ForumGarden

FourPart;1491606 wrote: Surely the Pope follows the same 'evidence' as yourself - aka the Bible? The difference is that he has the sense to recognise the hard evidence of science.

So many times you have said that only Atheists believe in the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. This has proved you to be wrong.


Evolution is not the hard evidence of science. Science has disproved evolution as I have demonstrated for the last few years.

Pahu;1491642 wrote: Evolution is not the hard evidence of science. Science has disproved evolution as I have demonstrated for the last few years.


I wouldn't go quite as far as that....Most of the evidence points TO evolution as exsiting, rather than AWAY. Quite a few people have produced a fairly wide range of good examples to back this, but we might as well save the wear and tear on our keyboards. Still, we're all entitled to our beliefs, though that's all creationism theories will ever be to me; a belief, as opposed to a proveable fact.

You obviously believe it, and that's entirely your call. I'm a Pagan and I can't prove that Pagan 'Gods' exist either, but that's my call. Beliefs are one of the things that make us all different, and without these divers beliefs it'd be a damn boring world, IMO!

Hahaha... There's always truth in satire.

Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans - The New Yorker

Snowfire;1491661 wrote: Hahaha... There's always truth in satire.

Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans - The New Yorker


An excellent 'find', Snowfire! Judging by some of the responses I've read to various posts on various threads it's doubly amusing as it may actually be true!!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Pahu that list you posted is of no value to the evolutionary process. Many if not all of them had never heard of evolution. What a bloody waste.

Smaug;1491647 wrote: I wouldn't go quite as far as that....Most of the evidence points TO evolution as exsiting, rather than AWAY. Quite a few people have produced a fairly wide range of good examples to back this, but we might as well save the wear and tear on our keyboards. Still, we're all entitled to our beliefs, though that's all creationism theories will ever be to me; a belief, as opposed to a proveable fact.

You obviously believe it, and that's entirely your call. I'm a Pagan and I can't prove that Pagan 'Gods' exist either, but that's my call. Beliefs are one of the things that make us all different, and without these divers beliefs it'd be a damn boring world, IMO!


We all believe something, don't we? It is important to base our beliefs on the facts. Creationism is based on the facts. Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Ted;1491684 wrote: Pahu that list you posted is of no value to the evolutionary process. Many if not all of them had never heard of evolution. What a bloody waste.


Had they heard of evolution, they would have had a good laugh.

Pahu;1491685 wrote: We all believe something, don't we? It is important to base our beliefs on the facts. Creationism is based on the facts. Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.


We'll never agree on this, Pahu. :wah:

Pahu;1491685 wrote: We all believe something, don't we? It is important to base our beliefs on the facts. Creationism is based on the facts. Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.


Again, you kinda have that all bass ackwards

Smaug;1491688 wrote: We'll never agree on this, Pahu. :wah:


Don't be too sure. Perhaps you will finally accept the facts.

Quote Originally Posted by Pahu:

We all believe something, don't we? It is important to base our beliefs on the facts. Creationism is based on the facts. Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

LarsMac;1491690 wrote: Again, you kinda have that all bass ackwards


Nope, that is the way it is.

Rubbish

Pahu;1491641 wrote: When did I say one has to be an Atheist to accept science? If you mean evolution you may have a point.
Did you read my earlier post?

Although, as Pahu says, only accepted as a fact by Atheists:

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand' | Europe | News | The Independent

Geologic Column




Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called “geologic column (a). Most “geologic periods are missing at most continental locations. Only 15–20% of Earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct order (b). Even within the Grand Canyon, 100 million years of this imaginary column are missing (c). Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious.

a. “We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we have anything like a complete succession for any part of the stratigraphical column in any one place. Ager, Stratigraphical Record, p.*48.

b. John Woodmorappe, “The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol.*18, June 1981, pp.*46–71.

c. The missing geologic periods are the Ordovician and Silurian. The Great Unconformity at the base of the sedimentary layers marks an even greater time gap—over a billion years.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of 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.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Geologic Column




Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called “geologic column (a). Most “geologic periods are missing at most continental locations. Only 15–20% of Earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct order (b). Even within the Grand Canyon, 100 million years of this imaginary column are missing (c). Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious.

a. “We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we have anything like a complete succession for any part of the stratigraphical column in any one place. Ager, Stratigraphical Record, p.*48.

b. John Woodmorappe, “The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol.*18, June 1981, pp.*46–71.

c. The missing geologic periods are the Ordovician and Silurian. The Great Unconformity at the base of the sedimentary layers marks an even greater time gap—over a billion years.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of 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.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1491699 wrote: Don't be too sure. Perhaps you will finally accept the facts.


I've seen plenty of assertions, but nothing to convince me that creationism is any more valid than hollow Earth theories, or any other 'cult' theory for that matter, including the 'spoof' Epsilon cult on Grand Theft Auto, I'm afraid.

Kifflom, Brother.

More pasting - only this time pasting the identical thing 2 posts in a row.

Doesn't it strike you as being interesting that coming from someone who is trying to deny their existence the first phrase begins "Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called “geologic column. The very first word does, at least, acknowledge that the evidence exists.

Another phrase - " Even within the Grand Canyon, 100 million years of this imaginary column are missing" also implies that if those years are missing, then there have to be more, thereby acknowledging the additional age of the earth.

How about that, then - 2 total contradictions in the very first paragraph.

As for dating by way of fossil formation. This much has been proven beyond doubt. Following the timescale of fossils discovered predictions have been made about the next fossils to be made, and sure enough they have been found AFTER the predictions - in both directions along the timescale. Incidents of this nature have been recorded in truly scientific manner time & time again.

Of course there are sections missing. The conditions for fossilisation to occur are very precise and each of those conditions have to be met in order to form a fossil in the first place. As with repeatedly throwing a dice, it will take a great deal of throwing to throw 10 6es in a row, but every now & then it happens. Just because a number of different species move along the evolutionary trail before the next set of 6es are thrown, thus showing a 'gap' doesn't mean they didn't exist. It's like saying that no 6es at all were thrown between each of those 10 6es in a row. Of course, in certain instances that may have been so, but the chances are much higher that there were. Fossil records aren't made conveniently like 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 7 * 8 * 9 (with the '*' being a state of fossilisation). It's more like 1 * 2 3 4 * * 5 6 * 7 *** 8 * 9.

Furthermore, you cannot use the absence of something yet to be discovered as evidence of its non-existence. That is just False Science - something Brown uses all the time.

FourPart;1491786 wrote:

As for dating by way of fossil formation. This much has been proven beyond doubt. Following the timescale of fossils discovered predictions have been made about the next fossils to be made, and sure enough they have been found AFTER the predictions - in both directions along the timescale. Incidents of this nature have been recorded in truly scientific manner time & time again.

Of course there are sections missing. The conditions for fossilisation to occur are very precise and each of those conditions have to be met in order to form a fossil in the first place.


Fossils rarely form today, because dead plants and animals decay before they are buried in enough sediments to preserve their shapes. We certainly do not observe fossils forming in layered strata that can be traced over thousands of square miles. How, then, did so many fossils form? Animals and plants were trapped and buried in sediments that were quickly cemented to form the fossil record and fossils of sea life are found on every major mountain range.

Earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time.

If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record.a At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes, such as bacteria and blue-green algae).b Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants,c between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects,d between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones),e between fish and amphibians,f between amphibians and reptiles,g between reptiles and mammals,h between reptiles and birds,i between primates and other mammals,j and between apes and other primates.k In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled.l

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order.a For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.b A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years.c Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistand and Arizona.e Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock.f Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina.g Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed.h Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed.i In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianj rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambriank rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.

Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and co****s of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later.l Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved.m Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Sequence Fossils

Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish,a show by the details of their soft, fleshy portionsb that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas.c These observations, plus the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments that formed today’s rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change or evolution.d [See A Whale of a Tale on page 136.]



Figure 7: Fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. Burial and fossilization must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found.



Figure 8: Fish in Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.



Figure 9: Fish in Curved Fish. The curved back shows that this 3 meter long fish, Xiphactinus, died under stress. Inside it is a 1 meter long fish.



Figure 10: Dragonfly Wing. This delicate, 1 1/2-foot-long wing must have been buried rapidly and evenly to preserve its details. Imagine the size of the entire dragonfly!

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 21. Rapid Burial

Pahu;1491808 wrote: If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record.a At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes, such as bacteria and blue-green algae).b Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants,c between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects,d between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones),e between fish and amphibians,f between amphibians and reptiles,g between reptiles and mammals,h between reptiles and birds,i between primates and other mammals,j and between apes and other primates.k In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled.l


That is an invalid assumption. The process has been rather hap-hazard. Some periods experience rapid and cataclysmic changes, that caught critters up in the sediment, and left them buried and undisturbed long enough for the process to take place. Other periods were very slow and did not see such fossil formations.

You really should get out more and maybe read something beside Brown's drivel

LarsMac;1491809 wrote: That is an invalid assumption. The process has been rather hap-hazard. Some periods experience rapid and cataclysmic changes, that caught critters up in the sediment, and left them buried and undisturbed long enough for the process to take place. Other periods were very slow and did not see such fossil formations.

You really should get out more and maybe read something beside Brown's drivel


That is partially true. Most fossils were created during the cataclysmic global Flood. Here are the facts:



Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence



When the Bible refers to a worldwide Flood in Genesis 7–8, that’s exactly what it means. Not local, not metaphorical, not some crazy dream—the waters covered the whole earth. Don’t just take our word for it, though. Take a look at the evidence right beneath your feet.

Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents

We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures (https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fo ... creatures/)

Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals

We find extensive fossil “graveyards and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard (https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fo ... graveyard/)

Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas

We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers (https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ro ... ck-layers/)

Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances

We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.

Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country (https://answersingenesis.org/geology/se ... s-country/)

Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata

We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion (https://answersingenesis.org/geology/gr ... l-erosion/)

Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession

Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years, while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

Focus in: Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured (https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ro ... fractured/)

What now?

The Bible’s history is reliable throughout—from the creation of man from the dust of the ground to the worldwide Flood to the coming of Jesus Christ. But just reading the evidence isn’t enough. The message of salvation founded in the Bible's history is also true, and, God wants us to accept the gift of salvation He freely offers us.

The evidence is real. God has revealed Himself to us in His Word and in His creation (Romans 1:20).

How will you respond?

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... -evidence/

Ummm,



Riiiiight.

First of all you (or should I say Brown, seeing as you don't seem to have a mind of your own) have a habit of asserting a presumption, then claiming that to be a fact supported by science, when in fact it isn't, then continuing to provide loads of questionable evidence to prove that deliberately erroneous presumption wrong.

You seem to be of the opinion that fossilisation is no longer taking place, claiming that it hasn't been observed as such as evidence. How is it possible that anyone can be so mind blowingly stupid? Fossilisation isn't done in the snap of a finger. It happens over millions of years. As for not being observed - when you watch the hour hand of a clock, do you see it moving. If that clock were also to have a day hand, would you be able to see that moving? What about a week hand, or a month hand, etc. Yet would you deny that those hands are actually moving, despite not being able to 'observe' it as such. If you take that clock, and include a year hand, if you take 12:00 on day 1 to be the beginning of the earth, by the time it were to reach midnight of that 'year', humans would have appeared on the planet at about 2 seconds to midnight - if not later. Is it any wonder we don't get to 'observe' the year hand moving, but do we deny that it is moving? Of course not (although, no doubt, you would).

You claim there is not a constant trail of fossils forming a timeline. That is totally wrong. Not only is there an undeniable timeline, geologists have been able to examine a timeline & predict what sort of thing they would expect to find next. This much has been demonstrated in both directions, both into previous fossil records & into later ones - all of which were later found, just as predicted, proving the timeline to exist.

You (or more to the point, Brown, seeing as you have no real opinions of your own) seem to be under the concept that everything lives, dies & decays, therefore fossilisation no longer takes place. To a large degree, that is what happens to most living beings. However, all living beings, including the bacteria that cause the decay, require oxygen (apart from plants which excrete it as a waste product) to survive. If that oxygen supply is removed, such as by being engulfed by silt, then the organism cannot decay. That supply may be sudden, thus being the cause of death for the organism itself, or simply engulfing its corpse. That engulfment does not need to be 'cataclysmic' - it only needs to big enough to cover that organism & form a seal. In the case of an insect, the size of a teardrop would be sufficient (as demonstrated by mosquitoes fossilised in Amber - hardly cataclysmic).

Bacteria also require a certain pH level in which to survive. People have used salt as a preservative for millennia, long before they even knew about the existence of bacteria or how it worked. This salt makes the environment too acidic for the bacteria to survive & the organic matter does not decay. Now, it may have escaped your notice that there is a great deal of salt in the oceans, and this is also very concentrated in shallow mud flat regions where there is lots of evaporation, thus making this a perfect environment for preservation. Even with the way that Mankind has taken over most of the planet & has changed its potential for fossilisation, there are still areas of bogs, swamps & quicksands, all of which are frequently the result of the demise of any unwary creature who happens to fall foul of them, instantly cutting off the oxygen supply. Geological activity produces vast amounts of sulphur dioxide, and many other heavier than air gases. These, too, eliminate oxygen supply. You see there are many different environments that provide the potential for fossilisation.

As for that final example of the fossilised dragonfly, well that is so laughable it's unbelievable, as in his vague attempt to denounce the existence of the different ages, he is, in fact, affirming the scientific evidence that they did, in fact, exist. The fossil of that dragonfly would have been of the carboniferous period when plants had taken over the earth, and the atmosphere was very rich in oxygen. If you take any form of life & subject it to high levels of oxygen, their growth levels will increase accordingly.

Come on - rather than continually pasting Brown's nonsense, why not try discussing your OWN ideas. Try telling us WHY you believe something to be true. Provide us with other sources, other than Brown, to validate these claims. The internet is a vast source of information. Brown is just a tiny pebble on the beach. Rather than just grasping to that single pebble, take a look around the rest of the beach. Try thinking for yourself for a change.

FourPart;1491844 wrote: First of all you (or should I say Brown, seeing as you don't seem to have a mind of your own) have a habit of asserting a presumption, then claiming that to be a fact supported by science, when in fact it isn't, then continuing to provide loads of questionable evidence to prove that deliberately erroneous presumption wrong.

You seem to be of the opinion that fossilisation is no longer taking place, claiming that it hasn't been observed as such as evidence. How is it possible that anyone can be so mind blowingly stupid? Fossilisation isn't done in the snap of a finger. It happens over millions of years.


Actually fossilization has to happen quickly. Fossils rarely form today, because dead plants and animals decay before they are buried in enough sediments to preserve their shapes. We certainly do not observe fossils forming in layered strata that can be traced over thousands of square miles. How, then, did so many fossils form? Animals and plants were trapped and buried in sediments that were quickly cemented to form the fossil record because of the Flood. See below.

You claim there is not a constant trail of fossils forming a timeline. That is totally wrong. Not only is there an undeniable timeline, geologists have been able to examine a timeline & predict what sort of thing they would expect to find next. This much has been demonstrated in both directions, both into previous fossil records & into later ones - all of which were later found, just as predicted, proving the timeline to exist.


All strata was laid down within weeks during the Flood. There is no timeline. Instead there is some continuity because of the sorting action of the Flood waters. The slowest animals were buried first. The faster and smarter were buried last if at all.

Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called “geologic column. Most “geologic periods are missing at most continental locations. Only 15–20% of Earth’s land surface has one-third of these periods in the correct order. Even within the Grand Canyon, more than 100 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 67. Geologic Column

You (or more to the point, Brown, seeing as you have no real opinions of your own) seem to be under the concept that everything lives, dies & decays, therefore fossilisation no longer takes place. To a large degree, that is what happens to most living beings. However, all living beings, including the bacteria that cause the decay, require oxygen (apart from plants which excrete it as a waste product) to survive. If that oxygen supply is removed, such as by being engulfed by silt, then the organism cannot decay. That supply may be sudden, thus being the cause of death for the organism itself, or simply engulfing its corpse. That engulfment does not need to be 'cataclysmic' - it only needs to big enough to cover that organism & form a seal. In the case of an insect, the size of a teardrop would be sufficient (as demonstrated by mosquitoes fossilised in Amber - hardly cataclysmic).


True, but most of the billions of fossils were created during a cataclysmic global Flood.

As for that final example of the fossilised dragonfly, well that is so laughable it's unbelievable, as in his vague attempt to denounce the existence of the different ages, he is, in fact, affirming the scientific evidence that they did, in fact, exist. The fossil of that dragonfly would have been of the carboniferous period when plants had taken over the earth, and the atmosphere was very rich in oxygen. If you take any form of life & subject it to high levels of oxygen, their growth levels will increase accordingly.


As in the pre-Flood environment.

Heres a very interesting historical character

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Grosseteste

Robert Grosseteste (/ˈɡroÊŠstÉ›st/ grohs-test; Latin: Robertus Grosseteste; c.‰1175 – 9 October 1253)[n 1] was an English statesman, scholastic philosopher, theologian, scientist and Bishop of Lincoln.




But as a theologian he extended his intellectual thoughts a little further into the world of science.

Four centuries before Isaac Newton proposed gravity and seven centuries before the Big Bang theory, Grosseteste described the birth of the Universe in an explosion and the crystallisation of matter to form stars and planets in a set of nested spheres around Earth. De Luce is the first attempt to describe the heavens and Earth using a single set of physical laws.[16] The 'Ordered Universe' collaboration of scientists and historians at Durham University studying medieval science regard him as a key figure in showing that pre-Renaissance science was far more advanced than previously thought.[17]


A man clearly ahead of his time, who wasn't to constrain his thoughts to the dogma of the Bible. He didn't believe the world was made in 6 days and would have welcomed today's advances in our knowledge of the universe and science in general.

He's my medieval man of the week.

Pahu;1491855 wrote: Actually fossilization has to happen quickly. Fossils rarely form today, because dead plants and animals decay before they are buried in enough sediments to preserve their shapes. We certainly do not observe fossils forming in layered strata that can be traced over thousands of square miles. How, then, did so many fossils form? Animals and plants were trapped and buried in sediments that were quickly cemented to form the fossil record because of the Flood. See below.


When you bake a cake you need to bake it at a set temperature for a set amount of time. A flash of heat, totaling the same number of therms in a couple of seconds doesn't do the same job. Fossils form over time, as with baking a cake - not in a moment, as with the flash method.

True, but most of the billions of fossils were created during a cataclysmic global Flood.


Most of the earlier fossils were water dwelling. Why would a flood affect them?



As in the pre-Flood environment.


Life on earth began as a flood - not the other way round. Seismic events gradually pushed the land from the waters - just as they continue to do. This much is known to be true, as it is still being monitored to this day. For the most part it happens very slowly, but recent laser & GPS technology can still record it as happening.

There ARE geological columns. Even Brown cannot deny that much, even though he tries his best to spin it at the start by starting with the phrase "Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called “geologic column". This is because even he cannot deny that the columns exist. In his view, just how many examples does it take to cease being "Practically nowhere" to become "Extensive examples", which is what it is. The same columns are found around the earth along the same timescales. In these columns are observed gradual evolutionary changes as the environment of the earth changed.

Creationists always seem to make a great deal of 'gaps', but then deny them when those gaps are filled. If you are familiar with how Torrents work in file sharing, that's how these work. Each person seeding these torrents has some parts of a file, but not necessarily a complete one. By taking a copy of what one person has, then adding that to a copy of what someone else has of that same file, gradually you build up a completed file of your own from fitting together copies of the 'gaps'. When you have a jigsaw puzzle with a few missing pieces you can still make out what the overall picture is quite early in the stage of solving it. Even when the vast majority of that puzzle is made up of 'gaps'.

FourPart;1491868 wrote:

Most of the earlier fossils were water dwelling. Why would a flood affect them?


The Flood created a lot of sediment in which they were buried.



Life on earth began as a flood - not the other way round.


Life began during the six creation days. The Flood came a couple of thousand years later because of the wickedness of man.



Gaps in the Geologic Column

The geologic column—that presentation of the rock record that places rock strata into various ages—can be intimidating. Because it seems authoritative and we see it so frequently, we sometimes place more faith in it than it actually deserves.



Without a doubt, rocks and rock strata can be characterized by placing them on the column. While many incorrect notions are imbedded in this diagram (most particularly the “absolute ages given), rock layers really do usually line up the way the drawing presents them. This visual illustration can be a useful tool, especially when considering one rock’s age “relative to another. But the rock layers are frequently dated by their fossil content, arranged in the erroneous evolutionary order. How much credence should the Christian creationist place in it?

It might help to consider the rock layers in Grand Canyon, since they are so well known and studied in creationist literature. Obviously, the layers rest one on top of another, with no gaps between them. Schematic drawings present them this way, but while the layers are dated consecutively, they are not dated one right after the other. Often there are lengthy time gaps postulated between the layers. The rock record of those time periods is missing. These gaps, called “unconformities, represent either a period of non-deposition or of erosion.



If the old earth view is correct, then the record is woefully incomplete. Grand Canyon strata are all “dated in the supposedly 300 million-year-long Paleozoic Era, but of the seven periods within that era, only five are represented in Grand Canyon. More importantly, if the upper and lower surfaces of each stratum are dated by questionable uniformitarian means and plotted on a vertical line showing the entire Paleozoic Era, less than ten percent of the total time postulated by evolutionists is represented! It better represents brief episodes of deposition within the great Flood of Noah’s day.

The geologic column as normally presented should not be considered accurate history and should be recognized as a statement of evolutionary old-earth dogma. There is some truth contained in the geologic column, but not as it is normally taught. Its implications can never justify doubting God’s truth as recorded in Scripture.

Gaps in the Geologic Column | The Institute for Creation Research

You two fellows have more patience for this "gentleman" then I could muster. Pahu probably has a large manure fork in his hand. He'd need one for all the BS he shovels.

A fork? He needs a massive ladle.

As I said, he never comes back with any arguments for his case, other than from Brown pastings. This is simply because Brown is the only one who doesn't get it. There are no supporting sources. That's why he can't provide any.

Ok - cue meaningless list of names & publications...

Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue? 1




DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing (a). Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years (b). This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly a 400,000-year-old hominin femur from Spain, (c) 17-million-year-old magnolia leaves, (d) and 11–425-million-year-old salt crystals (e). Dozens of plants and animals have left their DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old (f). DNA fragments have been found in the scales of a “200-million-year-old fossilized fish (g) and possibly in a “80-million-year-old dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed (h). Frequently, DNA is found in insects and plants encased in amber samples, assumed to be 25–120 million years old. (i).

These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit (j). They now claim that DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this claim (k).

a. This natural process is driven by the continual thermal vibrations of atoms in DNA. Just as marbles in a vibrating container always try to find lower positions, vibrating atoms tend to reorganize into arrangements with lower energies. Thus, DNA tends to form less energetic compounds such as water and carbon dioxide.

b. Bryan Sykes, “The Past Comes Alive, Nature, Vol. 352, 1 August 1991, pp. 381–382.

“Many scientists still consider this idea far fetched, but Poinar points out that not long ago few people believed any ancient DNA could be sequenced. ‘When we started, we were told that we were crazy,’ he says. Kathryn Hoppe, “Brushing the Dust off Ancient DNA, Science News, Vol. 142, 24 October 1992, p. 281.

c. Ewen Callaway, “Hominin DNA Baffles Experts, Nature, Vol.*504, 5 December 2013. pp.*16–17.

d. Edward M. Golenberg et al., “Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species, Nature, Vol. 344, 12 April 1990, pp. 656–658.

DNA disintegrates faster when it is in contact with water. In commenting on the remarkably old DNA in a supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leaf, Svante Pääbo remarked, “The clay [in which the leaf was found] was wet, however, and one wonders how DNA could have survived the damaging influence of water for so long. Also see Svante Pääbo, “Ancient DNA, Scientific American, Vol.*269, November 1993, p.*92. [Maybe those magnolia leaves are not 17 million years old.]

“That DNA could survive for such a staggering length of time was totally unexpected—almost unbelievable. Jeremy Cherfas, “Ancient DNA: Still Busy after Death, Science, Vol. 253, 20 September 1991, p. 1354.

e. “Fragments of 16S ribosomal RNA genes were detected by polymerase chain reaction amplification of DNA extracted from halite [salt, NaCl] samples ranging in age from 11 to 425 Myr (millions of years). Steven A. Fish et al., “Recovery of 16S Ribosomal RNA Gene Fragments from Ancient Halite, Nature, Vol. 417, 23 May 2002, p. 432.

f. Eske Willerslev et al., “Diverse Plant and Animal

Genetic Records from Holocene and Pleistocene Sediments, Science, Vol.*300, 2*May 2003, pp.*791–795.

g. Hoppe, p.*281.

Virginia Morell, “30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field, Science, Vol.*257, 25*September 1992, p.*1862.

h. “Under physiological conditions, it would be extremely rare to find preserved DNA that was tens of thousands of years old. Scott R. Woodward et al., “DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments, Science, Vol.*266, 18*November 1994, p.*1229.

Some have charged that the DNA Woodward recovered from a large Cretaceous bone in Utah was contaminated with human, or perhaps mammal, DNA. Several of their arguments are based on evolutionary presuppositions. Woodward rebuts those claims in “Detecting Dinosaur DNA, Science, Vol.*268, 26 May 1995, pp.*1191–1194.

i. Hendrick N. Poinar et al., “DNA from an Extinct Plant, Nature, Vol.*363, 24*June 1993, p.*677.

Rob DeSalle et al., “DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications, Science, Vol.*257, 25*September 1992, pp.*1933–1936.

Raúl J. Cano et al., “Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120–135-Million-Year-Old Weevil, Nature, Vol.*363, 10*June 1993, pp.*536–538.

j. Tomas Lindahl is a recognized expert on DNA and its rapid disintegration. He tried to solve this problem of “old DNA by claiming that all such discoveries resulted from contamination and poor measurement techniques. He wrote, “The apparent observation that fully hydrated plant DNA might be retained in high-molecular mass form for 20 million years is incompatible with the known properties of the chemical structure of DNA. [See Tomas Lindahl, “Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA, Nature, Vol.*362, 22*April 1993, p.*714.] His claims of contamination are effectively rebutted in many of the papers listed above and by:

George O. Poinar Jr., in “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA, Nature, Vol.*365, 21*October 1993, p.*700. (The work of George Poinar and others was a major inspiration for the book and film, Jurassic Park. )

Edward M. Golenberg, “Antediluvian DNA Research, Nature, Vol.*367, 24*February 1994, p.*692.

The measurement procedures of Poinar and others were far better controlled than Lindahl realized. That is, modern DNA did not contaminate the fossil. However, Lindahl is probably correct in saying that DNA cannot last much longer than 10,000 years. All points of view are consistent when one concludes that these old ages are wrong.

k. “We know from chemical experiments that it [DNA] degrades and how fast it degrades. After 25 million years, there shouldn’t be any DNA left at all. Rebecca L. Cann, as quoted by Morell, p.*1862.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

From now on I shall simply be responding to pasted postings with the contempt they deserve. They have no validity. They demonstrate your inability to think for yourself - a clear demonstration of retrograde evolution. In future, such pastings will receive the response:

"Disregarded Crap"

This should be interpreted as a statement of your utter idiocy & incapacity to use the basic level of intelligence that even a slug would be born with.

FourPart;1492062 wrote: From now on I shall simply be responding to pasted postings with the contempt they deserve. They have no validity. They demonstrate your inability to think for yourself - a clear demonstration of retrograde evolution. In future, such pastings will receive the response:

"Disregarded Crap"

This should be interpreted as a statement of your utter idiocy & incapacity to use the basic level of intelligence that even a slug would be born with.


That looks like a great idea for one who is unable to deal with the facts of science that conflict with his erroneous preconceptions.

Pahu;1492090 wrote: That looks like a great idea for one who is unable to deal with the facts of science that conflict with his erroneous preconceptions.


I am going to save this post for when I need an example of the Pot-Kettle phenomenon.

I can deal with FACTS - it's the evidence free hypothesis conjecture based on bad science, preconceptions, suppositions, cherry picking & taking sections of quotes out of context that I can't handle. It's also the lack of variety of sources of claimed statements that I can't handle. For any claim to have any degree of vailidity, it has to to be verified & cross referenced from other independent sources (not connected with any of the others in any way). You have not been able to provide any of this. You have the smallest library in the world - 1 book. I doubt you even read or understand any of it. You merely copy & paste great chunks of it at a time, mainly when it bears absolutely no relelvence to the matter in hand, thus indicating that they are merely random pastings, which is typical of someone who is unaware of its content. When you get asked questions, you merely reply with another pasting. This just confirms you don't understand the issue, or you would be able to construct a decent argument for yourself. How long did I repeatedly have to ask you the same question before you finally found a pasting including a few details about your list from Who's Who? Then how long did it take for me to start doing my own research on them via Google, and showed each & every one to either be directly connected with Brown's own Institute, or having criminal records for fraud, or known to have claimed degrees that they weren't entitled to, or what qualifications they had being totally unrelated from the matter in hand? Less than an hour. Did you ever have the sense of mind to do the same thing? To check the facts? Of course not. You blindly follow Brown, because his is the only book you possess & he is, therefore your loving hero. Come to that, though, do you even possess an actual copy of the book, or is it all merely copied & pasted from online?

FourPart;1492098 wrote: I can deal with FACTS - it's the evidence free hypothesis conjecture based on bad science, preconceptions, suppositions, cherry picking & taking sections of quotes out of context that I can't handle.


Then why do you continue to believe in evolution and atheism that are based on evidence frees speculation masquerading as science?

It's also the lack of variety of sources of claimed statements that I can't handle. For any claim to have any degree of vailidity, it has to to be verified & cross referenced from other independent sources (not connected with any of the others in any way). You have not been able to provide any of this.


I provide the very items you claim I do not.

You have the smallest library in the world - 1 book. I doubt you even read or understand any of it. You merely copy & paste great chunks of it at a time, mainly when it bears absolutely no relelvence to the matter in hand, thus indicating that they are merely random pastings, which is typical of someone who is unaware of its content. When you get asked questions, you merely reply with another pasting. This just confirms you don't understand the issue, or you would be able to construct a decent argument for yourself.


The reason I use the information from others (not just one book) is I want to answer your questions and assertions by those who know the subject better that I.

How long did I repeatedly have to ask you the same question before you finally found a pasting including a few details about your list from Who's Who? Then how long did it take for me to start doing my own research on them via Google, and showed each & every one to either be directly connected with Brown's own Institute, or having criminal records for fraud, or known to have claimed degrees that they weren't entitled to, or what qualifications they had being totally unrelated from the matter in hand? Less than an hour.


Evidence free assertions!

Did you ever have the sense of mind to do the same thing? To check the facts? Of course not. You blindly follow Brown, because his is the only book you possess & he is, therefore your loving hero. Come to that, though, do you even possess an actual copy of the book, or is it all merely copied & pasted from online?


Yes, I have a copy of his book, which is filled with conclusions based on the facts of science.

What a bunch of BS.

That list of scientists that are supposed to support Pahu has a problem. ie. Newton was on that list but he was long dead before evolution became an issue. Perhaps Pahu is in touch with the dead. LOL It must be nice to have the support of the dead. Wow all that knowledge that they can pass on verbally. LOL It's a bit spooky to me.

Pahu;1492104 wrote: Then why do you continue to believe in evolution and atheism that are based on evidence frees speculation masquerading as science?


I provided a quote to the Pope asserting that Evolution was real & that the earth is millions of years old, as opposed to having been created in 6 days. Is he to be classed as an Atheist as well?

I provide the very items you claim I do not.
The only item (note the singular usage) are repeated pastings from Brown's comic, which include links to his own Institute & cohorts.

The reason I use the information from others (not just one book) is I want to answer your questions and assertions by those who know the subject better that I.
Not once have you provided any independent source researched by yourself.

Evidence free assertions!
Not evidence free whatsoever. I provided independent links that are matters of Public Record that confirmed exactly what I said.

Yes, I have a copy of his book, which is filled with conclusions based on the facts of science.


I wonder which version of the book you have. He does, after all, keep bringing out new versions of it, changing the 'irrefutable' information he gave in previous episodes, once they were publicly refuted. In every review I've seen about it the reviewers have to make a point at the beginning of the review of which version they are reviewing because he keeps changing the 'facts' in 'new', 'revised' editions.

So come on. I'm challenging you to come up with any independent sources that will verify anything he says WITHOUT pasting anything from Brown. Try doing your OWN research for a change.

FourPart;1492121 wrote: I provided a quote to the Pope asserting that Evolution was real & that the earth is millions of years old, as opposed to having been created in 6 days. Is he to be classed as an Atheist as well?


I do not believe he is an atheist, but if he believes what you claim, he is just as wrong as atheists, since his beliefs are in conflict with what God has revealed in His Bible.

FourPart;1492122 wrote: So come on. I'm challenging you to come up with any independent sources that will verify anything he says WITHOUT pasting anything from Brown. Try doing your OWN research for a change.


HERE’S WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THIS EXCITING BOOK

Walt Brown’s book is the rarest of species: It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions. This book is essential for any teacher or student who is serious about resolving these issues on the basis of the evidences rather than on opinions or unsubstantiated or unverifiable hypotheses.

Dr. C. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Furman University

The subject of origins is not peripheral; it is foundational. I have spent most of my adult career in universities in the U.S. and Europe (as a Fulbright scholar), and it is clear that Christianity is losing ground on college campuses. The Christian faith is becoming unraveled with bad science. I can say without reservation that In the Beginning is the single most useful resource I know of on this subject, bar none. Walt is both diligent and creative, and you will find the arguments concise and thought provoking. The material is helpful on almost any level, and the references will be invaluable to those wishing to dig deeper. If I had to send my child off with only two books, they would be the Bible and In the Beginning.

Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, The Center for Electromechanics, University of Texas at Austin

Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.

Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College

Dr. Walt Brown uses three striking gifts in his creation science research and teaching: (1) a highly organized mind, (2) the ability to consider scientific evidence without the encumbrance of conventional paradigms, and (3) the ability to articulate the material with complete clarity. Walt is a born teacher. This enables him to develop significant new theories, such as the hydroplate theory, and to present them with remarkable clarity in both his seminars and this book. I am convinced that everyone needs to be familiar with the landmark work documented in this book.

Dr. Stanley A. Mumma, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Walt Brown’s seminal text, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood has developed into a mature exposition of an important new approach to the geological sciences. The hydroplate theory is an alternate explanation of events of the Noahic flood, present-day geological features of the world, and actual mechanisms that operated then and continue to do so now. It directly challenges the current plate tectonics model of large-scale geology, and suggests a major revamping of the geological events associated with the flood God sent upon the world in light of the clear text of Genesis. It represents, then, a serious attempt at reconstructing the science of geology from the ground up.

Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Geology: Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory, Chalcedon Report

The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.

Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ements.htm

Pahu;1492154 wrote: I do not believe he is an atheist, but if he believes what you claim, he is just as wrong as atheists, since his beliefs are in conflict with what God has revealed in His Bible.


Disagree. The Bible does not prove the age of the Earth. It was never intended to do so. There is nothing in the bible that was intended to be scientific doctrine.

It is foolishness to believe such a thing.

Pahu;1492156 wrote: HERE’S WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THIS EXCITING BOOK

Walt Brown’s book is the rarest of species: It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions. This book is essential for any teacher or student who is serious about resolving these issues on the basis of the evidences rather than on opinions or unsubstantiated or unverifiable hypotheses.

Dr. C. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Furman University

The subject of origins is not peripheral; it is foundational. I have spent most of my adult career in universities in the U.S. and Europe (as a Fulbright scholar), and it is clear that Christianity is losing ground on college campuses. The Christian faith is becoming unraveled with bad science. I can say without reservation that In the Beginning is the single most useful resource I know of on this subject, bar none. Walt is both diligent and creative, and you will find the arguments concise and thought provoking. The material is helpful on almost any level, and the references will be invaluable to those wishing to dig deeper. If I had to send my child off with only two books, they would be the Bible and In the Beginning.

Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, The Center for Electromechanics, University of Texas at Austin

Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.

Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College

Dr. Walt Brown uses three striking gifts in his creation science research and teaching: (1) a highly organized mind, (2) the ability to consider scientific evidence without the encumbrance of conventional paradigms, and (3) the ability to articulate the material with complete clarity. Walt is a born teacher. This enables him to develop significant new theories, such as the hydroplate theory, and to present them with remarkable clarity in both his seminars and this book. I am convinced that everyone needs to be familiar with the landmark work documented in this book.

Dr. Stanley A. Mumma, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Walt Brown’s seminal text, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood has developed into a mature exposition of an important new approach to the geological sciences. The hydroplate theory is an alternate explanation of events of the Noahic flood, present-day geological features of the world, and actual mechanisms that operated then and continue to do so now. It directly challenges the current plate tectonics model of large-scale geology, and suggests a major revamping of the geological events associated with the flood God sent upon the world in light of the clear text of Genesis. It represents, then, a serious attempt at reconstructing the science of geology from the ground up.

Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Geology: Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory, Chalcedon Report

The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.

Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ements.htm


You prove my point. You have failed in your first attempt.

First of all you should check your links. The page does not exist.

Secondly that page is part of the "Center for Scientific Creation" website. And what do we know about them?

Since retiring from the military in 1980, Brown has been the director of his self created "Center for Scientific Creation" and has done his own research, writing, and speaking on origins theory.[2] In 1998, Brown was appointed to a committee reviewing Arizona's state science standards. Evolution was retained in the Arizona state science standards after a final decision in August 1998.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brow ... tionist%29

How about this one:

An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE

A whois on creationscience.com reveals that the registrant of the website is a certain Brad Anderson - who just 'happened' to be involved in the writing of Brown's fiction.



Although many people helped with this book and offered constructive suggestions, three should be mentioned. Brad Anderson’s creativity and unparalleled expertise with computers and book design are seen on each page. Jon Schoenfield and Peggy Brown skillfully and meticulously checked and frequently improved all parts of the text. My family’s support has been invaluable. To them and many others who helped, I am immensely grateful. The mistakes, of course, are mine alone.
Walt Brown: https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Preface.html

So - you have failed to meet a challenge yet again. I clearly specified, in my challenge to you:

So come on. I'm challenging you to come up with any independent sources that will verify anything he says WITHOUT pasting anything from Brown. Try doing your OWN research for a change.


As the source is certainly not independent, and can be taken as being from Brown, that fails on both counts. Furthermore, the link would have come, once again from Brown's book, therefore you have also failed in doing your own research, which was my 3rd condition. Failed on 3 out of 3. Good start Batman.

FourPart;1492176 wrote: You prove my point. You have failed in your first attempt.

First of all you should check your links. The page does not exist.


Thank you, I had not noticed. The new link is: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - HERE’S WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THIS EXCITING BOOK

So - you have failed to meet a challenge yet again. I clearly specified, in my challenge to you:

So come on. I'm challenging you to come up with any independent sources that will verify anything he says WITHOUT pasting anything from Brown. Try doing your OWN research for a change.


As the source is certainly not independent, and can be taken as being from Brown, that fails on both counts. Furthermore, the link would have come, once again from Brown's book, therefore you have also failed in doing your own research, which was my 3rd condition. Failed on 3 out of 3. Good start Batman.


The scientists quoted are independent even though Brown includes them in his book. Also, the following scientists also confirm his conclusions:

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

Your problem is you refuse to accept the facts in favor or your disproven myth. Why? Simply because you prefer to believe the myth that claims God does not exist. You are in good company. Here is what several scientist say:

With NO scientific evidence, why do so many "scientists" embrace evolution? Following are some quotes from noted evolutionists, which will shed light on this subject:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

(The Blind Watchmaker, page 6)

H.G. Wells, author and historian, wrote: "If all animals and man evolved ... then the entire historic fabric of Christianity—the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement—collapsed like a house of cards." (The Outlines of History)

Aldous Huxley stated the matter succinctly in his article, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist :

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption. ... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. ... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom (1966, 3:19).

The late Sir Julian Huxley, once the world's leading evolution "expert", and head of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO), In answer to the question on the Merv Griffin show: ‘Why do people believe in evolution? said, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.

George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).

According to their own testimonies, the most prominent evolutionists believed and taught evolution, NOT because of any scientific evidence, but based upon their rejection of God.

The fact is there is proof God does exist:

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

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe 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.

Please tell me when you are going to do the experiment.

"Disregarded Crap"

Remember the wording of the challenge:

So come on. I'm challenging you to come up with any independent sources that will verify anything he says WITHOUT pasting anything from Brown. Try doing your OWN research for a change.


Once again what you're pasting is the same, tired lists which I have already demonstrated, one name at a time to be untrustworthy, along with verifiable sources.

LarsMac;1492165 wrote: Disagree. The Bible does not prove the age of the Earth. It was never intended to do so. There is nothing in the bible that was intended to be scientific doctrine.

It is foolishness to believe such a thing.


Yea, what he ^ said.:guitarist

tude dog;1492188 wrote: Yea, what he ^ said.:guitarist


More like a book that starts "Once upon a time, not so long ago, in a land far away..." should be taken as a reference on History & Geography.

FourPart;1492193 wrote: More like a book that starts "Once upon a time, not so long ago, in a land far away..." should be taken as a reference on History & Geography.


Bible Accuracy





1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

The Bible and Archaeology: How Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Record | United Church of God

http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm



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



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

King James Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:



100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecy

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

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

Bible Prophecy



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

"Disregarded Crap"

FourPart;1492223 wrote: "Disregarded Crap"


In other words: ''Rejecting reality because it conflicts with my erroneous preconceptions."

Pahu;1492256 wrote: In other words: ''Rejecting reality because it conflicts with my erroneous preconceptions."


You do seem to grasp the concept. You just refuse to admit that you are doing it.