 wrote: Repetion is sometimes necessary for those too dense to comprehend.
...
Well, Sir, anyone who buys into your ridiculous nonsense is dense, indeed.
...
Well, Sir, anyone who buys into your ridiculous nonsense is dense, indeed.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1517990 wrote: Well, Sir, anyone who buys into your ridiculous nonsense is dense, indeed.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Seal Whiskers Track Fish Trails
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
When waters are murky, how do seals find fish? They don't have a sonar apparatus like whales, and yet they somehow hunt successfully in the dark.
It turns out that the seals follow fish trails by sensing very subtle water pressure changes with their whiskers. In a study published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, investigators trained harbor seals to give a visual signal indicating the direction of a "swimming" rubber fin that mimicked a fish. They then blindfolded and placed headphones on the seals to test their ability to hunt without sight or sound cues.
Not only were the seals able to detect the "fish's" movements, their whiskers may be able to distinguish even more precise information than just their prey's whereabouts. Senior author Wolf Hanke of the Marine Science Centre at the University of Rostock, Germany, told BBC News, "They seem to be able to discriminate between different shapes, which might even mean they discriminate between different species of fish."1
The authors found evidence that the seals track the direction that a fish swims by sensing its underwater wakes, or trails of slightly disturbed water, that linger for up to 35 seconds. To do this, seals detect and interpret "the structure and spatial arrangement of the vortices" that spin off from a fish's underwater trail.2
Not only can seals detect the vortices, but they can sense the "high water velocities" behind a swimming fish even after the fish is long gone.2 Water that trails a fish flows just a little faster than the surrounding waters. Somehow, the seal must automatically subtract the resistance caused by its own motion through the water in order calculate the exact location of its moving dinner.
This explains observations of seals in the dark underneath Antarctic ice swimming in curved paths just before taking a fish. Those seals were following the ephemeral underwater trails behind the fish, twisting and turning in the same patterns as the fish.
The discovery of this remarkable new aspect of seal senses added to a 2001 breakthrough study in the journal Science in which Hanke also participated. Although at the time scientists suspected that seals could detect trails left by fish that were 180 meters away, this new study brought the distance down to 100 meters.
When these seal whisker skills were first verified, Science summarized a dilemma that the first seal-like mammalian ancestors supposedly faced when they entered the water from land:
When mammals began to colonize the ocean some 50 million years ago, they immediately faced a huge challenge: hunting under water. The sharp vision their ancestors had evolved on land to take advantage of the transparency of air was of little use in the ocean's murky darkness.3
However, those supposed first ocean-going mammals would have faced even more serious issues, since their postulated evolutionary ancestor supposedly resembled a cow. Its attempts to swim would have been highly ineffective due to its hoofed feet and bulky body.4 How could it have caught fish at all without possessing the full suite of traits necessary for swimming and prey detection?
The ease with which evolutionary stories like this can be concocted stands in stark contrast with the difficulties known to exist when engineers seriously attempt to replicate the finely tuned equipment exhibited by marine life, such as sonar or super-sensory seal whiskers. The best explanation for the origin of these complex creatures remains the one presented in Genesis--that on the fifth day of creation, God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life," and it was so.5
The Institute for Creation Research
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Seal Whiskers Track Fish Trails
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
When waters are murky, how do seals find fish? They don't have a sonar apparatus like whales, and yet they somehow hunt successfully in the dark.
It turns out that the seals follow fish trails by sensing very subtle water pressure changes with their whiskers. In a study published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, investigators trained harbor seals to give a visual signal indicating the direction of a "swimming" rubber fin that mimicked a fish. They then blindfolded and placed headphones on the seals to test their ability to hunt without sight or sound cues.
Not only were the seals able to detect the "fish's" movements, their whiskers may be able to distinguish even more precise information than just their prey's whereabouts. Senior author Wolf Hanke of the Marine Science Centre at the University of Rostock, Germany, told BBC News, "They seem to be able to discriminate between different shapes, which might even mean they discriminate between different species of fish."1
The authors found evidence that the seals track the direction that a fish swims by sensing its underwater wakes, or trails of slightly disturbed water, that linger for up to 35 seconds. To do this, seals detect and interpret "the structure and spatial arrangement of the vortices" that spin off from a fish's underwater trail.2
Not only can seals detect the vortices, but they can sense the "high water velocities" behind a swimming fish even after the fish is long gone.2 Water that trails a fish flows just a little faster than the surrounding waters. Somehow, the seal must automatically subtract the resistance caused by its own motion through the water in order calculate the exact location of its moving dinner.
This explains observations of seals in the dark underneath Antarctic ice swimming in curved paths just before taking a fish. Those seals were following the ephemeral underwater trails behind the fish, twisting and turning in the same patterns as the fish.
The discovery of this remarkable new aspect of seal senses added to a 2001 breakthrough study in the journal Science in which Hanke also participated. Although at the time scientists suspected that seals could detect trails left by fish that were 180 meters away, this new study brought the distance down to 100 meters.
When these seal whisker skills were first verified, Science summarized a dilemma that the first seal-like mammalian ancestors supposedly faced when they entered the water from land:
When mammals began to colonize the ocean some 50 million years ago, they immediately faced a huge challenge: hunting under water. The sharp vision their ancestors had evolved on land to take advantage of the transparency of air was of little use in the ocean's murky darkness.3
However, those supposed first ocean-going mammals would have faced even more serious issues, since their postulated evolutionary ancestor supposedly resembled a cow. Its attempts to swim would have been highly ineffective due to its hoofed feet and bulky body.4 How could it have caught fish at all without possessing the full suite of traits necessary for swimming and prey detection?
The ease with which evolutionary stories like this can be concocted stands in stark contrast with the difficulties known to exist when engineers seriously attempt to replicate the finely tuned equipment exhibited by marine life, such as sonar or super-sensory seal whiskers. The best explanation for the origin of these complex creatures remains the one presented in Genesis--that on the fifth day of creation, God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life," and it was so.5
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I certainly have never seen any science on Pahu's part in this thread. Nice and interesting fantasy though.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1518040 wrote: I certainly have never seen any science on Pahu's part in this thread. Nice and interesting fantasy though.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Did Panda Bears Once Live in Europe?
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Panda bears are restricted to remote mountains in China and have similar-sized bodies today. But fossils show that in years past some were mini-pandas, while others were giants. Plus, they lived in places far-flung from China. A new find described a mini-panda fossil fragment from Spain, reviving questions about the origin, migration, and demise of panda bears through history.
Researchers from Spain's National Museum of Natural Sciences and the University of Valencia described in the journal Estudios Geologicos two fossil teeth of a panda-like bear that was smaller than today's smallest bears. It was part of a fossil assemblage of "an extraordinary concentration of micro-mammals" that were mixed with fossils of "large mammals were also abundant."1 By comparing minute features of the teeth to those of similar-looking fossil teeth from France, the authors made a case for naming it as a new species.
The study authors also speculated that a formerly more tropical Spanish climate favored the small pandas during the Ice Age. Today, the area where the fossils were found has a dry climate. Perhaps the change to drier conditions lessened available habitat and food such that the ancient Spanish mini-pandas could no longer survive. And it didn't help their survival that at least some of them were swept away, buried in mud, and fossilized during an Ice Age catastrophe.2
Pandas dying from decreased habitat and from catastrophic events makes sense and is exactly what is currently happening in the dwindling Chinese panda population.3 But tropical climates do not deserve credit for favoring certain creatures.
The study authors said in a Physorg science news release, "the extinct bear would have escaped from other larger carnivores by climbing up trees."4 If so, then perhaps it would also have found its food from higher tree branches, thus filling that niche while living alongside its larger landlocked cousins.
The environment could not literally have selected the small bear size, because environments are unthinking.5 Instead, the mini-pandas most likely pioneered a formerly lush Spain, and their diminutive statures filled a specific ecological niche. If so, then the Designer of their innate abilities to generate trait variations deserves the true credit.
As had occurred with many animals as well as plants and people, extraordinary diversities rapidly rose during the Ice Age soon after the Flood. For example, some elephant and rhinoceros varieties were wooly, and others, like those surviving today, had very little body hair in comparison.6 And dire wolves were five feet long, yet were of the same dog-kind that produced Chihuahuas. Similarly, many wooly mammoths were over eight feet tall, yet fully grown dwarf mammoths were less than five feet tall.7
According to Scripture, bears once lived near the place where Noah's ark landed—near the center of the Eurasian continent. And according to science, pandas live on separate sides of that same continent. Scripture also teaches that animals were created to fill earth's environments, which God foreknew would undergo constant changes. Likewise, science confirms that creatures generate trait variations that enable them to adapt to their environments.
Last, the Scriptures teach that this world and all its animals are cursed and bound to decay. This explains the scientific notion that surviving pandas probably no longer have the robust genetic repertoire to generate giant or miniature pandas. Overall, the panda evidence fits the Bible.
The Institute for Creation Research
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Did Panda Bears Once Live in Europe?
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.
Panda bears are restricted to remote mountains in China and have similar-sized bodies today. But fossils show that in years past some were mini-pandas, while others were giants. Plus, they lived in places far-flung from China. A new find described a mini-panda fossil fragment from Spain, reviving questions about the origin, migration, and demise of panda bears through history.
Researchers from Spain's National Museum of Natural Sciences and the University of Valencia described in the journal Estudios Geologicos two fossil teeth of a panda-like bear that was smaller than today's smallest bears. It was part of a fossil assemblage of "an extraordinary concentration of micro-mammals" that were mixed with fossils of "large mammals were also abundant."1 By comparing minute features of the teeth to those of similar-looking fossil teeth from France, the authors made a case for naming it as a new species.
The study authors also speculated that a formerly more tropical Spanish climate favored the small pandas during the Ice Age. Today, the area where the fossils were found has a dry climate. Perhaps the change to drier conditions lessened available habitat and food such that the ancient Spanish mini-pandas could no longer survive. And it didn't help their survival that at least some of them were swept away, buried in mud, and fossilized during an Ice Age catastrophe.2
Pandas dying from decreased habitat and from catastrophic events makes sense and is exactly what is currently happening in the dwindling Chinese panda population.3 But tropical climates do not deserve credit for favoring certain creatures.
The study authors said in a Physorg science news release, "the extinct bear would have escaped from other larger carnivores by climbing up trees."4 If so, then perhaps it would also have found its food from higher tree branches, thus filling that niche while living alongside its larger landlocked cousins.
The environment could not literally have selected the small bear size, because environments are unthinking.5 Instead, the mini-pandas most likely pioneered a formerly lush Spain, and their diminutive statures filled a specific ecological niche. If so, then the Designer of their innate abilities to generate trait variations deserves the true credit.
As had occurred with many animals as well as plants and people, extraordinary diversities rapidly rose during the Ice Age soon after the Flood. For example, some elephant and rhinoceros varieties were wooly, and others, like those surviving today, had very little body hair in comparison.6 And dire wolves were five feet long, yet were of the same dog-kind that produced Chihuahuas. Similarly, many wooly mammoths were over eight feet tall, yet fully grown dwarf mammoths were less than five feet tall.7
According to Scripture, bears once lived near the place where Noah's ark landed—near the center of the Eurasian continent. And according to science, pandas live on separate sides of that same continent. Scripture also teaches that animals were created to fill earth's environments, which God foreknew would undergo constant changes. Likewise, science confirms that creatures generate trait variations that enable them to adapt to their environments.
Last, the Scriptures teach that this world and all its animals are cursed and bound to decay. This explains the scientific notion that surviving pandas probably no longer have the robust genetic repertoire to generate giant or miniature pandas. Overall, the panda evidence fits the Bible.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1517989 wrote: Repetion is sometimes necessary for those too dense to comprehend.
Theresa May has the same sort of policy. Repeated soundbites, like "Strong & Stable" - "More Good & Outstanding Schools" (ignoring the record number of Failing ones), Donald Trump - "Stable Genius", "Guns are Good", etc. Repeating it does NOT make it so. It just makes the person doing the repeating even more of an idiot when they are unable to quantify their claims when challenged.
On many occasions you have referred to entropy (without understanding what entropy really is, mind you), stating that an object will eventually run out of energy & stop. There is also the Newtonian Law that if there is nothing to stop an object it will continue moving. Yet you try to make out that an object manages to leave earth's gravity, then leaves the orbit for thousands of years, then suddenly decides to stop, turn around & head back. When pellets are fired from a shotgun, they don't turn tail & head back down the barrel.
Your view of things is that the earth is at the centre of the Universe. There is hard EVIDENCE that this is not the case. The Universe has been proven to be expanding, and the rate at which it is expanding is growing. This much can be seen & measured. That is not a theory or speculation - that is observable FACT. Now, consider what there is outside of the Universal boundaries. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not the vacuum of Space, but nothing. No time, space or anything. It just doesn't exist. However, next thing you know, it has become part of the Universe. Basically, in many ways Something has become of nothing. It seems to defy the known laws of physics. However, that is where Science & Creationism differ. Science accepts that there unknown variables & embraces them. Creationism denies them, even when they are in plain view when it steps on its toes & contradicts its teachings. Some time ago you posted in here that there was no water on Mars, because God only saw fit to put water on the earth. This has since been demonstrated to be wrong, and that not only has water been found on Mars, but liquid water. Furthermore, it is strongly believed that there are likely to be traces of primitive life there. Life which has originated from the same source as that of the earth. From the stars.
Theresa May has the same sort of policy. Repeated soundbites, like "Strong & Stable" - "More Good & Outstanding Schools" (ignoring the record number of Failing ones), Donald Trump - "Stable Genius", "Guns are Good", etc. Repeating it does NOT make it so. It just makes the person doing the repeating even more of an idiot when they are unable to quantify their claims when challenged.
On many occasions you have referred to entropy (without understanding what entropy really is, mind you), stating that an object will eventually run out of energy & stop. There is also the Newtonian Law that if there is nothing to stop an object it will continue moving. Yet you try to make out that an object manages to leave earth's gravity, then leaves the orbit for thousands of years, then suddenly decides to stop, turn around & head back. When pellets are fired from a shotgun, they don't turn tail & head back down the barrel.
Your view of things is that the earth is at the centre of the Universe. There is hard EVIDENCE that this is not the case. The Universe has been proven to be expanding, and the rate at which it is expanding is growing. This much can be seen & measured. That is not a theory or speculation - that is observable FACT. Now, consider what there is outside of the Universal boundaries. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not the vacuum of Space, but nothing. No time, space or anything. It just doesn't exist. However, next thing you know, it has become part of the Universe. Basically, in many ways Something has become of nothing. It seems to defy the known laws of physics. However, that is where Science & Creationism differ. Science accepts that there unknown variables & embraces them. Creationism denies them, even when they are in plain view when it steps on its toes & contradicts its teachings. Some time ago you posted in here that there was no water on Mars, because God only saw fit to put water on the earth. This has since been demonstrated to be wrong, and that not only has water been found on Mars, but liquid water. Furthermore, it is strongly believed that there are likely to be traces of primitive life there. Life which has originated from the same source as that of the earth. From the stars.
Science Disproves Evolution
Proteins 3
Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth’s heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed (f). The many attempts to show how life might have arisen on earth have instead shown
(a) the futility of that effort (g),
(b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life (h), and
(c) the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.
f. “The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them. D. E. Hull, “Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation, Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694.
Pitman, p. 140.
Duane T. Gish, Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life, ICR Technical Monograph, No. 1 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).
g. “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. Crick, p. 88.
Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize winner and the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, did not give up. He reasoned that if life could not have evolved on earth, it must have evolved somewhere else in our galaxy and been transported to earth—an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermia—that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that “it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation. He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [See Eugene N. Parker, “Shielding Space Travelers, Scientific American, Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40–47.]
h. Robert Shapiro, Origins (New York: Bantam Books, 1986).
The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:
Organic molecules in life are of two types: proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Nucleic acids, which are incredibly complex, were not produced, nor would any knowledgeable person expect them to be produced.
The protein “building blocks were merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory. (In 2011, several more amino acids were found in Miller’s old experimental materials, but the more complex amino acids found in life were still missing. See Eric T. Parker et al., “Primordial Synthesis of Amines and Amino Acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-Rich Spark Discharge Experiment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 21 March 2011, pp.1–6.)
Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.
Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness. [See: [Handedness: Left and Right ]
Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)
All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.
“The story of the slow paralysis of research on life’s origin is quite interesting, but space precludes its retelling here. Suffice it to say that at present the field of origin-of-life studies has dissolved into a cacophony of conflicting models, each unconvincing, seriously incomplete, and incompatible with competing models. In private even most evolutionary biologists will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life. Behe, “Molecular Machines, pp. 30–31.
Rick Pierson, “Life before Life, Discover, August 2004, p.8.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1518045 wrote: Theresa May has the same sort of policy. Repeated soundbites, like "Strong & Stable" - "More Good & Outstanding Schools" (ignoring the record number of Failing ones), Donald Trump - "Stable Genius", "Guns are Good", etc. Repeating it does NOT make it so. It just makes the person doing the repeating even more of an idiot when they are unable to quantify their claims when challenged.
On many occasions you have referred to entropy (without understanding what entropy really is, mind you), stating that an object will eventually run out of energy & stop. There is also the Newtonian Law that if there is nothing to stop an object it will continue moving. Yet you try to make out that an object manages to leave earth's gravity, then leaves the orbit for thousands of years, then suddenly decides to stop, turn around & head back. When pellets are fired from a shotgun, they don't turn tail & head back down the barrel.
Your view of things is that the earth is at the centre of the Universe. There is hard EVIDENCE that this is not the case. The Universe has been proven to be expanding, and the rate at which it is expanding is growing. This much can be seen & measured. That is not a theory or speculation - that is observable FACT. Now, consider what there is outside of the Universal boundaries. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not the vacuum of Space, but nothing. No time, space or anything. It just doesn't exist. However, next thing you know, it has become part of the Universe. Basically, in many ways Something has become of nothing. It seems to defy the known laws of physics.
However, that is where Science & Creationism differ. Science accepts that there unknown variables & embraces them. Creationism denies them, even when they are in plain view when it steps on its toes & contradicts its teachings. Some time ago you posted in here that there was no water on Mars, because God only saw fit to put water on the earth. This has since been demonstrated to be wrong, and that not only has water been found on Mars, but liquid water. Furthermore, it is strongly believed that there are likely to be traces of primitive life there. Life which has originated from the same source as that of the earth. From the stars.
Why do you believe I believe that the earth is at the centre of the Universe? You might go a little further and speculate where the universe ends. You speak of universal boundaries. That implies it ends. But what is on the other side of those boundaries? You claim there is nothing outside of the boundaries of space that became part of the universe.
Join me on an imaginary trip into the past-way back into the past. Let's go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars burning with what scientists call thermonuclear fusion, including our sun. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning.
So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now let's take another step into the past. Let's go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well we should expect to find nothing shouldn't we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing there is nothing but totally empty space.
But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It cannot end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.
As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us something cannot come from nothing by any natural source. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.
Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experimentation, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I've never heard one that is based on observation, experience, experimentation, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.
[From Reincarnation in the Bible? https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/reinca ... 1491811009]
On many occasions you have referred to entropy (without understanding what entropy really is, mind you), stating that an object will eventually run out of energy & stop. There is also the Newtonian Law that if there is nothing to stop an object it will continue moving. Yet you try to make out that an object manages to leave earth's gravity, then leaves the orbit for thousands of years, then suddenly decides to stop, turn around & head back. When pellets are fired from a shotgun, they don't turn tail & head back down the barrel.
Your view of things is that the earth is at the centre of the Universe. There is hard EVIDENCE that this is not the case. The Universe has been proven to be expanding, and the rate at which it is expanding is growing. This much can be seen & measured. That is not a theory or speculation - that is observable FACT. Now, consider what there is outside of the Universal boundaries. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not the vacuum of Space, but nothing. No time, space or anything. It just doesn't exist. However, next thing you know, it has become part of the Universe. Basically, in many ways Something has become of nothing. It seems to defy the known laws of physics.
However, that is where Science & Creationism differ. Science accepts that there unknown variables & embraces them. Creationism denies them, even when they are in plain view when it steps on its toes & contradicts its teachings. Some time ago you posted in here that there was no water on Mars, because God only saw fit to put water on the earth. This has since been demonstrated to be wrong, and that not only has water been found on Mars, but liquid water. Furthermore, it is strongly believed that there are likely to be traces of primitive life there. Life which has originated from the same source as that of the earth. From the stars.
Why do you believe I believe that the earth is at the centre of the Universe? You might go a little further and speculate where the universe ends. You speak of universal boundaries. That implies it ends. But what is on the other side of those boundaries? You claim there is nothing outside of the boundaries of space that became part of the universe.
Join me on an imaginary trip into the past-way back into the past. Let's go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars burning with what scientists call thermonuclear fusion, including our sun. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning.
So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now let's take another step into the past. Let's go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well we should expect to find nothing shouldn't we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing there is nothing but totally empty space.
But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It cannot end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.
As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us something cannot come from nothing by any natural source. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.
Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experimentation, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I've never heard one that is based on observation, experience, experimentation, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.
[From Reincarnation in the Bible? https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/reinca ... 1491811009]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
First of all you are strting with a False Premise - or more to the point & Unknown Premise by simply using the words "Since it did have a beginning". You have already acknowledged that are various theories on that topic, and that none are known for certain, yet you begin your argument accepting just one of them as a known 'fact'. The term should be "IF it did have a beginning".
I agree that it is very difficult for the human mind to think outside of the 4 dimensions it is aware of (Length, Breadth, Depth & Time), but one has to accept that there are others that we cannot comprehend, and one of those is the concept of nothingness. A vaccuum is understandable as it still comprises of the 4 dimensions we can understand, but even Space is not a true vaccuum. Your own misguided understanding of Entropy has stated on many occasions that heat will only pass into a colder environment, and that higher pressure will only pass into a lower pressure. If you think of Space as already being Nothing, then how do you explain that it is expanding? Even to accept that it is expanding also accepts that the boundaries are finite. The fact that it is expanding means that something is moving into nothing. If you reverse the situation & trace back the expansion, then logically there would have to have been an origin point. However, if you are running that track back by a certain percentage (to do otherwise would be a binary option & at one point you would have something & then you would have nothing, or vice versa) you would get ever decreasing size, but at no point would you get nothing. The same works in the expansion. This is why your understanding of Entropy does not hold true, because Entropy refers to a CLOSED system. The Universe is not only an OPEN system, but it is a GROWING system.
I do not claim that the Universe always existed - personally I don't believe it did. Nor do I claim that it had a beginning. All I claim is that I don't know, and that neither does anyone else - one way or the other. That is what the Scientific approach is. All I DO know is what has been observed, and that is that the Universe is expanding & that we are nowhere near the centre. Furthermore, as the rate at which it is expanding has also been measured, it also validates the Universe is Billions of Billions of years old, and most certainly not the 6,000 year that Creationists would have us believe.
I agree that it is very difficult for the human mind to think outside of the 4 dimensions it is aware of (Length, Breadth, Depth & Time), but one has to accept that there are others that we cannot comprehend, and one of those is the concept of nothingness. A vaccuum is understandable as it still comprises of the 4 dimensions we can understand, but even Space is not a true vaccuum. Your own misguided understanding of Entropy has stated on many occasions that heat will only pass into a colder environment, and that higher pressure will only pass into a lower pressure. If you think of Space as already being Nothing, then how do you explain that it is expanding? Even to accept that it is expanding also accepts that the boundaries are finite. The fact that it is expanding means that something is moving into nothing. If you reverse the situation & trace back the expansion, then logically there would have to have been an origin point. However, if you are running that track back by a certain percentage (to do otherwise would be a binary option & at one point you would have something & then you would have nothing, or vice versa) you would get ever decreasing size, but at no point would you get nothing. The same works in the expansion. This is why your understanding of Entropy does not hold true, because Entropy refers to a CLOSED system. The Universe is not only an OPEN system, but it is a GROWING system.
I do not claim that the Universe always existed - personally I don't believe it did. Nor do I claim that it had a beginning. All I claim is that I don't know, and that neither does anyone else - one way or the other. That is what the Scientific approach is. All I DO know is what has been observed, and that is that the Universe is expanding & that we are nowhere near the centre. Furthermore, as the rate at which it is expanding has also been measured, it also validates the Universe is Billions of Billions of years old, and most certainly not the 6,000 year that Creationists would have us believe.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1518117 wrote: First of all you are strting with a False Premise - or more to the point & Unknown Premise by simply using the words "Since it did have a beginning". You have already acknowledged that are various theories on that topic, and that none are known for certain, yet you begin your argument accepting just one of them as a known 'fact'. The term should be "IF it did have a beginning".
Nope, the universe had a beginning. The definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything existed, there was nothing.
I agree that it is very difficult for the human mind to think outside of the 4 dimensions it is aware of (Length, Breadth, Depth & Time), but one has to accept that there are others that we cannot comprehend, and one of those is the concept of nothingness. A vaccuum is understandable as it still comprises of the 4 dimensions we can understand, but even Space is not a true vaccuum. Your own misguided understanding of Entropy has stated on many occasions that heat will only pass into a colder environment, and that higher pressure will only pass into a lower pressure. If you think of Space as already being Nothing, then how do you explain that it is expanding?
But space isn't nothing.
Even to accept that it is expanding also accepts that the boundaries are finite. The fact that it is expanding means that something is moving into nothing.
No, it just means it is expanding.
If you reverse the situation & trace back the expansion, then logically there would have to have been an origin point. However, if you are running that track back by a certain percentage (to do otherwise would be a binary option & at one point you would have something & then you would have nothing, or vice versa) you would get ever decreasing size, but at no point would you get nothing.
If you trace the universe back to the beginning, and then go back another step, you have nothing.
The same works in the expansion. This is why your understanding of Entropy does not hold true, because Entropy refers to a CLOSED system. The Universe is not only an OPEN system, but it is a GROWING system.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Answers to Critics
by Jonathan Sarfati
Open Systems
'Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.
'This does seem to be a valid point-do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?'
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:
o that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
o usable energy is running out
o information tends to get scrambled
o order tends towards disorder
o a random jumble won't organize itself
o
It also depends on the type of system:
o An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down- see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.
o A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
o An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn't apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
"¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won't make you more complex-the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun's undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It's like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the 'open systems' canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.
http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-t ... to-critics
I do not claim that the Universe always existed - personally I don't believe it did. Nor do I claim that it had a beginning. All I claim is that I don't know, and that neither does anyone else - one way or the other.
I know the universe had a beginning. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing.
That is what the Scientific approach is. All I DO know is what has been observed, and that is that the Universe is expanding & that we are nowhere near the centre. Furthermore, as the rate at which it is expanding has also been measured, it also validates the Universe is Billions of Billions of years old, and most certainly not the 6,000 year that Creationists would have us believe.
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The plants (Gen. 1: 11-12)—They were created mature and bearing fruit at the moment of their creation. What would have taken years to accomplish by uniformitarian processes took place in seconds.
The animals (Gen. 1:20-25)—Fish, birds, and the three categories of land animals were created fully mature, having the appearance of age, and were immediately capable of reproduction on the first day of their existence (v. 22). The Bible therefore allows us to answer the otherwise-unanswerable question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Evolutionists would take the endless trail back to the first life forms, but the Creationist can say that the chicken was created first, and then laid its eggs.
Man (Gen. 2:7)—Adam was created as an adult, with an inherent storehouse of knowledge and vocabulary, and was capable of articulate speech and reproduction on the first day of his existence (Gen. 1:28-29; 2:8, 16-20, 24). Whether Adam gave the appearance of being 20 or 50 years of age is irrelevant—a person walking into Eden five minutes after Adam's creation would have been able to converse intelligently with him and would probably conclude, on uniformitarian assumptions, that Adam had been around for many years.
Eve (Gen. 2:21-23)—Likewise, Eve was created fully mature and ready for marriage to Adam immediately (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:22-25).
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
The Institute for Creation Research
Nope, the universe had a beginning. The definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything existed, there was nothing.
I agree that it is very difficult for the human mind to think outside of the 4 dimensions it is aware of (Length, Breadth, Depth & Time), but one has to accept that there are others that we cannot comprehend, and one of those is the concept of nothingness. A vaccuum is understandable as it still comprises of the 4 dimensions we can understand, but even Space is not a true vaccuum. Your own misguided understanding of Entropy has stated on many occasions that heat will only pass into a colder environment, and that higher pressure will only pass into a lower pressure. If you think of Space as already being Nothing, then how do you explain that it is expanding?
But space isn't nothing.
Even to accept that it is expanding also accepts that the boundaries are finite. The fact that it is expanding means that something is moving into nothing.
No, it just means it is expanding.
If you reverse the situation & trace back the expansion, then logically there would have to have been an origin point. However, if you are running that track back by a certain percentage (to do otherwise would be a binary option & at one point you would have something & then you would have nothing, or vice versa) you would get ever decreasing size, but at no point would you get nothing.
If you trace the universe back to the beginning, and then go back another step, you have nothing.
The same works in the expansion. This is why your understanding of Entropy does not hold true, because Entropy refers to a CLOSED system. The Universe is not only an OPEN system, but it is a GROWING system.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Answers to Critics
by Jonathan Sarfati
Open Systems
'Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.
'This does seem to be a valid point-do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?'
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:
o that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
o usable energy is running out
o information tends to get scrambled
o order tends towards disorder
o a random jumble won't organize itself
o
It also depends on the type of system:
o An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down- see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.
o A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
o An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn't apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
"¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won't make you more complex-the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun's undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It's like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the 'open systems' canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.
http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-t ... to-critics
I do not claim that the Universe always existed - personally I don't believe it did. Nor do I claim that it had a beginning. All I claim is that I don't know, and that neither does anyone else - one way or the other.
I know the universe had a beginning. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing.
That is what the Scientific approach is. All I DO know is what has been observed, and that is that the Universe is expanding & that we are nowhere near the centre. Furthermore, as the rate at which it is expanding has also been measured, it also validates the Universe is Billions of Billions of years old, and most certainly not the 6,000 year that Creationists would have us believe.
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The plants (Gen. 1: 11-12)—They were created mature and bearing fruit at the moment of their creation. What would have taken years to accomplish by uniformitarian processes took place in seconds.
The animals (Gen. 1:20-25)—Fish, birds, and the three categories of land animals were created fully mature, having the appearance of age, and were immediately capable of reproduction on the first day of their existence (v. 22). The Bible therefore allows us to answer the otherwise-unanswerable question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Evolutionists would take the endless trail back to the first life forms, but the Creationist can say that the chicken was created first, and then laid its eggs.
Man (Gen. 2:7)—Adam was created as an adult, with an inherent storehouse of knowledge and vocabulary, and was capable of articulate speech and reproduction on the first day of his existence (Gen. 1:28-29; 2:8, 16-20, 24). Whether Adam gave the appearance of being 20 or 50 years of age is irrelevant—a person walking into Eden five minutes after Adam's creation would have been able to converse intelligently with him and would probably conclude, on uniformitarian assumptions, that Adam had been around for many years.
Eve (Gen. 2:21-23)—Likewise, Eve was created fully mature and ready for marriage to Adam immediately (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:22-25).
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1518124 wrote: Nope, the universe had a beginning. The definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything existed, there was nothing.
As I said, I personally believe that it had a beginning. The difference is that I take the Scientific view & acknowledge that I could be wrong, as I know that there are other equally plausible theories.
But space isn't nothing.
Also what I said.
No, it just means it is expanding.
Just that in order to expand it has to have something to expand into, and if the Universe that exists is expanding, then the only way it can expand is into something that doesn't exist.
If you trace the universe back to the beginning, and then go back another step, you have nothing.
Which is why I said that it should not be a binary thing. If each step is 50% nearer to the beginning, then you get increasing close to the absolute beginning, but you will never reach it. Therefore, the size of the origin becomes increasingly infinitessibly small.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Answers to Critics
by Jonathan Sarfati
Open Systems
'Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.
'This does seem to be a valid point-do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?'
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways
This is the point at which a valid statement goes over to interpretation. In Physics, a Law is just that - it cannot be expressed in different way. It cannot be Cherry Picked. It is what it is. As for disorder never tending towards order, then explain crystals. Explain a snowflake. The are extremely mathematically precise examples of order created from random disorder.
I know the universe had a beginning. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing.
NOBODY knows anything of the sort. As I've said over & over again, I believe the Universe had a beginning, but I do not KNOW it. Also as I've said, you still don't get it, entropy does not apply as we are not working with a closed system. Even our own Solar System is not a closed system. It is part of a Galaxy, which in turn is a miniscule part of the Universe which, in turn is expanding further. Anything that is expanding cannot, by definition, be closed.
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
You can use any Fairy Story to cite indications of the existence of magic. It doesn't count as Scientific evidence & can, therefore, be disregarded.
Apart from your irresistable urge to revert to irrelevant & incorrect pastings from Creationist sites, using no Scientific insight whatsoever, you did better than usual, at least attempting to form an argument - not very successfully, which isn't surprising seeing as you don't have a clue what you're talking about, but I will attest that you at least tried.
As I said, I personally believe that it had a beginning. The difference is that I take the Scientific view & acknowledge that I could be wrong, as I know that there are other equally plausible theories.
But space isn't nothing.
Also what I said.
No, it just means it is expanding.
Just that in order to expand it has to have something to expand into, and if the Universe that exists is expanding, then the only way it can expand is into something that doesn't exist.
If you trace the universe back to the beginning, and then go back another step, you have nothing.
Which is why I said that it should not be a binary thing. If each step is 50% nearer to the beginning, then you get increasing close to the absolute beginning, but you will never reach it. Therefore, the size of the origin becomes increasingly infinitessibly small.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Answers to Critics
by Jonathan Sarfati
Open Systems
'Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.
'This does seem to be a valid point-do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?'
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways
This is the point at which a valid statement goes over to interpretation. In Physics, a Law is just that - it cannot be expressed in different way. It cannot be Cherry Picked. It is what it is. As for disorder never tending towards order, then explain crystals. Explain a snowflake. The are extremely mathematically precise examples of order created from random disorder.
I know the universe had a beginning. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing.
NOBODY knows anything of the sort. As I've said over & over again, I believe the Universe had a beginning, but I do not KNOW it. Also as I've said, you still don't get it, entropy does not apply as we are not working with a closed system. Even our own Solar System is not a closed system. It is part of a Galaxy, which in turn is a miniscule part of the Universe which, in turn is expanding further. Anything that is expanding cannot, by definition, be closed.
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
You can use any Fairy Story to cite indications of the existence of magic. It doesn't count as Scientific evidence & can, therefore, be disregarded.
Apart from your irresistable urge to revert to irrelevant & incorrect pastings from Creationist sites, using no Scientific insight whatsoever, you did better than usual, at least attempting to form an argument - not very successfully, which isn't surprising seeing as you don't have a clue what you're talking about, but I will attest that you at least tried.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1518138 wrote:
In Physics, a Law is just that - it cannot be expressed in different way. It cannot be Cherry Picked. It is what it is. As for disorder never tending towards order, then explain crystals. Explain a snowflake. The are extremely mathematically precise examples of order created from random disorder.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Entropy and Open Systems
BY HENRY M. MORRIS, PH.D.
The most devastating and conclusive argument against evolution is the entropy principle. This principle (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) implies that, in the present order of things, evolution in the "vertical" sense (that is, from one degree of order and complexity to a higher degree of order and complexity) is completely impossible.
The evolutionary model of origins and development requires some universal principle which increases order, causing random particles eventually to organize themselves into complex chemicals, non-living systems to become living cells, and populations of worms to evolve into human societies. However the only naturalistic scientific principle which is known to effect real changes in order is the Second Law, which describes a situation of universally deteriorating order.
"This law states that all natural processes generate entropy, a measure of disorder"1
"Entropy, in short, is the measurement of molecular disorder. The law of the irreversible increase in entropy is a law of progressive disorganization, of the complete disappearance of the initial conditions."2
It can hardly be questioned that evolution is at least superficially contradicted by entropy. The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order. Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they don’t know how.
"In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order. The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward."3
"Back of the spontaneous generation of life under other conditions than now obtain upon this planet, there occurred a spontaneous generation of elements of the kind that still goes on in the stars; and back of that I suppose a spontaneous generation of elementary particles under circumstances still to be fathomed, that ended in giving them the properties that alone make possible the universe we know."4
"Life might be described as an unexpected force that somehow organizes inanimate matter into a living system that perceives, reacts to, and evolves to cope with changes to the physical environment that threatens to destroy its organization."5
When confronted directly with this problem (e.g., in creation/evolution debates), evolutionists often will completely ignore it. Some will honestly admit they do not know how to resolve the problem but will simply express confidence that there must be a way, since otherwise one would have to believe in supernatural creation. As Wald says:
"In this strange paper I have ventured to suggest that natural selection of a sort has extended even beyond the elements, to determine the properties of protons and electrons. Curious as that seems, it is a possibility worth weighing against the only alternative I can imagine, Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist."6
Some evolutionists try to solve the problem by suggesting that the entropy law is only statistical and that exceptions can occur, which would allow occasional accidental increases in order. Whether this is so, however, is entirely a matter of faith. No one has ever seen such an exception, and science is based upon observation!
"There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances."7
By far the majority of evolutionists, however, attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant. The earth and its biosphere are open systems, with an ample supply of energy coming in from the sun to do the work of building up the complexity of these systems. Furthermore, they cite specific examples of systems in which the order increases, (such as the growth of a crystal out of solution, the growth of a seed or embryo into an adult plant or animal, or the growth of a small Stone Age population into a large complex technological culture) as proof that the Second Law does not inhibit the growth of more highly-ordered systems.
Arguments and examples such as these, however, are specious arguments. It is like arguing that, since NASA was able to put men on the moon, therefore it is reasonable to believe cows can jump over the moon! Creationists have for over a decade been emphasizing that the Second Law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system. The great French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically, as acknowledged by Layzer:
"Borel showed that no finite physical system can be considered closed."8
Creationists have long acknowledged (in fact emphasized) that order can and does increase in certain special types of open systems, but this is no proof that order increases in every open system! The statement that "the earth is an open system" is a vacuous statement containing no specific information, since all systems are open systems.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system."
[continue]
In Physics, a Law is just that - it cannot be expressed in different way. It cannot be Cherry Picked. It is what it is. As for disorder never tending towards order, then explain crystals. Explain a snowflake. The are extremely mathematically precise examples of order created from random disorder.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Entropy and Open Systems
BY HENRY M. MORRIS, PH.D.
The most devastating and conclusive argument against evolution is the entropy principle. This principle (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) implies that, in the present order of things, evolution in the "vertical" sense (that is, from one degree of order and complexity to a higher degree of order and complexity) is completely impossible.
The evolutionary model of origins and development requires some universal principle which increases order, causing random particles eventually to organize themselves into complex chemicals, non-living systems to become living cells, and populations of worms to evolve into human societies. However the only naturalistic scientific principle which is known to effect real changes in order is the Second Law, which describes a situation of universally deteriorating order.
"This law states that all natural processes generate entropy, a measure of disorder"1
"Entropy, in short, is the measurement of molecular disorder. The law of the irreversible increase in entropy is a law of progressive disorganization, of the complete disappearance of the initial conditions."2
It can hardly be questioned that evolution is at least superficially contradicted by entropy. The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order. Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they don’t know how.
"In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order. The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward."3
"Back of the spontaneous generation of life under other conditions than now obtain upon this planet, there occurred a spontaneous generation of elements of the kind that still goes on in the stars; and back of that I suppose a spontaneous generation of elementary particles under circumstances still to be fathomed, that ended in giving them the properties that alone make possible the universe we know."4
"Life might be described as an unexpected force that somehow organizes inanimate matter into a living system that perceives, reacts to, and evolves to cope with changes to the physical environment that threatens to destroy its organization."5
When confronted directly with this problem (e.g., in creation/evolution debates), evolutionists often will completely ignore it. Some will honestly admit they do not know how to resolve the problem but will simply express confidence that there must be a way, since otherwise one would have to believe in supernatural creation. As Wald says:
"In this strange paper I have ventured to suggest that natural selection of a sort has extended even beyond the elements, to determine the properties of protons and electrons. Curious as that seems, it is a possibility worth weighing against the only alternative I can imagine, Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist."6
Some evolutionists try to solve the problem by suggesting that the entropy law is only statistical and that exceptions can occur, which would allow occasional accidental increases in order. Whether this is so, however, is entirely a matter of faith. No one has ever seen such an exception, and science is based upon observation!
"There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances."7
By far the majority of evolutionists, however, attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant. The earth and its biosphere are open systems, with an ample supply of energy coming in from the sun to do the work of building up the complexity of these systems. Furthermore, they cite specific examples of systems in which the order increases, (such as the growth of a crystal out of solution, the growth of a seed or embryo into an adult plant or animal, or the growth of a small Stone Age population into a large complex technological culture) as proof that the Second Law does not inhibit the growth of more highly-ordered systems.
Arguments and examples such as these, however, are specious arguments. It is like arguing that, since NASA was able to put men on the moon, therefore it is reasonable to believe cows can jump over the moon! Creationists have for over a decade been emphasizing that the Second Law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system. The great French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically, as acknowledged by Layzer:
"Borel showed that no finite physical system can be considered closed."8
Creationists have long acknowledged (in fact emphasized) that order can and does increase in certain special types of open systems, but this is no proof that order increases in every open system! The statement that "the earth is an open system" is a vacuous statement containing no specific information, since all systems are open systems.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system."
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.