Pahu;1490152 wrote: The hydroplate theory is scientifically sound and answers questions other theories cannot answer.
The point was, you argued that evolution couldnt be proved because it couldnt be observed. The beginning of stars could not be observed, therefore nothing can be proved. You seem to cherry pick what is provable and what is fact, purely on what is relevant to your beliefs. You want it so badly you forego any meaningful science.
We all all still waiting for answers to questions, particularly, the most recent, which is Fourparts request. I'm guessing you are conveniently glossing over any questions that you cant find the answer to in Brown's book. I can understand that.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1490154 wrote: The point was, you argued that evolution couldnt be proved because it couldnt be observed. The beginning of stars could not be observed, therefore nothing can be proved. You seem to cherry pick what is provable and what is fact, purely on what is relevant to your beliefs. You want it so badly you forego any meaningful science.
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The past cannot be observed and experimented on. However, by using the facts of science we can learn a lot about the past through circumstantial evidence. For example if we awake in the morning and find snow on the ground that wasn't there when we went to bed, we correctly assume it snowed while we slept.
To claim nothing can be proved because we cannot observe the beginning of stars is not logical. The fact we have never seen stars being born indicates they weren't. But there they are, so where did they come from? Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural.
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The past cannot be observed and experimented on. However, by using the facts of science we can learn a lot about the past through circumstantial evidence. For example if we awake in the morning and find snow on the ground that wasn't there when we went to bed, we correctly assume it snowed while we slept.
To claim nothing can be proved because we cannot observe the beginning of stars is not logical. The fact we have never seen stars being born indicates they weren't. But there they are, so where did they come from? Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
As I posted before, Wrong again.
Star Birth Drama Captured by Giant Radio Telescope (Photos)
Star Birth Drama Captured by Giant Radio Telescope (Photos)
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1490159 wrote: As I posted before, Wrong again.
Star Birth Drama Captured by Giant Radio Telescope (Photos)
Star birth was not captured. The photos were misinterpreted to assume star birth. Here are the facts:
Star Births? Stellar Evolution?
Evolutionists claim that stars form from swirling clouds of dust and gas. For this to happen, vast amounts of energy, angular momentum, and residual magnetism must be removed from each cloud. This is not observed today, and astronomers and physicists have not explained, in an experimentally verifiable way, how it all could happen.a
The most luminous stars in our galaxy, called O stars, are “burning fuel hundreds of thousands of times faster than our Sun. This is so rapid that they must be quite young on an evolutionary time scale. If these stars evolved, they should show easily measurable characteristics, such as extremely high rates of rotation and enormous magnetic fields. Because these characteristics are not observed, it seems quite likely these stars did not evolve.
If stars evolve, star births should about equal star deaths. Within our Milky Way Galaxy alone, about one star dies each year and becomes an expanding cloud of gas and dust.b The less frequent deaths of more massive stars are much brighter, more violent explosions called supernovas. Star births, on the other hand, would appear as new starlight not present on the many photographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments which can detect dust falling into and forming supposedly new stars have not done so.c Actually, stars that some astronomers believe are very new are expelling matter. We have seen hundreds of stars die, but we have never seen a star born.d
Also, some stars are found where astronomers agree they could not evolve, near the center of our galaxy. These short-lived stars orbit a massive black hole, where gravity is so strong that gas and dust clouds could never evolve into a star. Instead, the black hole’s massive gravity would pull such clouds (supposedly evolving stars) apart.e
Nor could stars have evolved in globular clusters, where up to a million stars occupy a relatively small volume of space. [See Figure 220 on page 443.] Wind and radiation pressure from the first star in the cluster to evolve would have blown away most of the gas needed to form the other stars in the cluster.f In other words, if stars evolved, we should not see globular clusters, yet our galaxy has about 200 globular clusters. To pack so many stars that tightly together requires that they all came into existence about the same time.
A similar problem exists for stars that are more than 20 times more massive than our Sun. After a star grew to 20 solar masses, it would exert so much radiation pressure and emit so much stellar wind that additional mass could not be pulled in to allow it to grow.g Many stars are heavier than a hundred suns. Black holes are millions to billions of times more massive than the Sun. Poor logic is involved in arguing for stellar evolution, which is assumed in estimating the ages of stars. These ages are then used to establish a framework for stellar evolution. That is circular reasoning.h
In summary, there is no evidence that stars evolve, there is much evidence that stars did not evolve, and there are no experimentally verifiable explanations for how they could evolve and seemingly defy the laws of physics.i
Stellar Nursery, or Is the Emperor Naked?
The popular media frequently claim that stars are actually seen evolving and that pictures of these “stellar nurseries prove it. Impressive pictures of the Eagle Nebula (Figure 26) are usually shown. Many people accept the claim without asking themselves, “Do the pictures contain anything that shows stars evolving? Of course not. If stars were evolving, other physical measurements could confirm it. Where are those measurements? Silence.
This willingness to accept what others tell us reminds one of the tale in which citizens told their naked emperor he was nicely dressed. Instead of believing or reporting what their eyes clearly told them, people preferred to accept what others said—or at least not object. Better not disagree or even ask questions; it could be embarrassing.
Why do some astronomers say stars are evolving? Until recently, the atmosphere prevented astronomers from seeing infrared radiations from space. Then in the late 1960s, satellites outside the atmosphere made infrared sky surveys that showed some surprisingly warm clouds of dust and gas in our galaxy. Several things could cause this heating. Perhaps a dim star (a brown dwarf) is behind the cloud, maybe something nearby exploded, or a star is dying as it is being pulled into a massive black hole. Those who struggled to understand how stars evolved had a different interpretation: “Gravity is collapsing the cloud, raising its temperature. In about a million years, it will become a star. Other interpretations are also possible.
NASA’s claim in 1995 that these pictures (Figure 26) showed hundreds to thousands of stars forming was based on the speculative “EGG-star formation theory. It has recently been tested independently with two infrared detectors that can see inside the dusty pillars. Few stars were there, and 85% of the pillars had too little dust and gas to support star formation. “The new findings also highlight how much astronomers still have to learn about star formation. [Ron Cowen, “Rethinking an Astronomical Icon: The Eagle’s EGG, Not So Fertile, Science News, Vol. 161, 16 March 2002, pp. 171–172.]
What prevents stellar evolution? Just as the Sun’s gravity does not pull planets into the Sun, gravity does not automatically pull orbiting gas and dust into a tight ball that then ignites as a star. Each cloud of dust and gas in space has a large amount of kinetic and potential energy, angular momentum, and magnetic energy that must first be removed. Evidence of that removal is missing. Furthermore, any collapse would only increase the cloud’s temperature and pressure, which, in turn, would expand the cloud. For more details on these processes, see “Interstellar Gas, “Star Births?, Stellar Evolution? beginning on page 35, and especially all related endnotes starting on page 95.
If someone tells you that the emperor is well dressed, ask questions and insist on seeing real evidence.
Figure 26: Gas and Dust Clouds in the Eagle Nebula.
Star Birth Drama Captured by Giant Radio Telescope (Photos)
Star birth was not captured. The photos were misinterpreted to assume star birth. Here are the facts:
Star Births? Stellar Evolution?
Evolutionists claim that stars form from swirling clouds of dust and gas. For this to happen, vast amounts of energy, angular momentum, and residual magnetism must be removed from each cloud. This is not observed today, and astronomers and physicists have not explained, in an experimentally verifiable way, how it all could happen.a
The most luminous stars in our galaxy, called O stars, are “burning fuel hundreds of thousands of times faster than our Sun. This is so rapid that they must be quite young on an evolutionary time scale. If these stars evolved, they should show easily measurable characteristics, such as extremely high rates of rotation and enormous magnetic fields. Because these characteristics are not observed, it seems quite likely these stars did not evolve.
If stars evolve, star births should about equal star deaths. Within our Milky Way Galaxy alone, about one star dies each year and becomes an expanding cloud of gas and dust.b The less frequent deaths of more massive stars are much brighter, more violent explosions called supernovas. Star births, on the other hand, would appear as new starlight not present on the many photographic plates made decades earlier. Instruments which can detect dust falling into and forming supposedly new stars have not done so.c Actually, stars that some astronomers believe are very new are expelling matter. We have seen hundreds of stars die, but we have never seen a star born.d
Also, some stars are found where astronomers agree they could not evolve, near the center of our galaxy. These short-lived stars orbit a massive black hole, where gravity is so strong that gas and dust clouds could never evolve into a star. Instead, the black hole’s massive gravity would pull such clouds (supposedly evolving stars) apart.e
Nor could stars have evolved in globular clusters, where up to a million stars occupy a relatively small volume of space. [See Figure 220 on page 443.] Wind and radiation pressure from the first star in the cluster to evolve would have blown away most of the gas needed to form the other stars in the cluster.f In other words, if stars evolved, we should not see globular clusters, yet our galaxy has about 200 globular clusters. To pack so many stars that tightly together requires that they all came into existence about the same time.
A similar problem exists for stars that are more than 20 times more massive than our Sun. After a star grew to 20 solar masses, it would exert so much radiation pressure and emit so much stellar wind that additional mass could not be pulled in to allow it to grow.g Many stars are heavier than a hundred suns. Black holes are millions to billions of times more massive than the Sun. Poor logic is involved in arguing for stellar evolution, which is assumed in estimating the ages of stars. These ages are then used to establish a framework for stellar evolution. That is circular reasoning.h
In summary, there is no evidence that stars evolve, there is much evidence that stars did not evolve, and there are no experimentally verifiable explanations for how they could evolve and seemingly defy the laws of physics.i
Stellar Nursery, or Is the Emperor Naked?
The popular media frequently claim that stars are actually seen evolving and that pictures of these “stellar nurseries prove it. Impressive pictures of the Eagle Nebula (Figure 26) are usually shown. Many people accept the claim without asking themselves, “Do the pictures contain anything that shows stars evolving? Of course not. If stars were evolving, other physical measurements could confirm it. Where are those measurements? Silence.
This willingness to accept what others tell us reminds one of the tale in which citizens told their naked emperor he was nicely dressed. Instead of believing or reporting what their eyes clearly told them, people preferred to accept what others said—or at least not object. Better not disagree or even ask questions; it could be embarrassing.
Why do some astronomers say stars are evolving? Until recently, the atmosphere prevented astronomers from seeing infrared radiations from space. Then in the late 1960s, satellites outside the atmosphere made infrared sky surveys that showed some surprisingly warm clouds of dust and gas in our galaxy. Several things could cause this heating. Perhaps a dim star (a brown dwarf) is behind the cloud, maybe something nearby exploded, or a star is dying as it is being pulled into a massive black hole. Those who struggled to understand how stars evolved had a different interpretation: “Gravity is collapsing the cloud, raising its temperature. In about a million years, it will become a star. Other interpretations are also possible.
NASA’s claim in 1995 that these pictures (Figure 26) showed hundreds to thousands of stars forming was based on the speculative “EGG-star formation theory. It has recently been tested independently with two infrared detectors that can see inside the dusty pillars. Few stars were there, and 85% of the pillars had too little dust and gas to support star formation. “The new findings also highlight how much astronomers still have to learn about star formation. [Ron Cowen, “Rethinking an Astronomical Icon: The Eagle’s EGG, Not So Fertile, Science News, Vol. 161, 16 March 2002, pp. 171–172.]
What prevents stellar evolution? Just as the Sun’s gravity does not pull planets into the Sun, gravity does not automatically pull orbiting gas and dust into a tight ball that then ignites as a star. Each cloud of dust and gas in space has a large amount of kinetic and potential energy, angular momentum, and magnetic energy that must first be removed. Evidence of that removal is missing. Furthermore, any collapse would only increase the cloud’s temperature and pressure, which, in turn, would expand the cloud. For more details on these processes, see “Interstellar Gas, “Star Births?, Stellar Evolution? beginning on page 35, and especially all related endnotes starting on page 95.
If someone tells you that the emperor is well dressed, ask questions and insist on seeing real evidence.
Figure 26: Gas and Dust Clouds in the Eagle Nebula.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
What did I say - when faced with evidence he either denies it or accuses it of being misinterpreted.
Furthermore, check out the meaning of 'Science'. Science does not disprove anything. It can only prove that which is. This is why it cannot disprove the existence of a God - because there is nothing to disprove. Before anything can be proved, it first has to exist.
As far as manipulating the theories to fit the facts - YES!!! That is how theories work. The facts are there. The whole point of a Theory is not to take anything for granted. The more evidence there is, the better the picture that is formed. Occasionally a piece of evidence will crop up which doesn't fall in line with the Theory. That's fine. A scientist will accept the new evidence & adjust the Theory accordingly. A Creationist, on the other hand forms a hypothesis & refuses to recognise anything that falls outside of their desired parameters - just as you are doing.
Regarding what evidence there is to the earth being covered by ice - you only need to look at the scarring caused by ice floes, typical of glacial regions, only to be found hundreds of miles inland in desert areas as well.
Continents not fitting? These look like a pretty good fit to me. Plus they have been observed as continuing to move at the rate of about 2" / year.
Furthermore, check out the meaning of 'Science'. Science does not disprove anything. It can only prove that which is. This is why it cannot disprove the existence of a God - because there is nothing to disprove. Before anything can be proved, it first has to exist.
As far as manipulating the theories to fit the facts - YES!!! That is how theories work. The facts are there. The whole point of a Theory is not to take anything for granted. The more evidence there is, the better the picture that is formed. Occasionally a piece of evidence will crop up which doesn't fall in line with the Theory. That's fine. A scientist will accept the new evidence & adjust the Theory accordingly. A Creationist, on the other hand forms a hypothesis & refuses to recognise anything that falls outside of their desired parameters - just as you are doing.
Regarding what evidence there is to the earth being covered by ice - you only need to look at the scarring caused by ice floes, typical of glacial regions, only to be found hundreds of miles inland in desert areas as well.
Continents not fitting? These look like a pretty good fit to me. Plus they have been observed as continuing to move at the rate of about 2" / year.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490178 wrote: What did I say - when faced with evidence he either denies it or accuses it of being misinterpreted.
It was misinterpreted! The information I shared shows the facts.
Furthermore, check out the meaning of 'Science'. Science does not disprove anything. It can only prove that which is. This is why it cannot disprove the existence of a God - because there is nothing to disprove. Before anything can be proved, it first has to exist.
If science proves something is white, doesn't that disprove it is black?
As far as manipulating the theories to fit the facts - YES!!! That is how theories work. The facts are there. The whole point of a Theory is not to take anything for granted. The more evidence there is, the better the picture that is formed. Occasionally a piece of evidence will crop up which doesn't fall in line with the Theory. That's fine. A scientist will accept the new evidence & adjust the Theory accordingly.
That is true of scientists, not evolutionists who try to make the evidence fit their mythology.
A Creationist, on the other hand forms a hypothesis & refuses to recognise anything that falls outside of their desired parameters - just as you are doing.
Will you provide an example? Creationists I am aware of always base their hypotheses on evidence.
Regarding what evidence there is to the earth being covered by ice - you only need to look at the scarring caused by ice floes, typical of glacial regions, only to be found hundreds of miles inland in desert areas as well.
I am aware there was an ice age.
It was misinterpreted! The information I shared shows the facts.
Furthermore, check out the meaning of 'Science'. Science does not disprove anything. It can only prove that which is. This is why it cannot disprove the existence of a God - because there is nothing to disprove. Before anything can be proved, it first has to exist.
If science proves something is white, doesn't that disprove it is black?
As far as manipulating the theories to fit the facts - YES!!! That is how theories work. The facts are there. The whole point of a Theory is not to take anything for granted. The more evidence there is, the better the picture that is formed. Occasionally a piece of evidence will crop up which doesn't fall in line with the Theory. That's fine. A scientist will accept the new evidence & adjust the Theory accordingly.
That is true of scientists, not evolutionists who try to make the evidence fit their mythology.
A Creationist, on the other hand forms a hypothesis & refuses to recognise anything that falls outside of their desired parameters - just as you are doing.
Will you provide an example? Creationists I am aware of always base their hypotheses on evidence.
Regarding what evidence there is to the earth being covered by ice - you only need to look at the scarring caused by ice floes, typical of glacial regions, only to be found hundreds of miles inland in desert areas as well.
I am aware there was an ice age.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490194 wrote: It was misinterpreted! The information I shared shows the facts.
Claims of misinterpretation. Exactly as I said you would.
If science proves something is white, doesn't that disprove it is black?
It doesn't disprove anything. It merely proves something is white. Quite a good example. White is the presence of all light. Black is the absence of any. It is not disproving an absence. It is proving an existence.
That is true of scientists, not evolutionists who try to make the evidence fit their mythology.
As usual you get it totally back to front. The evidence is irrefutable. If the theory doesn't fit the evidence it is the theory that changes. Not the evidence.
Will you provide an example? Creationists I am aware of always base their hypotheses on evidence.
Perfect example: Walt Brown / Pahu
By definition, Creationists base their hypotheses on faith, because faith does not require evidence. Therefore they disregard evidence to the contrary.
I am aware there was an ice age.
So why do you keep insisting that there wasn't?
Claims of misinterpretation. Exactly as I said you would.
If science proves something is white, doesn't that disprove it is black?
It doesn't disprove anything. It merely proves something is white. Quite a good example. White is the presence of all light. Black is the absence of any. It is not disproving an absence. It is proving an existence.
That is true of scientists, not evolutionists who try to make the evidence fit their mythology.
As usual you get it totally back to front. The evidence is irrefutable. If the theory doesn't fit the evidence it is the theory that changes. Not the evidence.
Will you provide an example? Creationists I am aware of always base their hypotheses on evidence.
Perfect example: Walt Brown / Pahu
By definition, Creationists base their hypotheses on faith, because faith does not require evidence. Therefore they disregard evidence to the contrary.
I am aware there was an ice age.
So why do you keep insisting that there wasn't?
Science Disproves Evolution
Radiometric Dating
To date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.
For the past century, a major (but incorrect) assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques has been that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. Unfortunately, few have questioned this huge and critical assumption (a).
It is also critical that one understands how a dating clock works. For radiometric dating clocks on Earth, this is explained in the chapter “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity on pages 367–416. [here ]. After studying that chapter, you will see that Earth’s radioactivity—and the many daughter products that misled so many into thinking that the Earth was billions of years old—are a result of powerful electrical activity during the flood, only about 5,000 years ago.
a . Larry Vardiman et al., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 2005).
Earlier researchers have argued that radioactive decay rates were much faster in the past. See:
"Lead and Helium Diffusion" on page 40 [ here ].
Robert V. Gentry, “On the Invariance of the Decay Constant over Geological Time, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 5, September 1968, pp. 83–84.
Robert V. Gentry, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, 2nd edition (Knoxville, Tennessee: Earth Sciences Associates, 1988), p. 282.
Paul A. Ramdohr, “New Observations on Radioactive Halos and Radioactive Fracturing, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Translation (ORNL-tr-755), 26 August 1965, pp. 16–25.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Hear the scientists respond.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
"Creationism isn't supported by science. This is the truth about creationist scientists. Their phd's exists for the sole purpose of inflating the credibility of the institutions they represent"
Now show us Walt Brown's record on his contribution to peer reviewed publications.
Now show us Walt Brown's record on his contribution to peer reviewed publications.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Now, as a rebuttal, no doubt we can expect the re-pasting of another chapter.
Science Disproves Evolution
This shows how credible a PhD is:
Believe It: Zoe the Cat, PhD. | TIME.com
Believe It: Zoe the Cat, PhD. | TIME.com
Science Disproves Evolution
Corals and Caves
Estimated old ages for the Earth are frequently based on “clocks that today are ticking at extremely slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were thought to have always been very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show that no known coral formation need be older than 3,400 years (a). A similar comment can be made for growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites in caves (b). [See figure 145 here]
Figure 27: Stalagmites. Water from an underground spring was channeled to this spot on a river bank for only one year. In that time, limestone built up around sticks lying on the bank. Limestone deposits can form rapidly if the groundwater’s chemistry is favorable. Just because stalactites and stalagmites are growing slowly today does not mean they must be millions of years old. As we will see in Part II, conditions after the flood provided the ideal chemistry for rapidly forming such features.
a. Ariel A. Roth, “Coral Reef G
rowth, Origins, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1979, pp. 88–95.
J. Th. Verstelle, “The Growth Rate at Various Depths of Coral Reefs in the Dutch East Indian Archipelago, Treubia, Vol. 14, 1932, pp. 117–126.
b. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1984), pp. 335–336.
Larry S. Helmick, Joseph Rohde, and Amy Ross, “Rapid Growth of Dripstone Observed, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 14, June 1977, pp. 13–17.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show that no known coral formation need be older than 3,400 years
And just where are these "More accurate measurements", and made by whom?
Even then, just what do you class as "Favourable Growth Conditions"? It may have escaped your notice, but the world is never in a constant state of "Favourable Growth Conditions".
Don't tell me - 'measurements' courtesy of Walt Brown's imagination, with no citation to any sources for his claims. Or have you revealed this previously in yet another imaginary post which you still fail to be able to identify, despite having repeatedly claimed its existence?
As for stalactites / stalagmites - the growth rate is dependant on the drip rate & evaporation rate. If the drip rate is too fast the sedimentation is merely washed away. In order for them to exist the drip rate has to be slow enough for the minerals to settle & the surface moisture to move on / evaporate. You cannot make stalactites / stalagmites of the sizes that exist in a short time span.
Come on... Post Numbers. We're still waiting. The more you refuse to back up your claim the more you are conceding defeat. After all, we all know why you can't back it up - because you can't. It never happened. Just more Pahu / Dolt Brown BS.
And just where are these "More accurate measurements", and made by whom?
Even then, just what do you class as "Favourable Growth Conditions"? It may have escaped your notice, but the world is never in a constant state of "Favourable Growth Conditions".
Don't tell me - 'measurements' courtesy of Walt Brown's imagination, with no citation to any sources for his claims. Or have you revealed this previously in yet another imaginary post which you still fail to be able to identify, despite having repeatedly claimed its existence?
As for stalactites / stalagmites - the growth rate is dependant on the drip rate & evaporation rate. If the drip rate is too fast the sedimentation is merely washed away. In order for them to exist the drip rate has to be slow enough for the minerals to settle & the surface moisture to move on / evaporate. You cannot make stalactites / stalagmites of the sizes that exist in a short time span.
Come on... Post Numbers. We're still waiting. The more you refuse to back up your claim the more you are conceding defeat. After all, we all know why you can't back it up - because you can't. It never happened. Just more Pahu / Dolt Brown BS.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490353 wrote: And just where are these "More accurate measurements", and made by whom?
They are found in the end notes.
They are found in the end notes.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490361 wrote: They are found in the end notes.
As I thought - from the ravings of Walt Brown. Even without checking out the validity of the books & their authors, I note that the most recent of these "more accurate" publications is over 30 years old.
As I thought - from the ravings of Walt Brown. Even without checking out the validity of the books & their authors, I note that the most recent of these "more accurate" publications is over 30 years old.
Science Disproves Evolution
Just as I thought:
Arial A. Roth - Creationist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_A._Roth
Verstelle - Creationist
The Evidence for Rapid Reef-Building
Let's examine the "real-world evidence" cited for this conclusion. Every one of the creationist web pages I found seem to be relying, directly or indirectly, on two papers, one by Arthur Chadwick, and an Origins paper by A. A. Roth. These papers list various estimates of reef growth rates from a variety of methods. Most of the estimates cited by Chadwick and Roth give long ages for the growth of a 1,400m coral reef. However, both authors include a single anamalously high estimate rate of 414mm(!)/yr. These estimates were based on "soundings" done in the early 1930's. They cite only a single source for this astounding rate, a 1932 paper by J. Verstelle, 'The Growth Rate at Various Depths of Coral Reefs in the Dutch East-Indian Archipelago', Treubia 14:117-126, 1932.
http://www.oocities.org/earthhistory/reef.htm
Ian T. Taylor - Creationist
Things that make creationists look stupid – Pharyngula
As for the final one - he even admits to it being Creationist biased.
There - every single one of your / Brown's endnotes debunked as being unscientific, outdated & not original measurements - and I didn't need to do much Googling to find them. Just enter the names, and up they come as raving Creationists making wild claims based on someone else's questionable research from the 1930s, having made no further research of their own.
And I'm still waiting for your post numbers.
Arial A. Roth - Creationist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_A._Roth
Verstelle - Creationist
The Evidence for Rapid Reef-Building
Let's examine the "real-world evidence" cited for this conclusion. Every one of the creationist web pages I found seem to be relying, directly or indirectly, on two papers, one by Arthur Chadwick, and an Origins paper by A. A. Roth. These papers list various estimates of reef growth rates from a variety of methods. Most of the estimates cited by Chadwick and Roth give long ages for the growth of a 1,400m coral reef. However, both authors include a single anamalously high estimate rate of 414mm(!)/yr. These estimates were based on "soundings" done in the early 1930's. They cite only a single source for this astounding rate, a 1932 paper by J. Verstelle, 'The Growth Rate at Various Depths of Coral Reefs in the Dutch East-Indian Archipelago', Treubia 14:117-126, 1932.
http://www.oocities.org/earthhistory/reef.htm
Ian T. Taylor - Creationist
Things that make creationists look stupid – Pharyngula
As for the final one - he even admits to it being Creationist biased.
There - every single one of your / Brown's endnotes debunked as being unscientific, outdated & not original measurements - and I didn't need to do much Googling to find them. Just enter the names, and up they come as raving Creationists making wild claims based on someone else's questionable research from the 1930s, having made no further research of their own.
And I'm still waiting for your post numbers.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490362 wrote: As I thought - from the ravings of Walt Brown. Even without checking out the validity of the books & their authors, I note that the most recent of these "more accurate" publications is over 30 years old.
So what? Are the facts of science changed by time?
So what? Are the facts of science changed by time?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490363 wrote: Just as I thought:
Arial A. Roth - Creationist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_A._Roth
Verstelle - Creationist
http://www.oocities.org/earthhistory/reef.htm
Ian T. Taylor - Creationist
Things that make creationists look stupid – Pharyngula
As for the final one - he even admits to it being Creationist biased.
There - every single one of your / Brown's endnotes debunked as being unscientific, outdated & not original measurements - and I didn't need to do much Googling to find them. Just enter the names, and up they come as raving Creationists making wild claims based on someone else's questionable research from the 1930s, having made no further research of their own.
50-Year Study Shows Coral 'Clocks' Unreliable
Some biologists like to say that massive coral reefs represent more than 100,000 years of growth, supposedly nullifying the Bible's account of a world that is only thousands of years old. However, many known factors can affect coral reef growth rates. Now, a 50-year study of Caribbean coral reefs confirms the unpredictability of using such growth as a "clock."
Researchers in the past have assumed that by measuring the rate of growth of a coral reef, as well as the total size of the reef, they can estimate how long it took corals to build it. One big problem with this "natural clock" system is that the growth rate of corals is inconsistent and relies on a host of changing variables.
Coral reef growth rates change with available nutrition, physical weathering, water temperature, light penetration (and therefore sea floor depth or sea level changes), and other factors. Soft corals have soft bodies that do not deposit limestone "homes," but hard corals can leave behind rocky records if subsequent generations continue to add material. So, since hard corals grow very fast in some conditions and very slow in others, there is no reliable rate of growth to apply when estimating the age of hard coral reefs.
One 1972 "largely hypothetical" estimate of coral reef growth rate, based on adding up guesses for those factors affecting reef growth, was 1,000 grams (over two pounds) per square meter (more than 10 square feet) each year. But the authors admitted that "more rapid rates of sea level rise several thousand years ago probably were accompanied by greater net (and gross) production."1
Gene Shinn, now a researcher with the United States Geological Survey, began measuring coral reef growth rates in the Florida Keys back in 1960. He inserted stainless steel rods into live hard corals and took pictures throughout the Caribbean over the years. By comparing photographs taken from then until 2010, Shinn tracked coral reef measurements for 50 years.
He found that starting in the late 1970s, disease diminished the corals and that "unfortunately, coral reef growth and structure continues to deteriorate today."2 Thus, disease is yet another important factor that can alter coral reef growth rates.
Applying Shinn's measured growth rate of zero during the period from around 1980 to 2010, coral reefs would take infinite time to grow—which is to say they should not exist. On the other hand, corals can grow extraordinarily fast in the absence of disease and with slightly warmer water and a gradually subsiding ocean floor to keep the coral near to light.
Drs. John Whitcomb and Henry Morris noted this in 1961, citing a study that found 20 centimeters of coral reef growth in five years. They wrote, "This rate of growth could certainly account for most of the coral reef depths around the world even during the few thousand years since the Deluge."3
Like any process used as a natural clock, one must assume a constant rate for that process through history. But when it comes to using coral reefs as such a clock, their growth rates have proved to be less than reliable and therefore do not challenge the Genesis record of a young world.
References
1. Chave, K. E., S. V. Smith and K. J. Roy. 1972. Carbonate production by coral reefs. Marine Geology. 12 (2): 123-140.
2. Corals: A 50-Year Photographic Record of Changes. U. S. Geological Survey online video. Posted on usgs.gov, accessed January 17, 2011.
3. Morris, H. M. and J. C. Whitcomb. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Phillipsburgh, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 408.
50-Year Study Shows Coral 'Clocks' Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research
Arial A. Roth - Creationist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_A._Roth
Verstelle - Creationist
http://www.oocities.org/earthhistory/reef.htm
Ian T. Taylor - Creationist
Things that make creationists look stupid – Pharyngula
As for the final one - he even admits to it being Creationist biased.
There - every single one of your / Brown's endnotes debunked as being unscientific, outdated & not original measurements - and I didn't need to do much Googling to find them. Just enter the names, and up they come as raving Creationists making wild claims based on someone else's questionable research from the 1930s, having made no further research of their own.
50-Year Study Shows Coral 'Clocks' Unreliable
Some biologists like to say that massive coral reefs represent more than 100,000 years of growth, supposedly nullifying the Bible's account of a world that is only thousands of years old. However, many known factors can affect coral reef growth rates. Now, a 50-year study of Caribbean coral reefs confirms the unpredictability of using such growth as a "clock."
Researchers in the past have assumed that by measuring the rate of growth of a coral reef, as well as the total size of the reef, they can estimate how long it took corals to build it. One big problem with this "natural clock" system is that the growth rate of corals is inconsistent and relies on a host of changing variables.
Coral reef growth rates change with available nutrition, physical weathering, water temperature, light penetration (and therefore sea floor depth or sea level changes), and other factors. Soft corals have soft bodies that do not deposit limestone "homes," but hard corals can leave behind rocky records if subsequent generations continue to add material. So, since hard corals grow very fast in some conditions and very slow in others, there is no reliable rate of growth to apply when estimating the age of hard coral reefs.
One 1972 "largely hypothetical" estimate of coral reef growth rate, based on adding up guesses for those factors affecting reef growth, was 1,000 grams (over two pounds) per square meter (more than 10 square feet) each year. But the authors admitted that "more rapid rates of sea level rise several thousand years ago probably were accompanied by greater net (and gross) production."1
Gene Shinn, now a researcher with the United States Geological Survey, began measuring coral reef growth rates in the Florida Keys back in 1960. He inserted stainless steel rods into live hard corals and took pictures throughout the Caribbean over the years. By comparing photographs taken from then until 2010, Shinn tracked coral reef measurements for 50 years.
He found that starting in the late 1970s, disease diminished the corals and that "unfortunately, coral reef growth and structure continues to deteriorate today."2 Thus, disease is yet another important factor that can alter coral reef growth rates.
Applying Shinn's measured growth rate of zero during the period from around 1980 to 2010, coral reefs would take infinite time to grow—which is to say they should not exist. On the other hand, corals can grow extraordinarily fast in the absence of disease and with slightly warmer water and a gradually subsiding ocean floor to keep the coral near to light.
Drs. John Whitcomb and Henry Morris noted this in 1961, citing a study that found 20 centimeters of coral reef growth in five years. They wrote, "This rate of growth could certainly account for most of the coral reef depths around the world even during the few thousand years since the Deluge."3
Like any process used as a natural clock, one must assume a constant rate for that process through history. But when it comes to using coral reefs as such a clock, their growth rates have proved to be less than reliable and therefore do not challenge the Genesis record of a young world.
References
1. Chave, K. E., S. V. Smith and K. J. Roy. 1972. Carbonate production by coral reefs. Marine Geology. 12 (2): 123-140.
2. Corals: A 50-Year Photographic Record of Changes. U. S. Geological Survey online video. Posted on usgs.gov, accessed January 17, 2011.
3. Morris, H. M. and J. C. Whitcomb. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Phillipsburgh, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 408.
50-Year Study Shows Coral 'Clocks' Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The very source of the pasting shows the content to be unreliable.
Another thing that is conspicuous by its absence is the effect modern man is having on Climate Change - something that has been PROVED to have a detrimental effect on coral growth.
Another thing is that is makes claim to other people's research as being "guesses", but without explaining how so, what the original figures were & what the supposedly new figures were.
Facts in science never change. A fact exists. It is there for all to see. Interpretation of those facts do change as further facts come to light. If the facts do not agree with the interpretation, the interpretation changes to fit the facts. When you have a blue piece of jigsaw & think you have a piece of sky, it might not be until much later when you discover that, in fact it was a piece of the sea. That is the way of science, unlike the way of Creationism which sees facts which conflict with their interpretion as being a threat to their fantasies, and therefore denounce those facts as false, unreliable, non-existent or simply ignore them as being irrelevant. They would take that piece of jigsaw & hammer it into the sky, claiming that the piece itself is correct, but that the rest of the jigsaw is wrong.
Another thing that is conspicuous by its absence is the effect modern man is having on Climate Change - something that has been PROVED to have a detrimental effect on coral growth.
Another thing is that is makes claim to other people's research as being "guesses", but without explaining how so, what the original figures were & what the supposedly new figures were.
Facts in science never change. A fact exists. It is there for all to see. Interpretation of those facts do change as further facts come to light. If the facts do not agree with the interpretation, the interpretation changes to fit the facts. When you have a blue piece of jigsaw & think you have a piece of sky, it might not be until much later when you discover that, in fact it was a piece of the sea. That is the way of science, unlike the way of Creationism which sees facts which conflict with their interpretion as being a threat to their fantasies, and therefore denounce those facts as false, unreliable, non-existent or simply ignore them as being irrelevant. They would take that piece of jigsaw & hammer it into the sky, claiming that the piece itself is correct, but that the rest of the jigsaw is wrong.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490418 wrote: The very source of the pasting shows the content to be unreliable.
How does the source make the facts unreliable?
Another thing that is conspicuous by its absence is the effect modern man is having on Climate Change - something that has been PROVED to have a detrimental effect on coral growth.
Climate change is the new name used by liberals for their global warming hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming. The modification in terminology is identical to what liberals did in redefining "evolution" to be "change over time," which of course is a meaningless expression just as "climate change" is.
Climate change occurs naturally, which scientists say has occurred in repeated cycles of cooling (see Ice Ages) and warming over millions of years. Yet many writers have been urging America to fund an ill-conceived initiative to "stop global warming", as if warmer nights or winters would make human life more difficult. The term "climate change" has largely replaced the term "global warming", in ideological discussions.
Ideologues insist that the world's top scientists have reached a "consensus" that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the IPCC, an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.
A lot of money is spent publicizing one side's position in the debate:
"Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. [3]
Journalists omit mention of key scientific points:
Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. [4]
Ideologues use all sorts of tricks to convince the general public to support them on the climate change issue. A perennial favorite is to trumpet the current year as the "warmest year on record", as if one outlier denotes a trend. Probably the most insidious kind of trick is to accuse objective people of cherry-picking and censorship, while hypocritically doing just that themselves.
The allegedly harmful effects of climate change include warming temperatures, changing weather patterns, an increase in sea level and in general any climate event affected by global warming.[1] Climate change is one of the top environmental issues, with liberals and conservatives evenly divided on whether global warming is man-made or, if it is significantly occurring, is a natural event — along with global cooling.
Jack M. Hollander wrote:
The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural climate history for millions of years. So what is the global warming debate about? It's about the proposition that human use of fossil fuels has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But media coverage of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on politics than on science. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly politicized that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. [2]
Climate change - Conservapedia
Another thing is that is makes claim to other people's research as being "guesses", but without explaining how so, what the original figures were & what the supposedly new figures were.
Facts in science never change. A fact exists. It is there for all to see. Interpretation of those facts do change as further facts come to light. If the facts do not agree with the interpretation, the interpretation changes to fit the facts.
Unless those facts disagree with dearly held false preconceptions such as evolution. Then the facts are bent to fit the interpretation.
When you have a blue piece of jigsaw & think you have a piece of sky, it might not be until much later when you discover that, in fact it was a piece of the sea. That is the way of science, unlike the way of Creationism which sees facts which conflict with their interpretion as being a threat to their fantasies, and therefore denounce those facts as false, unreliable, non-existent or simply ignore them as being irrelevant. They would take that piece of jigsaw & hammer it into the sky, claiming that the piece itself is correct, but that the rest of the jigsaw is wrong.
Actually, you are describing evolutionism, not creationism, which always goes where the evidence leads.
How does the source make the facts unreliable?
Another thing that is conspicuous by its absence is the effect modern man is having on Climate Change - something that has been PROVED to have a detrimental effect on coral growth.
Climate change is the new name used by liberals for their global warming hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming. The modification in terminology is identical to what liberals did in redefining "evolution" to be "change over time," which of course is a meaningless expression just as "climate change" is.
Climate change occurs naturally, which scientists say has occurred in repeated cycles of cooling (see Ice Ages) and warming over millions of years. Yet many writers have been urging America to fund an ill-conceived initiative to "stop global warming", as if warmer nights or winters would make human life more difficult. The term "climate change" has largely replaced the term "global warming", in ideological discussions.
Ideologues insist that the world's top scientists have reached a "consensus" that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the IPCC, an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.
A lot of money is spent publicizing one side's position in the debate:
"Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. [3]
Journalists omit mention of key scientific points:
Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. [4]
Ideologues use all sorts of tricks to convince the general public to support them on the climate change issue. A perennial favorite is to trumpet the current year as the "warmest year on record", as if one outlier denotes a trend. Probably the most insidious kind of trick is to accuse objective people of cherry-picking and censorship, while hypocritically doing just that themselves.
The allegedly harmful effects of climate change include warming temperatures, changing weather patterns, an increase in sea level and in general any climate event affected by global warming.[1] Climate change is one of the top environmental issues, with liberals and conservatives evenly divided on whether global warming is man-made or, if it is significantly occurring, is a natural event — along with global cooling.
Jack M. Hollander wrote:
The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural climate history for millions of years. So what is the global warming debate about? It's about the proposition that human use of fossil fuels has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But media coverage of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on politics than on science. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly politicized that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. [2]
Climate change - Conservapedia
Another thing is that is makes claim to other people's research as being "guesses", but without explaining how so, what the original figures were & what the supposedly new figures were.
Facts in science never change. A fact exists. It is there for all to see. Interpretation of those facts do change as further facts come to light. If the facts do not agree with the interpretation, the interpretation changes to fit the facts.
Unless those facts disagree with dearly held false preconceptions such as evolution. Then the facts are bent to fit the interpretation.
When you have a blue piece of jigsaw & think you have a piece of sky, it might not be until much later when you discover that, in fact it was a piece of the sea. That is the way of science, unlike the way of Creationism which sees facts which conflict with their interpretion as being a threat to their fantasies, and therefore denounce those facts as false, unreliable, non-existent or simply ignore them as being irrelevant. They would take that piece of jigsaw & hammer it into the sky, claiming that the piece itself is correct, but that the rest of the jigsaw is wrong.
Actually, you are describing evolutionism, not creationism, which always goes where the evidence leads.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
1. The reason the source is unreliable is that it's another Creationist source & therefore biased, misrepresenting & cherry picking in nature.
2. So, not only do you deny the evidence for evolution, you're also denying the evidence for Climate Change? Why doesn't that surprise me? You're a master of ignoring scientific evidence & denying its existence, presuming yourself to be a higher authority than the combined authorities on the subject worldwide with the argument "Because I Said So".
3. Scientific theories are the ones that change according to the evidence. However, when this does happen you simply claim it to be science proving it wrong. Creationism refuses to change, despite the evidence or, more to the point, blindly denies / ignores the evidence, using hearsay & folklore as "Facts".
2. So, not only do you deny the evidence for evolution, you're also denying the evidence for Climate Change? Why doesn't that surprise me? You're a master of ignoring scientific evidence & denying its existence, presuming yourself to be a higher authority than the combined authorities on the subject worldwide with the argument "Because I Said So".
3. Scientific theories are the ones that change according to the evidence. However, when this does happen you simply claim it to be science proving it wrong. Creationism refuses to change, despite the evidence or, more to the point, blindly denies / ignores the evidence, using hearsay & folklore as "Facts".
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490430 wrote: 1. The reason the source is unreliable is that it's another Creationist source & therefore biased, misrepresenting & cherry picking in nature.
Wrong! Creationist sources are always the truth based on the facts of science. It is the evolutionist sources that are biased, misrepresenting & cherry picking in nature.
2. So, not only do you deny the evidence for evolution, you're also denying the evidence for Climate Change? Why doesn't that surprise me? You're a master of ignoring scientific evidence & denying its existence, presuming yourself to be a higher authority than the combined authorities on the subject worldwide with the argument "Because I Said So".
Science disproves evolution and Climate Change.
3. Scientific theories are the ones that change according to the evidence. However, when this does happen you simply claim it to be science proving it wrong. Creationism refuses to change, despite the evidence or, more to the point, blindly denies / ignores the evidence, using hearsay & folklore as "Facts".
False! Creationism is based on the facts of science.
Wrong! Creationist sources are always the truth based on the facts of science. It is the evolutionist sources that are biased, misrepresenting & cherry picking in nature.
2. So, not only do you deny the evidence for evolution, you're also denying the evidence for Climate Change? Why doesn't that surprise me? You're a master of ignoring scientific evidence & denying its existence, presuming yourself to be a higher authority than the combined authorities on the subject worldwide with the argument "Because I Said So".
Science disproves evolution and Climate Change.
3. Scientific theories are the ones that change according to the evidence. However, when this does happen you simply claim it to be science proving it wrong. Creationism refuses to change, despite the evidence or, more to the point, blindly denies / ignores the evidence, using hearsay & folklore as "Facts".
False! Creationism is based on the facts of science.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
In the beginning, God created Evolution.
Science Disproves Evolution
God is on the Ropes: The New Science that has Creationists Terrified
Darwin also didn’t have anything to say about how life got started in the first place — which still leaves a mighty big role for God to play, for those who are so inclined. But that could be about to change, and things could get a whole lot worse for creationists because of Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. “Under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life, he was quoted as saying in an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider. In essence, he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.
Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still?
That passage goes right to the heart of the matter. Evolution is no more a violation of the Second Law than life itself is. A more extensive, lighthearted, non-technical treatment of the creationist’s misunderstanding and what’s really going on can be found here.
The driving flow of energy — whether from the sun or some other source — can give rise to what are known as dissipative structures, which are self-organized by the process of dissipating the energy that flows through them. Russian-born Belgian physical chemist Ilya Prigogine won the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work developing the concept. All living things are dissipative structures, as are many non-living things as well — cyclones, hurricanes and tornados, for example. Without explicitly using the term “dissipative structures, the passage above went on to invoke them thus:
Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
Darwin also didn’t have anything to say about how life got started in the first place — which still leaves a mighty big role for God to play, for those who are so inclined. But that could be about to change, and things could get a whole lot worse for creationists because of Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. “Under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life, he was quoted as saying in an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider. In essence, he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.
Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still?
That passage goes right to the heart of the matter. Evolution is no more a violation of the Second Law than life itself is. A more extensive, lighthearted, non-technical treatment of the creationist’s misunderstanding and what’s really going on can be found here.
The driving flow of energy — whether from the sun or some other source — can give rise to what are known as dissipative structures, which are self-organized by the process of dissipating the energy that flows through them. Russian-born Belgian physical chemist Ilya Prigogine won the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work developing the concept. All living things are dissipative structures, as are many non-living things as well — cyclones, hurricanes and tornados, for example. Without explicitly using the term “dissipative structures, the passage above went on to invoke them thus:
Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1490485 wrote: God is on the Ropes: The New Science that has Creationists Terrified
Darwin also didn’t have anything to say about how life got started in the first place — which still leaves a mighty big role for God to play, for those who are so inclined. But that could be about to change, and things could get a whole lot worse for creationists because of Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. “Under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life, he was quoted as saying in an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider. In essence, he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.
He is wrong! God created life.
Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still?
That passage goes right to the heart of the matter. Evolution is no more a violation of the Second Law than life itself is. A more extensive, lighthearted, non-technical treatment of the creationist’s misunderstanding and what’s really going on can be found here.
The driving flow of energy — whether from the sun or some other source — can give rise to what are known as dissipative structures, which are self-organized by the process of dissipating the energy that flows through them. Russian-born Belgian physical chemist Ilya Prigogine won the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work developing the concept. All living things are dissipative structures, as are many non-living things as well — cyclones, hurricanes and tornados, for example. Without explicitly using the term “dissipative structures, the passage above went on to invoke them thus:
Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
Nonsense! Here are the facts:
Entropy and Open Systems
The most devastating and conclusive argument against evolution is the entropy principle. This principle (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) implies that, in the present order of things, evolution in the "vertical" sense (that is, from one degree of order and complexity to a higher degree of order and complexity) is completely impossible.
The evolutionary model of origins and development requires some universal principle which increases order, causing random particles eventually to organize themselves into complex chemicals, non-living systems to become living cells, and populations of worms to evolve into human societies. However the only naturalistic scientific principle which is known to effect real changes in order is the Second Law, which describes a situation of universally deteriorating order.
"This law states that all natural processes generate entropy, a measure of disorder"1
"Entropy, in short, is the measurement of molecular disorder. The law of the irreversible increase in entropy is a law of progressive disorganization, of the complete disappearance of the initial conditions."2
It can hardly be questioned that evolution is at least superficially contradicted by entropy. The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order. Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they don’t know how.
"In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order. The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward."3
"Back of the spontaneous generation of life under other conditions than now obtain upon this planet, there occurred a spontaneous generation of elements of the kind that still goes on in the stars; and back of that I suppose a spontaneous generation of elementary particles under circumstances still to be fathomed, that ended in giving them the properties that alone make possible the universe we know."4
"Life might be described as an unexpected force that somehow organizes inanimate matter into a living system that perceives, reacts to, and evolves to cope with changes to the physical environment that threatens to destroy its organization."5
When confronted directly with this problem (e.g., in creation/evolution debates), evolutionists often will completely ignore it. Some will honestly admit they do not know how to resolve the problem but will simply express confidence that there must be a way, since otherwise one would have to believe in supernatural creation. As Wald says:
"In this strange paper I have ventured to suggest that natural selection of a sort has extended even beyond the elements, to determine the properties of protons and electrons. Curious as that seems, it is a possibility worth weighing against the only alternative I can imagine, Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist."6
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
[continue]
Darwin also didn’t have anything to say about how life got started in the first place — which still leaves a mighty big role for God to play, for those who are so inclined. But that could be about to change, and things could get a whole lot worse for creationists because of Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. “Under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life, he was quoted as saying in an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider. In essence, he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.
He is wrong! God created life.
Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still?
That passage goes right to the heart of the matter. Evolution is no more a violation of the Second Law than life itself is. A more extensive, lighthearted, non-technical treatment of the creationist’s misunderstanding and what’s really going on can be found here.
The driving flow of energy — whether from the sun or some other source — can give rise to what are known as dissipative structures, which are self-organized by the process of dissipating the energy that flows through them. Russian-born Belgian physical chemist Ilya Prigogine won the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work developing the concept. All living things are dissipative structures, as are many non-living things as well — cyclones, hurricanes and tornados, for example. Without explicitly using the term “dissipative structures, the passage above went on to invoke them thus:
Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
Nonsense! Here are the facts:
Entropy and Open Systems
The most devastating and conclusive argument against evolution is the entropy principle. This principle (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) implies that, in the present order of things, evolution in the "vertical" sense (that is, from one degree of order and complexity to a higher degree of order and complexity) is completely impossible.
The evolutionary model of origins and development requires some universal principle which increases order, causing random particles eventually to organize themselves into complex chemicals, non-living systems to become living cells, and populations of worms to evolve into human societies. However the only naturalistic scientific principle which is known to effect real changes in order is the Second Law, which describes a situation of universally deteriorating order.
"This law states that all natural processes generate entropy, a measure of disorder"1
"Entropy, in short, is the measurement of molecular disorder. The law of the irreversible increase in entropy is a law of progressive disorganization, of the complete disappearance of the initial conditions."2
It can hardly be questioned that evolution is at least superficially contradicted by entropy. The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order. Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they don’t know how.
"In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order. The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward."3
"Back of the spontaneous generation of life under other conditions than now obtain upon this planet, there occurred a spontaneous generation of elements of the kind that still goes on in the stars; and back of that I suppose a spontaneous generation of elementary particles under circumstances still to be fathomed, that ended in giving them the properties that alone make possible the universe we know."4
"Life might be described as an unexpected force that somehow organizes inanimate matter into a living system that perceives, reacts to, and evolves to cope with changes to the physical environment that threatens to destroy its organization."5
When confronted directly with this problem (e.g., in creation/evolution debates), evolutionists often will completely ignore it. Some will honestly admit they do not know how to resolve the problem but will simply express confidence that there must be a way, since otherwise one would have to believe in supernatural creation. As Wald says:
"In this strange paper I have ventured to suggest that natural selection of a sort has extended even beyond the elements, to determine the properties of protons and electrons. Curious as that seems, it is a possibility worth weighing against the only alternative I can imagine, Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist."6
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
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Entropy and Open Systems
[continued]
By far the majority of evolutionists, however, attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant. The earth and its biosphere are open systems, with an ample supply of energy coming in from the sun to do the work of building up the complexity of these systems. Furthermore, they cite specific examples of systems in which the order increases, (such as the growth of a crystal out of solution, the growth of a seed or embryo into an adult plant or animal, or the growth of a small Stone Age population into a large complex technological culture) as proof that the Second Law does not inhibit the growth of more highly-ordered systems.
Arguments and examples such as these, however, are specious arguments. It is like arguing that, since NASA was able to put men on the moon, therefore it is reasonable to believe cows can jump over the moon! Creationists have for over a decade been emphasizing that the Second Law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system. The great French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically, as acknowledged by Layzer:
"Borel showed that no finite physical system can be considered closed."8
Creationists have long acknowledged (in fact emphasized) that order can and does increase in certain special types of open systems, but this is no proof that order increases in every open system! The statement that "the earth is an open system" is a vacuous statement containing no specific information, since all systems are open systems.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system."
If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that "open" system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will proceed to decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
To cite special cases (such as the seed, for which the genetic code and the conversion mechanism of photosynthesis are available) is futile, as far as "evolution" is concerned, since there is neither a directing program nor a conversion apparatus available to produce an imaginary evolutionary growth in complexity of the earth and its biosphere.
It is even more futile to refer to inorganic processes such as crystallization as evidence of evolution. Even Prigogine recognizes this:
"The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly-ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred."9
Thus the highly specialized conditions that enable crystals to form and plants and animals to grow have nothing whatever to do with evolution. These special conditions themselves (that is, the marvelous process of photosynthesis, the complex information programs in the living cell, even the electrochemical properties of the molecules in the crystal, etc.) could never arise by chance — their own complexity could never have been produced within the constraints imposed by the Second Law. But without these, the crystal would not form, and the seed would never grow.
But what is the information code that tells primeval random particles how to organize themselves into stars and planets, and what is the conversion mechanism that transforms amoebas into men? These are questions that are not answered by a specious reference to the earth as an open system! And until they are answered, the Second Law makes evolution appear quite impossible.
To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently very few) who recognize the critical nature of this problem and are trying to solve it. Prigogine has proposed an involved theory of "order through fluctuations" and "dissipative structures."10
But his examples are from inorganic systems and he acknowledges that there is a long way to go to explain how these become living systems by his theory.
"But let us have no illusions, our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms."11
Another recent writer who has partially recognized the seriousness of this problem is Charles J. Smith.
"The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. I would go further and include the problem of meaning and value."12
Whether rank-and-file evolutionists know it or not, this problem they have with entropy is thus "one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." It is more than a problem, in fact, it is a devastating denial of the evolution model itself. It will continue to be so until evolutionists can demonstrate that the vast imagined evolutionary continuum in space and time has both a program to guide it and an energy converter to empower it. Otherwise, the Second Law precludes it.
It is conceivable, though extremely unlikely that evolutionists may eventually formulate a plausible code and mechanism to explain how both entropy and evolution could co-exist. Even if they do, however, the evolution model will still not be as good as the creation model. At the most, such a suggestion would constitute a secondary modification of the basic evolution model. The latter could certainly never predict the Second Law.
The evolution model cannot yet even explain the Second Law, but the creation model predicts it! The creationist is not embarrassed or perplexed by entropy, since it is exactly what he expects. The creation model postulates a perfect creation of all things completed during the period of special creation in the beginning. From this model, the creationist naturally predicts limited horizontal changes within the created entities (e.g., variations within biologic kinds, enabling them to adapt to environmental changes). If "vertical" changes occur, however, from one level of order to another, they would have to go in the downward direction, toward lower order. The Creator, both omniscient and omnipotent, made all things perfect in the beginning. No process of evolutionary change could improve them, but deteriorative changes could disorder them.
Not only does the creation model predict the entropy principle, but the entropy principle directly points to creation. That is, if all things are now running down to disorder, they must originally have been in a state of high order. Since there is no naturalistic process which could produce such an initial condition, its cause must have been supernatural. The only adequate cause of the initial order and complexity of the universe must have been an omniscient Programmer, and the cause of its boundless power an omnipotent Energizer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, with its principle of increasing entropy, both repudiates the evolution model and strongly confirms the creation model.
Entropy and Open Systems | The Institute for Creation Research
[continued]
By far the majority of evolutionists, however, attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant. The earth and its biosphere are open systems, with an ample supply of energy coming in from the sun to do the work of building up the complexity of these systems. Furthermore, they cite specific examples of systems in which the order increases, (such as the growth of a crystal out of solution, the growth of a seed or embryo into an adult plant or animal, or the growth of a small Stone Age population into a large complex technological culture) as proof that the Second Law does not inhibit the growth of more highly-ordered systems.
Arguments and examples such as these, however, are specious arguments. It is like arguing that, since NASA was able to put men on the moon, therefore it is reasonable to believe cows can jump over the moon! Creationists have for over a decade been emphasizing that the Second Law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system. The great French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically, as acknowledged by Layzer:
"Borel showed that no finite physical system can be considered closed."8
Creationists have long acknowledged (in fact emphasized) that order can and does increase in certain special types of open systems, but this is no proof that order increases in every open system! The statement that "the earth is an open system" is a vacuous statement containing no specific information, since all systems are open systems.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system."
If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that "open" system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will proceed to decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
To cite special cases (such as the seed, for which the genetic code and the conversion mechanism of photosynthesis are available) is futile, as far as "evolution" is concerned, since there is neither a directing program nor a conversion apparatus available to produce an imaginary evolutionary growth in complexity of the earth and its biosphere.
It is even more futile to refer to inorganic processes such as crystallization as evidence of evolution. Even Prigogine recognizes this:
"The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly-ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred."9
Thus the highly specialized conditions that enable crystals to form and plants and animals to grow have nothing whatever to do with evolution. These special conditions themselves (that is, the marvelous process of photosynthesis, the complex information programs in the living cell, even the electrochemical properties of the molecules in the crystal, etc.) could never arise by chance — their own complexity could never have been produced within the constraints imposed by the Second Law. But without these, the crystal would not form, and the seed would never grow.
But what is the information code that tells primeval random particles how to organize themselves into stars and planets, and what is the conversion mechanism that transforms amoebas into men? These are questions that are not answered by a specious reference to the earth as an open system! And until they are answered, the Second Law makes evolution appear quite impossible.
To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently very few) who recognize the critical nature of this problem and are trying to solve it. Prigogine has proposed an involved theory of "order through fluctuations" and "dissipative structures."10
But his examples are from inorganic systems and he acknowledges that there is a long way to go to explain how these become living systems by his theory.
"But let us have no illusions, our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms."11
Another recent writer who has partially recognized the seriousness of this problem is Charles J. Smith.
"The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. I would go further and include the problem of meaning and value."12
Whether rank-and-file evolutionists know it or not, this problem they have with entropy is thus "one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." It is more than a problem, in fact, it is a devastating denial of the evolution model itself. It will continue to be so until evolutionists can demonstrate that the vast imagined evolutionary continuum in space and time has both a program to guide it and an energy converter to empower it. Otherwise, the Second Law precludes it.
It is conceivable, though extremely unlikely that evolutionists may eventually formulate a plausible code and mechanism to explain how both entropy and evolution could co-exist. Even if they do, however, the evolution model will still not be as good as the creation model. At the most, such a suggestion would constitute a secondary modification of the basic evolution model. The latter could certainly never predict the Second Law.
The evolution model cannot yet even explain the Second Law, but the creation model predicts it! The creationist is not embarrassed or perplexed by entropy, since it is exactly what he expects. The creation model postulates a perfect creation of all things completed during the period of special creation in the beginning. From this model, the creationist naturally predicts limited horizontal changes within the created entities (e.g., variations within biologic kinds, enabling them to adapt to environmental changes). If "vertical" changes occur, however, from one level of order to another, they would have to go in the downward direction, toward lower order. The Creator, both omniscient and omnipotent, made all things perfect in the beginning. No process of evolutionary change could improve them, but deteriorative changes could disorder them.
Not only does the creation model predict the entropy principle, but the entropy principle directly points to creation. That is, if all things are now running down to disorder, they must originally have been in a state of high order. Since there is no naturalistic process which could produce such an initial condition, its cause must have been supernatural. The only adequate cause of the initial order and complexity of the universe must have been an omniscient Programmer, and the cause of its boundless power an omnipotent Energizer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, with its principle of increasing entropy, both repudiates the evolution model and strongly confirms the creation model.
Entropy and Open Systems | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Put quite simply, Science doesn't DISprove anything. It only PROVES things, based on the evidence. Anything else is accepted as being possible, no matter how improbable.
Then once again comes the age old question - if God created Life, then who created God? The answer that Creationists always come up with that God has always existed doesn't hold water. It totally goes against your constant quote that nothing comes of nothing. You love to use it to claim physics to be wrong, but continue to use the same rule to prove the existence of a God. You can't just invoke a rule to serve your own purposes & deny anyone else from using the same rules.
Climate change is a fact. Is has been observed. It has been mapped. It has been predicted & has been observed as following the predictions. Patterns of Climate Change in the past have been observed - even you have admitted this much, by accepting the existence of an Ice Age. The difference is that you hat it was caused by the Nuclear Winter as a result of an asteroid impacting the earth - although you have offered no alternative explanation. This is what happens when you get pollution in the atmosphere. It affects the natural atmospheric filtration from harmful radiation. No doubt you also deny the existence of Polar Shifting, despite the evidence to prove that exists as well.
Put quite simply, any evidence that doesn't meet what a Creationist wants to believe is instantly dismissed as non-existant or flawed. A scientific viewpoint changes according to the evidence. A Creationist's viewpoint doesn't change DESPITE the evidence.
Then once again comes the age old question - if God created Life, then who created God? The answer that Creationists always come up with that God has always existed doesn't hold water. It totally goes against your constant quote that nothing comes of nothing. You love to use it to claim physics to be wrong, but continue to use the same rule to prove the existence of a God. You can't just invoke a rule to serve your own purposes & deny anyone else from using the same rules.
Climate change is a fact. Is has been observed. It has been mapped. It has been predicted & has been observed as following the predictions. Patterns of Climate Change in the past have been observed - even you have admitted this much, by accepting the existence of an Ice Age. The difference is that you hat it was caused by the Nuclear Winter as a result of an asteroid impacting the earth - although you have offered no alternative explanation. This is what happens when you get pollution in the atmosphere. It affects the natural atmospheric filtration from harmful radiation. No doubt you also deny the existence of Polar Shifting, despite the evidence to prove that exists as well.
Put quite simply, any evidence that doesn't meet what a Creationist wants to believe is instantly dismissed as non-existant or flawed. A scientific viewpoint changes according to the evidence. A Creationist's viewpoint doesn't change DESPITE the evidence.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490496 wrote: Put quite simply, Science doesn't DISprove anything. It only PROVES things, based on the evidence. Anything else is accepted as being possible, no matter how improbable.
Science prove creation thus disproving evolution.
Then once again comes the age old question - if God created Life, then who created God? The answer that Creationists always come up with that God has always existed doesn't hold water. It totally goes against your constant quote that nothing comes of nothing. You love to use it to claim physics to be wrong, but continue to use the same rule to prove the existence of a God. You can't just invoke a rule to serve your own purposes & deny anyone else from using the same rules.
No-one created God. He has always existed. I know you don't want to believe that and it is hard to understand with our limited intelligence, but that is what He reveals. It is also impossible to understand the infinity of the universe. Does it end or continue forever? Again, with our limited intelligence, we cannot answer that question.
Climate change is a fact. Is has been observed. It has been mapped. It has been predicted & has been observed as following the predictions. Patterns of Climate Change in the past have been observed - even you have admitted this much, by accepting the existence of an Ice Age. The difference is that you hat it was caused by the Nuclear Winter as a result of an asteroid impacting the earth - although you have offered no alternative explanation. This is what happens when you get pollution in the atmosphere. It affects the natural atmospheric filtration from harmful radiation. No doubt you also deny the existence of Polar Shifting, despite the evidence to prove that exists as well.
Okay, I will admit that the climate has been changing from the beginning, but it is the result of the sun, not man. Even Mars is showing signs of global warming.
Put quite simply, any evidence that doesn't meet what an evolutionist/atheist wants to believe is instantly dismissed as non-existant or flawed. A scientific viewpoint changes according to the evidence. An evolutionist's/atheist's viewpoint doesn't change DESPITE the evidence.
Science prove creation thus disproving evolution.
Then once again comes the age old question - if God created Life, then who created God? The answer that Creationists always come up with that God has always existed doesn't hold water. It totally goes against your constant quote that nothing comes of nothing. You love to use it to claim physics to be wrong, but continue to use the same rule to prove the existence of a God. You can't just invoke a rule to serve your own purposes & deny anyone else from using the same rules.
No-one created God. He has always existed. I know you don't want to believe that and it is hard to understand with our limited intelligence, but that is what He reveals. It is also impossible to understand the infinity of the universe. Does it end or continue forever? Again, with our limited intelligence, we cannot answer that question.
Climate change is a fact. Is has been observed. It has been mapped. It has been predicted & has been observed as following the predictions. Patterns of Climate Change in the past have been observed - even you have admitted this much, by accepting the existence of an Ice Age. The difference is that you hat it was caused by the Nuclear Winter as a result of an asteroid impacting the earth - although you have offered no alternative explanation. This is what happens when you get pollution in the atmosphere. It affects the natural atmospheric filtration from harmful radiation. No doubt you also deny the existence of Polar Shifting, despite the evidence to prove that exists as well.
Okay, I will admit that the climate has been changing from the beginning, but it is the result of the sun, not man. Even Mars is showing signs of global warming.
Put quite simply, any evidence that doesn't meet what an evolutionist/atheist wants to believe is instantly dismissed as non-existant or flawed. A scientific viewpoint changes according to the evidence. An evolutionist's/atheist's viewpoint doesn't change DESPITE the evidence.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You post just serves to confirm everything I said - right down to nothing coming from nothing, except where God is concerned.
Actually, if you want to be picky about things Evolution doesn't disprove Creation, nor vice versa. They are actually different things. Evolution takes something that exists & goes on to gradually change. That is what the definition of evolution is. Ages ago I even gave you a get out option & asked why you couldn't even accept that Evolution might have been part of God's plan. You decided to answer on God's behalf & to deny He ever had any such plan. Of course, He would have consulted with you, personally if He had.
As with any other Creationists you always try to confuse Evolution with astro-physics. Once again - totally different entities. You constantly refer to the Bible as being the word of God, when even the Bible refers to itself as having been written by men.
You should try to learn a bit more about from other sources, other than Dolt Brown. Try to do some thinking for yourself once in a while. Find alternative sources to back up your belief. In all the time you have been continuously pasting from a single book, debunked by the scientific world, I have provided rebuttals taken from multiple sources, to whihc you have merely responded by some more pasting - more often than not on a totally different subject once you see that your case has been proven to be flawed, in the hope that it will be forgotten. You should know that I have a long memory - that is why I've not forgotten that I'm still waiting for this mystic post number where you say you provided the citations to your infamous list of unrelated names & publications.
The difference between Science & Religion is that Scientists are always asking why something is, or isn't, or how something works, trying to understand things based on the evidence, always questioning themselves, getting their peers to review their arguments & to get them to find fault. Scientist know that they only know a fraction of what there is to be known. Religion, on the other hand KNOW that they have all the answers in one little book, and that the only answer can be summarised in one even smaller word - GOD, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever change that. According to the Bible everything came into being in less than a week. Even trees take about 5 year to even develop into saplings, yet a fully formed fruit bearing tree, complete with a resident talking snake suddenly appeared from nowhere by magic. How do we know? Because the Bible said so. Who was there to write down what that talking snake said? No-one. No-one got to making the stories up until thousands of years after the alleged incident.
Take the fairy story of the ark. Just how many animals were supposed to have been in the ark? The dimensions of the ark were clearly given. You could easily come up with an educated guess based on cubic capacity. What about food? 40 days & 40 nights is a pretty long time for the animals to go without food - especially the carnivores, which would have eaten all the others. 100 pairs would be generous, but lets really spread the imagination & make it 1000 pairs. Ok - now - how many species of animals are there on the earth today? I can tell you that it's far more than 1000 - with 1000s more species being discovered every day. Surely this much is simple logic that even you can understand.
Science is based on evidence & the desire for knowledge. Religion is based on faith, which requires no evidence & the denial knowledge.
Actually, if you want to be picky about things Evolution doesn't disprove Creation, nor vice versa. They are actually different things. Evolution takes something that exists & goes on to gradually change. That is what the definition of evolution is. Ages ago I even gave you a get out option & asked why you couldn't even accept that Evolution might have been part of God's plan. You decided to answer on God's behalf & to deny He ever had any such plan. Of course, He would have consulted with you, personally if He had.
As with any other Creationists you always try to confuse Evolution with astro-physics. Once again - totally different entities. You constantly refer to the Bible as being the word of God, when even the Bible refers to itself as having been written by men.
You should try to learn a bit more about from other sources, other than Dolt Brown. Try to do some thinking for yourself once in a while. Find alternative sources to back up your belief. In all the time you have been continuously pasting from a single book, debunked by the scientific world, I have provided rebuttals taken from multiple sources, to whihc you have merely responded by some more pasting - more often than not on a totally different subject once you see that your case has been proven to be flawed, in the hope that it will be forgotten. You should know that I have a long memory - that is why I've not forgotten that I'm still waiting for this mystic post number where you say you provided the citations to your infamous list of unrelated names & publications.
The difference between Science & Religion is that Scientists are always asking why something is, or isn't, or how something works, trying to understand things based on the evidence, always questioning themselves, getting their peers to review their arguments & to get them to find fault. Scientist know that they only know a fraction of what there is to be known. Religion, on the other hand KNOW that they have all the answers in one little book, and that the only answer can be summarised in one even smaller word - GOD, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever change that. According to the Bible everything came into being in less than a week. Even trees take about 5 year to even develop into saplings, yet a fully formed fruit bearing tree, complete with a resident talking snake suddenly appeared from nowhere by magic. How do we know? Because the Bible said so. Who was there to write down what that talking snake said? No-one. No-one got to making the stories up until thousands of years after the alleged incident.
Take the fairy story of the ark. Just how many animals were supposed to have been in the ark? The dimensions of the ark were clearly given. You could easily come up with an educated guess based on cubic capacity. What about food? 40 days & 40 nights is a pretty long time for the animals to go without food - especially the carnivores, which would have eaten all the others. 100 pairs would be generous, but lets really spread the imagination & make it 1000 pairs. Ok - now - how many species of animals are there on the earth today? I can tell you that it's far more than 1000 - with 1000s more species being discovered every day. Surely this much is simple logic that even you can understand.
Science is based on evidence & the desire for knowledge. Religion is based on faith, which requires no evidence & the denial knowledge.
Science Disproves Evolution
Index Fossils 1
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above other types of fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood. [For an explanation, see pages 191-204 ]
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils. Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. [See Figure 29 ] Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content (a), which, as stated above, assumes evolution.
a. “Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur....Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils. Derek V. Ager, “Fossil Frustrations, New Scientist, Vol. 100, 10 November 1983, p. 425.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490521 wrote: You post just serves to confirm everything I said - right down to nothing coming from nothing, except where God is concerned.
God didn't come from nothing. He has always existed.
Actually, if you want to be picky about things Evolution doesn't disprove Creation, nor vice versa. They are actually different things. Evolution takes something that exists & goes on to gradually change. That is what the definition of evolution is.
Change does take place up to a point. It has never been observed that anything changed into a different kind.
Ages ago I even gave you a get out option & asked why you couldn't even accept that Evolution might have been part of God's plan. You decided to answer on God's behalf & to deny He ever had any such plan. Of course, He would have consulted with you, personally if He had.
Yes, God has revealed that He created everything. That is everything was created by intelligent design. Evolution teaches the cause of everything was by natural, mindless forces. Both of those cannot be true.
As with any other Creationists you always try to confuse Evolution with astro-physics. Once again - totally different entities. You constantly refer to the Bible as being the word of God, when even the Bible refers to itself as having been written by men.
No it doesn't. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
If the Bible was written by men, how do you account for the fact that scientific facts were revealed that have only recently been discovered?
And how do you account for the fact of hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies.
You should try to learn a bit more about from other sources, other than Dolt Brown.
Do you also accuse as being dolts the scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions?
Try to do some thinking for yourself once in a while.
I do. Perhaps you should follow your own advice instead of accepting the myth of evolution.
Find alternative sources to back up your belief.
Alterative sources back up the fact that evolution is a myth.
In all the time you have been continuously pasting from a single book, debunked by the scientific world, I have provided rebuttals taken from multiple sources, to whihc you have merely responded by some more pasting - more often than not on a totally different subject once you see that your case has been proven to be flawed, in the hope that it will be forgotten.
Brown has never been debunked or refuted.
The difference between Science & Religion is that Scientists are always asking why something is, or isn't, or how something works, trying to understand things based on the evidence, always questioning themselves, getting their peers to review their arguments & to get them to find fault. Scientist know that they only know a fraction of what there is to be known.
That is true. Evolutionists, on the other hand, try to make the evidence fit their flawed mythology.
Religion, on the other hand KNOW that they have all the answers in one little book, and that the only answer can be summarised in one even smaller word - GOD, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever change that. According to the Bible everything came into being in less than a week. Even trees take about 5 year to even develop into saplings, yet a fully formed fruit bearing tree, complete with a resident talking snake suddenly appeared from nowhere by magic. How do we know? Because the Bible said so. Who was there to write down what that talking snake said? No-one. No-one got to making the stories up until thousands of years after the alleged incident.
God created everything and everyone mature. The Garden of Eden story is symbolical of the beginning of humans as spirit beings who rebelled against God and were confined to Earth for correction and were given physical bodies.
Take the fairy story of the ark. Just how many animals were supposed to have been in the ark? The dimensions of the ark were clearly given. You could easily come up with an educated guess based on cubic capacity. What about food? 40 days & 40 nights is a pretty long time for the animals to go without food - especially the carnivores, which would have eaten all the others. 100 pairs would be generous, but lets really spread the imagination & make it 1000 pairs. Ok - now - how many species of animals are there on the earth today? I can tell you that it's far more than 1000 - with 1000s more species being discovered every day. Surely this much is simple logic that even you can understand.
The Flood was God's project from beginning to end.
Could the Ark have held all the animals? Easily. A small number of humans could build a boata large enough to hold representatives of every air-breathing land animal—about 16,000 animals in all. The Ark, having at least 1,500,000 cubic feet of space, was adequate to hold these animals, their provisions, and all their other needs for one year.
Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark. For example, a few wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.) Could the Ark have held dinosaurs and elephants? Certainly, if they were young.
Science is based on evidence & the desire for knowledge. Religion is based on faith, which requires no evidence & the denial knowledge.
Science is the examination of God's creation and is limited to what can be observed and tested. Christianity is based on God's revelation in areas that science cannot enter.
God didn't come from nothing. He has always existed.
Actually, if you want to be picky about things Evolution doesn't disprove Creation, nor vice versa. They are actually different things. Evolution takes something that exists & goes on to gradually change. That is what the definition of evolution is.
Change does take place up to a point. It has never been observed that anything changed into a different kind.
Ages ago I even gave you a get out option & asked why you couldn't even accept that Evolution might have been part of God's plan. You decided to answer on God's behalf & to deny He ever had any such plan. Of course, He would have consulted with you, personally if He had.
Yes, God has revealed that He created everything. That is everything was created by intelligent design. Evolution teaches the cause of everything was by natural, mindless forces. Both of those cannot be true.
As with any other Creationists you always try to confuse Evolution with astro-physics. Once again - totally different entities. You constantly refer to the Bible as being the word of God, when even the Bible refers to itself as having been written by men.
No it doesn't. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
If the Bible was written by men, how do you account for the fact that scientific facts were revealed that have only recently been discovered?
And how do you account for the fact of hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies.
You should try to learn a bit more about from other sources, other than Dolt Brown.
Do you also accuse as being dolts the scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions?
Try to do some thinking for yourself once in a while.
I do. Perhaps you should follow your own advice instead of accepting the myth of evolution.
Find alternative sources to back up your belief.
Alterative sources back up the fact that evolution is a myth.
In all the time you have been continuously pasting from a single book, debunked by the scientific world, I have provided rebuttals taken from multiple sources, to whihc you have merely responded by some more pasting - more often than not on a totally different subject once you see that your case has been proven to be flawed, in the hope that it will be forgotten.
Brown has never been debunked or refuted.
The difference between Science & Religion is that Scientists are always asking why something is, or isn't, or how something works, trying to understand things based on the evidence, always questioning themselves, getting their peers to review their arguments & to get them to find fault. Scientist know that they only know a fraction of what there is to be known.
That is true. Evolutionists, on the other hand, try to make the evidence fit their flawed mythology.
Religion, on the other hand KNOW that they have all the answers in one little book, and that the only answer can be summarised in one even smaller word - GOD, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever change that. According to the Bible everything came into being in less than a week. Even trees take about 5 year to even develop into saplings, yet a fully formed fruit bearing tree, complete with a resident talking snake suddenly appeared from nowhere by magic. How do we know? Because the Bible said so. Who was there to write down what that talking snake said? No-one. No-one got to making the stories up until thousands of years after the alleged incident.
God created everything and everyone mature. The Garden of Eden story is symbolical of the beginning of humans as spirit beings who rebelled against God and were confined to Earth for correction and were given physical bodies.
Take the fairy story of the ark. Just how many animals were supposed to have been in the ark? The dimensions of the ark were clearly given. You could easily come up with an educated guess based on cubic capacity. What about food? 40 days & 40 nights is a pretty long time for the animals to go without food - especially the carnivores, which would have eaten all the others. 100 pairs would be generous, but lets really spread the imagination & make it 1000 pairs. Ok - now - how many species of animals are there on the earth today? I can tell you that it's far more than 1000 - with 1000s more species being discovered every day. Surely this much is simple logic that even you can understand.
The Flood was God's project from beginning to end.
Could the Ark have held all the animals? Easily. A small number of humans could build a boata large enough to hold representatives of every air-breathing land animal—about 16,000 animals in all. The Ark, having at least 1,500,000 cubic feet of space, was adequate to hold these animals, their provisions, and all their other needs for one year.
Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark. For example, a few wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.) Could the Ark have held dinosaurs and elephants? Certainly, if they were young.
Science is based on evidence & the desire for knowledge. Religion is based on faith, which requires no evidence & the denial knowledge.
Science is the examination of God's creation and is limited to what can be observed and tested. Christianity is based on God's revelation in areas that science cannot enter.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490527 wrote: God didn't come from nothing. He has always existed.
Exactly as I said you would reply. You like to lay down the rules against a scientific explanation, but then use the absolute opposite rules to support your own case. If God exists, then he is 'something'. If he is 'something' then he must have come from 'something' as nothing comes from nothing. This is your argument that you have used countless times against the existence of a particle having always existed before the Big Bang.
Change does take place up to a point. It has never been observed that anything changed into a different kind.
So, you finally admit that evolution DOES exist, but at what level do you accept that something reaches the boundary at which it becomes a different 'kind'? Once again, when challenged to set some rules you shy away from it.
Yes, God has revealed that He created everything. That is everything was created by intelligent design. Evolution teaches the cause of everything was by natural, mindless forces. Both of those cannot be true.
WRONG. Take a look at the definition of Evolution, as given by Evolution | Define Evolution at Dictionary.com
evolution
[ev-uh-loo-shuh n or, esp. British, ee-vuh-]
Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin
noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development:
the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved :
The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements:
the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
Now, where in there does it say anything about 'creating' anything? Evolution is not about creation - it's about change.
No it doesn't. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
I write music & sell my creations. My best works are written when I'm inspired by an emotional experience. That emotion is imagined, albeit real to me. Religious faith is the same. It may be real to the person imagining it, but that's all it is. What they write is inspired by their imagination / belief.
If the Bible was written by men, how do you account for the fact that scientific facts were revealed that have only recently been discovered?
As per usual you make a false statement & presume it to be a fact. I do NOT account for scientific facts to even exist to support your claim. Furthermore, the existence of any scientific facts (for or against) only having been recently discovered is far simpler to answer. Science is only a relatively new discipline, as it was previously outlawed by religious fanatics as heresy for fear that anyone who questioned dogma would learn the truth. Therefore the facts were not found because no-one was allowed to look for them.
And how do you account for the fact of hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies.
And again you begin with a false premise. There are NO accurately filled prophecies, let alone hundreds other than those that are bound to eventually occur through simple law of probability. For example I could start tossing a coin & prophesise that I will get 10 Heads in a row. Eventually I get to throw 10 Heads in a row, and lo & behold, my prophesy has come true. Biblical prophecies are no different to the daily horoscopes to be found in any crappy newspaper or magazine. They are deliberately done so that they can be interpreted by the reader to mean anything they want them to mean, and there are even people who remain convinced as to the accuracy of these horoscopes, even though everyone else's horoscope could just as easily be interpreted to their own birthsign.
Do you also accuse as being dolts the scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions?
And another false premise. Your question implies that there are scientists who confirm his conclusions, and as you are well aware I am still waiting for the post number where you claim to have provided some kind of correlation between Browns famous list of names & the list of publications. It's no use pasting them again as, on their own, without any connecting citation, they are less than meaningless & as such can be considered as non-existent.
I do. Perhaps you should follow your own advice instead of accepting the myth of evolution.
Alterative sources back up the fact that evolution is a myth.
I have already cited you as accepting the existence of evolution. You have said so several times in this very post.
Exactly as I said you would reply. You like to lay down the rules against a scientific explanation, but then use the absolute opposite rules to support your own case. If God exists, then he is 'something'. If he is 'something' then he must have come from 'something' as nothing comes from nothing. This is your argument that you have used countless times against the existence of a particle having always existed before the Big Bang.
Change does take place up to a point. It has never been observed that anything changed into a different kind.
So, you finally admit that evolution DOES exist, but at what level do you accept that something reaches the boundary at which it becomes a different 'kind'? Once again, when challenged to set some rules you shy away from it.
Yes, God has revealed that He created everything. That is everything was created by intelligent design. Evolution teaches the cause of everything was by natural, mindless forces. Both of those cannot be true.
WRONG. Take a look at the definition of Evolution, as given by Evolution | Define Evolution at Dictionary.com
evolution
[ev-uh-loo-shuh n or, esp. British, ee-vuh-]
Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin
noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development:
the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved :
The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements:
the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
Now, where in there does it say anything about 'creating' anything? Evolution is not about creation - it's about change.
No it doesn't. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
I write music & sell my creations. My best works are written when I'm inspired by an emotional experience. That emotion is imagined, albeit real to me. Religious faith is the same. It may be real to the person imagining it, but that's all it is. What they write is inspired by their imagination / belief.
If the Bible was written by men, how do you account for the fact that scientific facts were revealed that have only recently been discovered?
As per usual you make a false statement & presume it to be a fact. I do NOT account for scientific facts to even exist to support your claim. Furthermore, the existence of any scientific facts (for or against) only having been recently discovered is far simpler to answer. Science is only a relatively new discipline, as it was previously outlawed by religious fanatics as heresy for fear that anyone who questioned dogma would learn the truth. Therefore the facts were not found because no-one was allowed to look for them.
And how do you account for the fact of hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies.
And again you begin with a false premise. There are NO accurately filled prophecies, let alone hundreds other than those that are bound to eventually occur through simple law of probability. For example I could start tossing a coin & prophesise that I will get 10 Heads in a row. Eventually I get to throw 10 Heads in a row, and lo & behold, my prophesy has come true. Biblical prophecies are no different to the daily horoscopes to be found in any crappy newspaper or magazine. They are deliberately done so that they can be interpreted by the reader to mean anything they want them to mean, and there are even people who remain convinced as to the accuracy of these horoscopes, even though everyone else's horoscope could just as easily be interpreted to their own birthsign.
Do you also accuse as being dolts the scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions?
And another false premise. Your question implies that there are scientists who confirm his conclusions, and as you are well aware I am still waiting for the post number where you claim to have provided some kind of correlation between Browns famous list of names & the list of publications. It's no use pasting them again as, on their own, without any connecting citation, they are less than meaningless & as such can be considered as non-existent.
I do. Perhaps you should follow your own advice instead of accepting the myth of evolution.
Alterative sources back up the fact that evolution is a myth.
I have already cited you as accepting the existence of evolution. You have said so several times in this very post.
Science Disproves Evolution
Furthermore, alternative sources substantiate the case for evolution.
Brown has never been debunked or refuted.
Oh, come on - I've provided loads of links to peer reviews & videos rebutting him & debunking him as a fraudster.
That is true. Evolutionists, on the other hand, try to make the evidence fit their flawed mythology.
The fundamental difference between Science & Religion is that Scientists question their own findings & get others to challenge them, fitting their idea to suit the evidence, modifying their ideas as & when new evidence is found. True Science is never to accept they have everything right. Religion, on the other hand, by definition requires no evidence as by its very nature it is a non-existent entity and can, therefore, have no evidence, as it is merely a state of mind. The ideas held by the Religious are those that they have been brainwashed to believe by generations of the superstitious to blindly accept, without question the words of a single irrational story book.
God created everything and everyone mature. The Garden of Eden story is symbolical of the beginning of humans as spirit beings who rebelled against God and were confined to Earth for correction and were given physical bodies.
Ah - so now we're changing the rules again. Rather than the Bible being a literal Truth, it is now symbolic. Well, well, we are making progress.
The Flood was God's project from beginning to end.
Could the Ark have held all the animals? Easily. A small number of humans could build a boata large enough to hold representatives of every air-breathing land animal—about 16,000 animals in all. The Ark, having at least 1,500,000 cubic feet of space, was adequate to hold these animals, their provisions, and all their other needs for one year.
Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark. For example, a few wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.) Could the Ark have held dinosaurs and elephants? Certainly, if they were young.
According to the Bible the ark measured 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits. A cubit is approximately 20" (the length of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger). That makes it about the same size as the tower block I live in, laid on its side. The block house up to 250 people - anything more would be overcrowded.
As you must appreciate, elephants, hippos, rhinoceri, giraffes, etc. are a little bit bigger than humans. Futhermore, most animals eat at least their body mass every week - many much more. 40 days & 40 nights is about 6 weeks, is it not? Therefore, as well as the mass of the animals you also have to account for 6 times that in food. Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, there weren't just 2 of every kind, there were, I believe 6 or so of the 'clean' animals, such as sheep - to say nothing of Noah & all his family as well.
As for there being an adequate air supply - it may have escaped your notice, but boats are frequently open topped - they don't require an air supply. It's there already.
Science is the examination of God's creation and is limited to what can be observed and tested. Christianity is based on God's revelation in areas that science cannot enter.
On that point we almost agree. Science is the examination of anything & everything (as for it being the examination of a God's Creation, that is another of your false premises). And you are right - it is limited to what can be seen & tested. And as I have said earlier - Religion (not just Christianity) is based on personal belief - something that is in the imagination which, apart from on an MRI, cannot be observed.
Brown has never been debunked or refuted.
Oh, come on - I've provided loads of links to peer reviews & videos rebutting him & debunking him as a fraudster.
That is true. Evolutionists, on the other hand, try to make the evidence fit their flawed mythology.
The fundamental difference between Science & Religion is that Scientists question their own findings & get others to challenge them, fitting their idea to suit the evidence, modifying their ideas as & when new evidence is found. True Science is never to accept they have everything right. Religion, on the other hand, by definition requires no evidence as by its very nature it is a non-existent entity and can, therefore, have no evidence, as it is merely a state of mind. The ideas held by the Religious are those that they have been brainwashed to believe by generations of the superstitious to blindly accept, without question the words of a single irrational story book.
God created everything and everyone mature. The Garden of Eden story is symbolical of the beginning of humans as spirit beings who rebelled against God and were confined to Earth for correction and were given physical bodies.
Ah - so now we're changing the rules again. Rather than the Bible being a literal Truth, it is now symbolic. Well, well, we are making progress.
The Flood was God's project from beginning to end.
Could the Ark have held all the animals? Easily. A small number of humans could build a boata large enough to hold representatives of every air-breathing land animal—about 16,000 animals in all. The Ark, having at least 1,500,000 cubic feet of space, was adequate to hold these animals, their provisions, and all their other needs for one year.
Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark. For example, a few wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.) Could the Ark have held dinosaurs and elephants? Certainly, if they were young.
According to the Bible the ark measured 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits. A cubit is approximately 20" (the length of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger). That makes it about the same size as the tower block I live in, laid on its side. The block house up to 250 people - anything more would be overcrowded.
As you must appreciate, elephants, hippos, rhinoceri, giraffes, etc. are a little bit bigger than humans. Futhermore, most animals eat at least their body mass every week - many much more. 40 days & 40 nights is about 6 weeks, is it not? Therefore, as well as the mass of the animals you also have to account for 6 times that in food. Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, there weren't just 2 of every kind, there were, I believe 6 or so of the 'clean' animals, such as sheep - to say nothing of Noah & all his family as well.
As for there being an adequate air supply - it may have escaped your notice, but boats are frequently open topped - they don't require an air supply. It's there already.
Science is the examination of God's creation and is limited to what can be observed and tested. Christianity is based on God's revelation in areas that science cannot enter.
On that point we almost agree. Science is the examination of anything & everything (as for it being the examination of a God's Creation, that is another of your false premises). And you are right - it is limited to what can be seen & tested. And as I have said earlier - Religion (not just Christianity) is based on personal belief - something that is in the imagination which, apart from on an MRI, cannot be observed.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490560 wrote: If God exists, then he is 'something'. If he is 'something' then he must have come from 'something' as nothing comes from nothing. This is your argument that you have used countless times against the existence of a particle having always existed before the Big Bang.
The universe is material. God is spiritual. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists and witnessed by representatives of the media, demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be re-garded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that the appearance of the universe has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolution-ists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
Please tell me when you are going to do the experiment.
So, you finally admit that evolution DOES exist, but at what level do you accept that something reaches the boundary at which it becomes a different 'kind'?
When did I admit evolution exists? Science disproves evolution. It has never been observed that anything has changed from one kind to another kind.
Take a look at the definition of Evolution, as given by Evolution | Define Evolution at Dictionary.com
Now, where in there does it say anything about 'creating' anything? Evolution is not about creation - it's about change.
But it has never been observed that anything has changed from one kind to another kind.
I write music & sell my creations. My best works are written when I'm inspired by an emotional experience. That emotion is imagined, albeit real to me. Religious faith is the same. It may be real to the person imagining it, but that's all it is. What they write is inspired by their imagination / belief.
Those who wrote the Bible were inspired by God.
As per usual you make a false statement & presume it to be a fact. I do NOT account for scientific facts to even exist to support your claim. Furthermore, the existence of any scientific facts (for or against) only having been recently discovered is far simpler to answer. Science is only a relatively new discipline, as it was previously outlawed by religious fanatics as heresy for fear that anyone who questioned dogma would learn the truth. Therefore the facts were not found because no-one was allowed to look for them.
And again you begin with a false premise. There are NO accurately filled prophecies, let alone hundreds other than those that are bound to eventually occur through simple law of probability. Biblical prophecies are no different to the daily horoscopes to be found in any crappy newspaper or magazine. They are deliberately done so that they can be interpreted by the reader to mean anything they want them to mean, and there are even people who remain convinced as to the accuracy of these horoscopes, even though everyone else's horoscope could just as easily be interpreted to their own birthing.
Wrong! The writers of the Bible revealed scientific facts that have only recently been discovered and they also gave accurately fulfilled prophecies. Here are the facts:
The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
King James Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
And another false premise. Your question implies that there are scientists who confirm his conclusions.
There are. Here they are again:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
The universe is material. God is spiritual. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists and witnessed by representatives of the media, demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be re-garded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that the appearance of the universe has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolution-ists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
Please tell me when you are going to do the experiment.
So, you finally admit that evolution DOES exist, but at what level do you accept that something reaches the boundary at which it becomes a different 'kind'?
When did I admit evolution exists? Science disproves evolution. It has never been observed that anything has changed from one kind to another kind.
Take a look at the definition of Evolution, as given by Evolution | Define Evolution at Dictionary.com
Now, where in there does it say anything about 'creating' anything? Evolution is not about creation - it's about change.
But it has never been observed that anything has changed from one kind to another kind.
I write music & sell my creations. My best works are written when I'm inspired by an emotional experience. That emotion is imagined, albeit real to me. Religious faith is the same. It may be real to the person imagining it, but that's all it is. What they write is inspired by their imagination / belief.
Those who wrote the Bible were inspired by God.
As per usual you make a false statement & presume it to be a fact. I do NOT account for scientific facts to even exist to support your claim. Furthermore, the existence of any scientific facts (for or against) only having been recently discovered is far simpler to answer. Science is only a relatively new discipline, as it was previously outlawed by religious fanatics as heresy for fear that anyone who questioned dogma would learn the truth. Therefore the facts were not found because no-one was allowed to look for them.
And again you begin with a false premise. There are NO accurately filled prophecies, let alone hundreds other than those that are bound to eventually occur through simple law of probability. Biblical prophecies are no different to the daily horoscopes to be found in any crappy newspaper or magazine. They are deliberately done so that they can be interpreted by the reader to mean anything they want them to mean, and there are even people who remain convinced as to the accuracy of these horoscopes, even though everyone else's horoscope could just as easily be interpreted to their own birthing.
Wrong! The writers of the Bible revealed scientific facts that have only recently been discovered and they also gave accurately fulfilled prophecies. Here are the facts:
The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
King James Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
And another false premise. Your question implies that there are scientists who confirm his conclusions.
There are. Here they are again:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490572 wrote: The universe is material. God is spiritual. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefore the cause of the universe was supernatural.
A typical Creationist Dichotomy, based on a false premise without foundation.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists and witnessed by representatives of the media, demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be re-garded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that the appearance of the universe has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolution-ists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
Evolution has nothing at all to do with Athesism. I am an Atheist AND an Evolutionist. There is nothing to say anyone can't be an Evolutionist AND a Theist. After all, Darwin, himself, was very Religious. There are plenty or Religious Scientists who study Evolution.
I see you are aware of the alternative name for Brown's Creationist Institute.
Please tell me when you are going to do the experiment.
The experiment has been done by many different scientists in many different fields already, in the observance of the evidence from the past, the present & the prediction of future outcomes.
When did I admit evolution exists? Science disproves evolution. It has never been observed that anything has changed from one kind to another kind.
Change does take place up to a point. It has never been observed that anything changed into a different kind.
Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark. For example, a few wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.) Could the Ark have held dinosaurs and elephants? Certainly, if they were young.
Just a couple of examples of your own quotes / pastings. It makes no difference what prefix you choose to put on it (macro or micro) it is evolution. Evolution comes about from mutations. Both have been admitted to in your very own / Brown's words.
But it has never been observed that anything has changed from one kind to another kind.
So how do you define a 'kind' I've already asked, but you refused to answer. The evolution from Dinosaur to Bird has clearly been charted, including the stages between one and the other. DNA evidence confirms a close link between birds & reptiles. Both man & apes are primates - part of the same 'kind', and there is plenty of progression charting progress from one to the other.
Those who wrote the Bible were inspired by God.
I never disputed they were inspired. I just said that they were inspired by their BELIEF in a God.
Wrong! The writers of the Bible revealed scientific facts that have only recently been discovered and they also gave accurately fulfilled prophecies. Here are the facts:
The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
The very first one of Brown's links states that Hubble determined that the Universe is expanding outwards from the earth. That is simply not true. He discovered that the Universe was expanding, but not once did he ever make any mention of the earth being at the centre.
Also the phrase "In the beginning Gods created the Heavens & the Earth" can NOT be taken as being scientifically accurate. The site begins by citing the word 'Time' as being part of scientific accuracy. Well, most fairy stories do the same - they traditionally start "Once upon a time". Can we, therefore accept them as being scientifically accurate too?
The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
The Bible has no fulfilled prophecies whatsoever. Most of those related to in the link refer to the birth of Jesus. Since there is no evidence of his existence that cannot be taken as evidence of a fulfilled prophecy, as it is, once again using itself as evidence for itself & therefore void.
There are. Here they are again:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
As you rightly say - there they are again - and still with no connections given between the 2 lists. For instance, just in case you've got even less intelligence than I give you credit for (which isn't easy), let's start with the first of those on the list - Scott Tremaine. Now - exactly which one of those publications is he supposed to have made these alleged claims, and when was the edition supposedly published? You can use any of the names, connected with any of the publications - I don't care, but without any such cross reference point the lists are meaningless & a blatant attempt by Brown to fool the gullible, such as yourself. If they had been genuine he would not have failed to cite them. Because he does not one must assume he cannot. And you cannot do so either because you have only one source of reference, and that is Walt Brown. If he doesn't provide the information you are totally out of your depth. You have made claim that you have provided these cross references. We are still awaiting the post number where you did so. Or surely you don't expect us to think that just by pasting 2 unconnected, meaningless lists that is supposed to be a cross reference. I could just as easily give you the London Telephone Directory and a manifest of the British Library & say that proves my case. One has absolutely no relationship to the other. Why can't you see that?
A typical Creationist Dichotomy, based on a false premise without foundation.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists and witnessed by representatives of the media, demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be re-garded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that the appearance of the universe has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolution-ists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
Evolution has nothing at all to do with Athesism. I am an Atheist AND an Evolutionist. There is nothing to say anyone can't be an Evolutionist AND a Theist. After all, Darwin, himself, was very Religious. There are plenty or Religious Scientists who study Evolution.
I see you are aware of the alternative name for Brown's Creationist Institute.
Please tell me when you are going to do the experiment.
The experiment has been done by many different scientists in many different fields already, in the observance of the evidence from the past, the present & the prediction of future outcomes.
When did I admit evolution exists? Science disproves evolution. It has never been observed that anything has changed from one kind to another kind.
Change does take place up to a point. It has never been observed that anything changed into a different kind.
Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark. For example, a few wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.) Could the Ark have held dinosaurs and elephants? Certainly, if they were young.
Just a couple of examples of your own quotes / pastings. It makes no difference what prefix you choose to put on it (macro or micro) it is evolution. Evolution comes about from mutations. Both have been admitted to in your very own / Brown's words.
But it has never been observed that anything has changed from one kind to another kind.
So how do you define a 'kind' I've already asked, but you refused to answer. The evolution from Dinosaur to Bird has clearly been charted, including the stages between one and the other. DNA evidence confirms a close link between birds & reptiles. Both man & apes are primates - part of the same 'kind', and there is plenty of progression charting progress from one to the other.
Those who wrote the Bible were inspired by God.
I never disputed they were inspired. I just said that they were inspired by their BELIEF in a God.
Wrong! The writers of the Bible revealed scientific facts that have only recently been discovered and they also gave accurately fulfilled prophecies. Here are the facts:
The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
The very first one of Brown's links states that Hubble determined that the Universe is expanding outwards from the earth. That is simply not true. He discovered that the Universe was expanding, but not once did he ever make any mention of the earth being at the centre.
Also the phrase "In the beginning Gods created the Heavens & the Earth" can NOT be taken as being scientifically accurate. The site begins by citing the word 'Time' as being part of scientific accuracy. Well, most fairy stories do the same - they traditionally start "Once upon a time". Can we, therefore accept them as being scientifically accurate too?
The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
The Bible has no fulfilled prophecies whatsoever. Most of those related to in the link refer to the birth of Jesus. Since there is no evidence of his existence that cannot be taken as evidence of a fulfilled prophecy, as it is, once again using itself as evidence for itself & therefore void.
There are. Here they are again:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
As you rightly say - there they are again - and still with no connections given between the 2 lists. For instance, just in case you've got even less intelligence than I give you credit for (which isn't easy), let's start with the first of those on the list - Scott Tremaine. Now - exactly which one of those publications is he supposed to have made these alleged claims, and when was the edition supposedly published? You can use any of the names, connected with any of the publications - I don't care, but without any such cross reference point the lists are meaningless & a blatant attempt by Brown to fool the gullible, such as yourself. If they had been genuine he would not have failed to cite them. Because he does not one must assume he cannot. And you cannot do so either because you have only one source of reference, and that is Walt Brown. If he doesn't provide the information you are totally out of your depth. You have made claim that you have provided these cross references. We are still awaiting the post number where you did so. Or surely you don't expect us to think that just by pasting 2 unconnected, meaningless lists that is supposed to be a cross reference. I could just as easily give you the London Telephone Directory and a manifest of the British Library & say that proves my case. One has absolutely no relationship to the other. Why can't you see that?
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote Originally Posted by Pahu
The universe is material. God is spiritual. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefore the cause of the universe was supernatural.
FourPart;1490624 wrote: A typical Creationist Dichotomy, based on a false premise without foundation.
Do you reject the fact of the universe's existence and that it had a beginning? Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists and witnessed by representatives of the media, demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be re-garded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that the appearance of the universe has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
The experiment has been done by many different scientists in many different fields already, in the observance of the evidence from the past, the present & the prediction of future outcomes.
Really? When? Where? How?
The universe is material. God is spiritual. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefore the cause of the universe was supernatural.
FourPart;1490624 wrote: A typical Creationist Dichotomy, based on a false premise without foundation.
Do you reject the fact of the universe's existence and that it had a beginning? Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists and witnessed by representatives of the media, demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be re-garded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that the appearance of the universe has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
The experiment has been done by many different scientists in many different fields already, in the observance of the evidence from the past, the present & the prediction of future outcomes.
Really? When? Where? How?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490624 wrote:
Evolution comes about from mutations.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS: 1
Reputable scientists tell us that, contrary to what the evolutionists say, mutations cannot produce trans-species changes. Therefore, mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Mutations: 1
Introduction: Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes
Mutations Are Extremely Rare: They almost never occur
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
One Mutation Would Cause Great Damage: It would cripple or weaken the entire system
An Organism Is Useless until It Has All Its Parts: So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing
This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS (see BOOKSTPRE). An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Mutations.
INTRODUCTION
Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes.
"The process of mutations is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."—*T. Dobzhansky, in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.
"The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson [senior paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, London], The Listener.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
MUTATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE
They almost never occur.
"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more. Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.
"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations, in higher organisms, between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.
"Although mutations is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.
MUTATIONS ARE NEARLY ALWAYS HARMFUL
Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found.
"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, as far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.
"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.
"One would expect that any interference, with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 37.
"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.
"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species (1955), p. 73.
ONE MUTATION WOULD CAUSE GREAT DAMAGE
It would cripple or weaken the entire system.
"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky [a geneticist], Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
"We could still be sure, on theoretical grounds, that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.
"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual.
"This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidently introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11 (1955), p. 331.
AN ORGANISM IS USELESS UNTIL IT HAS ALL ITS PARTS
So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing.
"In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of `survival of the fittest' would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 [quoting *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer (1972)].
"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant. But this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as major ones, and occur more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.
"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biochemistry," Chapter 2, in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.
"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.
"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1
Evolution comes about from mutations.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS: 1
Reputable scientists tell us that, contrary to what the evolutionists say, mutations cannot produce trans-species changes. Therefore, mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Mutations: 1
Introduction: Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes
Mutations Are Extremely Rare: They almost never occur
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
One Mutation Would Cause Great Damage: It would cripple or weaken the entire system
An Organism Is Useless until It Has All Its Parts: So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing
This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS (see BOOKSTPRE). An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Mutations.
INTRODUCTION
Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes.
"The process of mutations is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."—*T. Dobzhansky, in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.
"The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson [senior paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, London], The Listener.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
MUTATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE
They almost never occur.
"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more. Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.
"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations, in higher organisms, between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.
"Although mutations is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.
MUTATIONS ARE NEARLY ALWAYS HARMFUL
Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found.
"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, as far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.
"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.
"One would expect that any interference, with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 37.
"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.
"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species (1955), p. 73.
ONE MUTATION WOULD CAUSE GREAT DAMAGE
It would cripple or weaken the entire system.
"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky [a geneticist], Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
"We could still be sure, on theoretical grounds, that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.
"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual.
"This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidently introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11 (1955), p. 331.
AN ORGANISM IS USELESS UNTIL IT HAS ALL ITS PARTS
So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing.
"In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of `survival of the fittest' would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 [quoting *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer (1972)].
"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant. But this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as major ones, and occur more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.
"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biochemistry," Chapter 2, in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.
"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.
"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490624 wrote:
So how do you define a 'kind' I've already asked, but you refused to answer. The evolution from Dinosaur to Bird has clearly been charted, including the stages between one and the other. DNA evidence confirms a close link between birds & reptiles. Both man & apes are primates - part of the same 'kind', and there is plenty of progression charting progress from one to the other.
Kind is each original group that began with a built-in amount of genetic information which is the raw material for virtually all subsequent useful variation.
Dinosaurs to Birds?
“The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.
Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.
A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267–1270.] In that report, “Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm. [Ann Gibbons, “Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]
Bird and theropod “hands differ. Theropods have “fingers I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds. [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “... this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy. [Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted? Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]
Theropod “arms (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.
“... most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx . Hinchliffe, p. 597.
Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23.** Fossil Gaps
So how do you define a 'kind' I've already asked, but you refused to answer. The evolution from Dinosaur to Bird has clearly been charted, including the stages between one and the other. DNA evidence confirms a close link between birds & reptiles. Both man & apes are primates - part of the same 'kind', and there is plenty of progression charting progress from one to the other.
Kind is each original group that began with a built-in amount of genetic information which is the raw material for virtually all subsequent useful variation.
Dinosaurs to Birds?
“The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.
Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.
A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267–1270.] In that report, “Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm. [Ann Gibbons, “Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]
Bird and theropod “hands differ. Theropods have “fingers I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds. [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “... this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy. [Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted? Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]
Theropod “arms (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.
“... most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx . Hinchliffe, p. 597.
Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23.** Fossil Gaps
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[QUOTE=FourPart;1490624]
I never disputed they were inspired. I just said that they were inspired by their BELIEF in a God.
They were inspired by God.
The very first one of Brown's links states that Hubble determined that the Universe is expanding outwards from the earth. That is simply not true. He discovered that the Universe was expanding, but not once did he ever make any mention of the earth being at the centre.
Also the phrase "In the beginning Gods created the Heavens & the Earth" can NOT be taken as being scientifically accurate.
That information is not from Brown. If God didn't create the universe, where did it come from? Did it created itself from nothing?
The Bible has no fulfilled prophecies whatsoever. Most of those related to in the link refer to the birth of Jesus. Since there is no evidence of his existence that cannot be taken as evidence of a fulfilled prophecy, as it is, once again using itself as evidence for itself & therefore void.
All the Bible prophecies have been accurately fulfilled except those still in the future. Eyewitnesses said Jesus existed. Also:
ANCIENT EVIDENCE FROM NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES THAT JESUS EXISTED
Evidence from Tacitus:
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.
There are many more references to Jesus outside of the Bible. We can be sure that Christ actually spoke the words found in the gospels.
If Jesus had not said such things surely His disciples would not have risked their lives for the cause of truth. If He had not said such things, those who opposed Him would have vehemently challenged such writings. However, no one during the early days of Christianity ever did. Two of the writers of the gospels were close companions of Christ. Both his disciples and his enemies heard his words openly. People in general he talked to heard his words. Yet, the letters of the gospels were never called into question. There are many historical writings about Christ from the early centuries to help substantiate his existence. During the early days when the gospel was preached publicly, no one questioned it because it was factual. Even Jesus’ close disciples died because of what Jesus taught them. If He had not actually said such things they would not have had such convictions.
Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .
What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?
Evidence from Pliny the Younger:
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and $ex stood accused of Christianity.
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast." This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism." The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.
[continue]
I never disputed they were inspired. I just said that they were inspired by their BELIEF in a God.
They were inspired by God.
The very first one of Brown's links states that Hubble determined that the Universe is expanding outwards from the earth. That is simply not true. He discovered that the Universe was expanding, but not once did he ever make any mention of the earth being at the centre.
Also the phrase "In the beginning Gods created the Heavens & the Earth" can NOT be taken as being scientifically accurate.
That information is not from Brown. If God didn't create the universe, where did it come from? Did it created itself from nothing?
The Bible has no fulfilled prophecies whatsoever. Most of those related to in the link refer to the birth of Jesus. Since there is no evidence of his existence that cannot be taken as evidence of a fulfilled prophecy, as it is, once again using itself as evidence for itself & therefore void.
All the Bible prophecies have been accurately fulfilled except those still in the future. Eyewitnesses said Jesus existed. Also:
ANCIENT EVIDENCE FROM NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES THAT JESUS EXISTED
Evidence from Tacitus:
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.
There are many more references to Jesus outside of the Bible. We can be sure that Christ actually spoke the words found in the gospels.
If Jesus had not said such things surely His disciples would not have risked their lives for the cause of truth. If He had not said such things, those who opposed Him would have vehemently challenged such writings. However, no one during the early days of Christianity ever did. Two of the writers of the gospels were close companions of Christ. Both his disciples and his enemies heard his words openly. People in general he talked to heard his words. Yet, the letters of the gospels were never called into question. There are many historical writings about Christ from the early centuries to help substantiate his existence. During the early days when the gospel was preached publicly, no one questioned it because it was factual. Even Jesus’ close disciples died because of what Jesus taught them. If He had not actually said such things they would not have had such convictions.
Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .
What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?
Evidence from Pliny the Younger:
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and $ex stood accused of Christianity.
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast." This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism." The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
ANCIENT EVIDENCE FROM NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES THAT JESUS EXISTED
[continued]
Evidence from Josephus:
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, For he wrought surprising feats. . . When Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians has not disappeared.
We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud:
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do. If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.
Evidence from Lucian:
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."
Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!
Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!
I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
Also consider the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490624 wrote:
As you rightly say - there they are again - and still with no connections given between the 2 lists. For instance, just in case you've got even less intelligence than I give you credit for (which isn't easy), let's start with the first of those on the list - Scott Tremaine. Now - exactly which one of those publications is he supposed to have made these alleged claims, and when was the edition supposedly published? You can use any of the names, connected with any of the publications - I don't care, but without any such cross reference point the lists are meaningless & a blatant attempt by Brown to fool the gullible, such as yourself. If they had been genuine he would not have failed to cite them. Because he does not one must assume he cannot. And you cannot do so either because you have only one source of reference, and that is Walt Brown. If he doesn't provide the information you are totally out of your depth. You have made claim that you have provided these cross references. We are still awaiting the post number where you did so. Or surely you don't expect us to think that just by pasting 2 unconnected, meaningless lists that is supposed to be a cross reference. I could just as easily give you the London Telephone Directory and a manifest of the British Library & say that proves my case. One has absolutely no relationship to the other. Why can't you see that?
Brown made this statement in the article; Strange Planets:
"Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved."a Confirmed by Scott Tremaine:
“... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong. Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters, Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.
As you rightly say - there they are again - and still with no connections given between the 2 lists. For instance, just in case you've got even less intelligence than I give you credit for (which isn't easy), let's start with the first of those on the list - Scott Tremaine. Now - exactly which one of those publications is he supposed to have made these alleged claims, and when was the edition supposedly published? You can use any of the names, connected with any of the publications - I don't care, but without any such cross reference point the lists are meaningless & a blatant attempt by Brown to fool the gullible, such as yourself. If they had been genuine he would not have failed to cite them. Because he does not one must assume he cannot. And you cannot do so either because you have only one source of reference, and that is Walt Brown. If he doesn't provide the information you are totally out of your depth. You have made claim that you have provided these cross references. We are still awaiting the post number where you did so. Or surely you don't expect us to think that just by pasting 2 unconnected, meaningless lists that is supposed to be a cross reference. I could just as easily give you the London Telephone Directory and a manifest of the British Library & say that proves my case. One has absolutely no relationship to the other. Why can't you see that?
Brown made this statement in the article; Strange Planets:
"Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved."a Confirmed by Scott Tremaine:
“... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong. Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters, Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490651 wrote:
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
Carl Sagan once showed that a mutation in crabs in a Japanese bay. If the crab looked like a Japanese warrior, the fishermen began to throw them back. They, in turn, had children who looked like warriors. After centuries, all the crabs in the bay began to look exactly like a Samurai. Evolution and beneficial.
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
Carl Sagan once showed that a mutation in crabs in a Japanese bay. If the crab looked like a Japanese warrior, the fishermen began to throw them back. They, in turn, had children who looked like warriors. After centuries, all the crabs in the bay began to look exactly like a Samurai. Evolution and beneficial.
Science Disproves Evolution
Five Indisputable Proofs of Evolution:
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1490661 wrote: Carl Sagan once showed that a mutation in crabs in a Japanese bay. If the crab looked like a Japanese warrior, the fishermen began to throw them back. They, in turn, had children who looked like warriors. After centuries, all the crabs in the bay began to look exactly like a Samurai. Evolution and beneficial.
Nope, the fishermen simply weeded out all the crabs that didn't look like Samurai.
Nope, the fishermen simply weeded out all the crabs that didn't look like Samurai.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1490662 wrote: Five Indisputable Proofs of Evolution:
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
Or a common designer.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
Fossils are found in strata laid down by the Flood a few thousand years ago. They were sorted by density, etc. The slowest were first to be fossilized. The faster and and more intelligent were last.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
The commonality is due to a common designer.
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
Or a common designer.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
Fossils are found in strata laid down by the Flood a few thousand years ago. They were sorted by density, etc. The slowest were first to be fossilized. The faster and and more intelligent were last.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
The commonality is due to a common designer.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1490662 wrote: Five Indisputable Proofs of Evolution:
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
Since 1868, evolutionists have taught that developing embryos pass through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits, because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.
Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution. Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings, originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution.
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
Since 1868, evolutionists have taught that developing embryos pass through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits, because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.
Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution. Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings, originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490664 wrote: Nope, the fishermen simply weeded out all the crabs that didn't look like Samurai.
Exactly. So the ones with the Samurai face were the ones that reproduced the most, therefore becoming more common.
That is Evolution, in a nutshell.
Exactly. So the ones with the Samurai face were the ones that reproduced the most, therefore becoming more common.
That is Evolution, in a nutshell.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1490662 wrote: Five Indisputable Proofs of Evolution:
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article here.
There are too many errors in “Evolution to itemize here, but let’s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example:
“The development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. “Evolution thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.
Well, not quite.
[continue]
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article here.
There are too many errors in “Evolution to itemize here, but let’s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example:
“The development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. “Evolution thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.
Well, not quite.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.