Pahu;1492256 wrote: In other words: ''Rejecting reality because it conflicts with my erroneous preconceptions."
Well it's certainly good to see you finally admit that your preconceptions were erroneous.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue? 2
Bacteria. Even living bacterial spores have been recovered, cultured, and identified in intestines of bees preserved in supposedly 25–40-million-year-old amber (l). The same bacteria, Bacillus, are found alive in rocks allegedly 250 million and 650 million years old (m). Italian scientists have recovered 78 different types of dormant, but living, bacteria in two meteorites that are presumed to be 4.5 billion years old (n). Anyone who accepts such old ages for these rocks must also accept that some bacteria are practically immortal—an obviously absurd conclusion. (Because these “old bacteria and the various DNA specimens closely match those of today, little evolution has occurred.)
Proteins and Soft Tissue. Evolutionists face similar contradictions with proteins (o), soft tissue (p), blood compounds (q) and other complex organic matter (r) preserved in dinosaur bones (s). Researchers were shocked to find soft tissue in eight pieces of a dinosaur’s toe, rib, hip, leg, and claw (t) Even dinosaur skin (from a hadrosaur) has been recovered and tasted (u). As with DNA, it is ridiculous to believe these remains have lasted 65–150 million years (v).
l. Raúl J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki, “Revival and Identification of Bacterial Spores in 25- to 40-Million-Year-Old Dominican Amber, Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, pp. 1060–1064.
Many tests were preformed to rule out contamination. [See also F. G. Priest, Andrew T. Beckenbach, and Raúl J. Cano, “Age of Bacteria from Amber, Science, Vol. 270, 22 December 1995, pp. 2015–2017.]
“When you look at them they don’t look any different from the modern ones, but these bacteria are ancient [supposedly 25–40 million years ancient] and they’re alive! Joshua Fischman, “Have 25-Million-Year-Old Bacteria Returned to Life? Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, p. 977.
m. “There is also the question of how bacterial biopolymers can remain intact over millions of years in dormant bacteria; or, conversely, if bacteria are metabolically active enough to repair biopolymers, this raises the question of what energy source could last over such a long period. R. John Parkes, “A Case of Bacterial Immortality? Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 844–845.
Russell H. Vreeland et al., “Isolation of a 250 Million-Year-Old Halotolerant Bacterium from a Primary Salt Crystal, Nature, Vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 897–900.
Other tests have confirmed Vreeland’s discover described above. [See Cindy L. Satterfield et al., “New Evidence for 250 Ma Age of Halotolerant Bacterium from a Permian Salt Crystal, Geology, Vol. 33, April 2005, pp. 265–268.]
n. See Endnote 97 .
o. Richard Monastersky, “Protein Identified in Dinosaur Fossils, Science News, Vol. 142, 3 October 1992, p. 213.
Gerard Muyzer et al., “Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs, Geology, Vol. 20, October 1992, pp. 871–874.
p. “‘I got goose bumps,’ recalls [Mary] Schweitzer. ‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’ Virginia Morell, Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science, Vol.*261, 9 July 1993, p.*160.
Blood vessels in bone appear to have been found in supposed 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones. [See “New Signs of Dinosaur Proteins, Science, Vol.*350, 4*December 2015, p.*1137.]
“Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels ... Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex, Science, Vol. 307, 25 March 2005, p. 1952.
“‘I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren’t supposed to be there, but there they are,’ said Schweitzer, lead author of the paper. ‘I was pretty shocked.’ Evelyn Boswell, “Montana T. Rex Yields Next Big Discovery in Dinosaur Paleontology, Montana State University News Service, 24 March 2005, p. 1.
Mary H. Schweitzer made these discoveries while completing her doctor’s degree under John “Jack R. Horner, one of the world’s leading dinosaur researchers. Horner is the Curator of Paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies, and was a technical advisor for the film Jurassic Park.
When Schweitzer reported her discovery to Horner, he replied, “Mary, the freaking creationists are just going to love you. Schweitzer replied, “Jack, its your dinosaur. [See Jack Horner and James Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur (New York: Penguin Group, 2009), pp.*80–81.
See the interview with Mary Schweitzer on “60 Minutes at www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9VbDFCndMI&feature =player_embedded
“Here we report on an exceptionally complete specimen (LACM 128319) of the moderately derived genus Platecarpus that preserves soft tissues and anatomical details ... . Johan Lindgren et al., “Convergent Evolution in Aquatic Tetrapods: Insights from an Exceptional Fossil Mosasaur, PloS ONE, 5(8) e11998, 2010.
q. Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Heme Compounds in Dinosaur Trabecular Bone, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 94, June 1997, pp. 6291–6296.
r. “This discovery also provides the oldest evidence of in situ preservation of complex organic remains in a terrestrial vertebrate. Robert R. Reisz et al., “Embryology of Early Jurassic Dinosaur from China with Evidence of Preserved Organic Remains, Nature, Vol.*496, 11 April 2013, p.*210.
s. “We present multiple lines of evidence [from multiple independent institutions] that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80-million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis. ... Transparent, flexible vessels were observed; some contained spherical microstructures, whereas others contained an amorphous red substance that is superficially similar to degraded blood products in vessels recovered from extant bone. Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequence of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis, Science, Vol.*324, 1 May 2009, p.*626.
t. “What they found shocked them. Robert F. Service, “Signs of Ancient Proteins Seen Inside Dinosaur Bones. Science, Vol.*348, 12 June 2015, p.*1184.
u. “University of Regina physicist Mauricio Barbi said the hadrosaur, a duck-billed dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous period (65–100 million years ago), was found close to a river bed near Grand Prairie, Alberta. ... ‘As we excavated the fossil, I thought that we were looking at a skin impression. Then I noticed a piece came off and I realized this is not ordinary—this is real skin.’ ... this is only the third three-dimensional dinosaur skin specimen ever found worldwide. ... But perhaps the greatest question Barbi is trying to answer at CLS is how the fossil remained intact for around 70-million years. Mark Ferguson, “Scientists Study Rare Dinosaur Skin Fossil at CLS, Press Release, Canadian Light Source, 26 April 2013.
v. “There is still so much about ancient soft tissues that we do not understand. Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded? Mary H. Schweitzer, “Blood from Stone, Scientific American, Vol.*303, December 2010, p.*69.
Schweitzer and the Scientific American editors cannot account for the supposed 67-million-year age of the soft tissue and blood Schweitzer found. The answer is simple; its age is only 1/10,000th of that age. She and the editors don’t understand the flood and the origin of earth’s radioactivity. [See pages 110-416].
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
"Disregarded Crap"
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1492292 wrote: "Disregarded Crap"
In other words: ''Rejecting reality because it conflicts with my erroneous preconceptions."
In other words: ''Rejecting reality because it conflicts with my erroneous preconceptions."
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1492314 wrote: In other words: ''Rejecting reality because it conflicts with my erroneous preconceptions."
What is really interesting about your last post, Pahu, is that there are articles quoted that don't exist in the libraries quoted.
A google search for several of the articles finds only reference to your anti-Evolution websites.
The actual article proves non-existent.
Example:
a search for "Science News, Vol. 142, 3 October 1992, p. 213." Takes us to "Answers in Genesis", to Mr Brown's website, and to posts made by you in this and other forums.
A search of the Science Magazine vol 142, published Oct 1992, has no record, whatsoever of this quoted article.
Also the first two articles in that last post draw conclusions that completely contrast your assertions that the Earth is not millions of years old.
By the way, the first two paragraphs, which your clever copy/paste techniques seem intended to show come from the article mentioned do not belong to that article, and nothing in said article support the claims made in the post.
Yes, I took the time to look the articles up, today.
You, sir, are a fraud.
Have you actually ever read any of the articles from Science magazine, which you seem to love to quote?
What is really interesting about your last post, Pahu, is that there are articles quoted that don't exist in the libraries quoted.
A google search for several of the articles finds only reference to your anti-Evolution websites.
The actual article proves non-existent.
Example:
a search for "Science News, Vol. 142, 3 October 1992, p. 213." Takes us to "Answers in Genesis", to Mr Brown's website, and to posts made by you in this and other forums.
A search of the Science Magazine vol 142, published Oct 1992, has no record, whatsoever of this quoted article.
Also the first two articles in that last post draw conclusions that completely contrast your assertions that the Earth is not millions of years old.
By the way, the first two paragraphs, which your clever copy/paste techniques seem intended to show come from the article mentioned do not belong to that article, and nothing in said article support the claims made in the post.
Yes, I took the time to look the articles up, today.
You, sir, are a fraud.
Have you actually ever read any of the articles from Science magazine, which you seem to love to quote?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1492315 wrote: Have you actually ever read any of the articles from Science magazine, which you seem to love to quote?
Pahu? Read anything except anything written by Dolt Brown? Yeah, right.
Mind you, I'm glad that he has now admitted TWICE, in separate postings, to his preconceptions being erroneous.
Pahu? Read anything except anything written by Dolt Brown? Yeah, right.
Mind you, I'm glad that he has now admitted TWICE, in separate postings, to his preconceptions being erroneous.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1492315 wrote: What is really interesting about your last post, Pahu, is that there are articles quoted that don't exist in the libraries quoted.
A google search for several of the articles finds only reference to your anti-Evolution websites.
The actual article proves non-existent.
Example:
a search for "Science News, Vol. 142, 3 October 1992, p. 213." Takes us to "Answers in Genesis", to Mr Brown's website, and to posts made by you in this and other forums.
A search of the Science Magazine vol 142, published Oct 1992, has no record, whatsoever of this quoted article.
Also the first two articles in that last post draw conclusions that completely contrast your assertions that the Earth is not millions of years old.
Wrong! They confirm the fact Earth could not be that old.
By the way, the first two paragraphs, which your clever copy/paste techniques seem intended to show come from the article mentioned do not belong to that article, and nothing in said article support the claims made in the post.
I do not understand your meaning, unless you are referring to the end notes, which do indeed belong to the article.
Yes, I took the time to look the articles up, today.
You did not do a very good job. What about the end notes you did not mention?
You, sir, are a fraud.
Have you actually ever read any of the articles from Science magazine, which you seem to love to quote?
Your accusation is fraudulent and reveals your inability to accept the facts by resorting to name calling.
No, I do not read Science Magazine. I leave that to others like you.
A google search for several of the articles finds only reference to your anti-Evolution websites.
The actual article proves non-existent.
Example:
a search for "Science News, Vol. 142, 3 October 1992, p. 213." Takes us to "Answers in Genesis", to Mr Brown's website, and to posts made by you in this and other forums.
A search of the Science Magazine vol 142, published Oct 1992, has no record, whatsoever of this quoted article.
Also the first two articles in that last post draw conclusions that completely contrast your assertions that the Earth is not millions of years old.
Wrong! They confirm the fact Earth could not be that old.
By the way, the first two paragraphs, which your clever copy/paste techniques seem intended to show come from the article mentioned do not belong to that article, and nothing in said article support the claims made in the post.
I do not understand your meaning, unless you are referring to the end notes, which do indeed belong to the article.
Yes, I took the time to look the articles up, today.
You did not do a very good job. What about the end notes you did not mention?
You, sir, are a fraud.
Have you actually ever read any of the articles from Science magazine, which you seem to love to quote?
Your accusation is fraudulent and reveals your inability to accept the facts by resorting to name calling.
No, I do not read Science Magazine. I leave that to others like you.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1492317 wrote: Wrong! ...
I do not understand your meaning,
...
No, I do not read Science Magazine. I leave that to others like you.
That pretty well says everything you need to say.
I do not understand your meaning,
...
No, I do not read Science Magazine. I leave that to others like you.
That pretty well says everything you need to say.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Blind obedience:
Brown:
"This is what I say is written. Therefore you must believe that it is written thus. To check for yourself is a sin against your Master"
Pahu:
"Yes Master. I believe. I swear I shall never have any sinful thoughts of my own. I shall never dare to question your word by looking to confirm thy claims".
Brown:
"This is what I say is written. Therefore you must believe that it is written thus. To check for yourself is a sin against your Master"
Pahu:
"Yes Master. I believe. I swear I shall never have any sinful thoughts of my own. I shall never dare to question your word by looking to confirm thy claims".
Science Disproves Evolution
It is too bad that what Pahu proposes does not stand up to the present day bona fide scientists. It has even ceased to be a humorous discussion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Human Artifacts
At various times and places, man-made objects have been found encased in coal. Examples include a thimble (a), an iron pot (b), an iron instrument (c) an 8-karat gold chain (d), three throwing-spears (e), and a metallic vessel inlaid with silver (f). Other “out-of-place artifacts have been found inside deeply buried rocks: nails (g), a screw (h), a strange coin (i) a tiny ceramic doll (j), and other objects of obvious human manufacture (k). By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man.* Again, something is wrong.
a. J. Q. Adams, “Eve’s Thimble, American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, October 1883, pp. 331–332.
b. Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Human Footprints in Rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, March 1971, pp. 201–202.
c. John Buchanan, “Discovery of an Iron Instrument Lately Found Imbedded in a Natural Seam of Coal in the Neighbourhood of Glasgow, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part 2, Section IV, 1853.
d. “A Necklace of a Prehistoric God, Morrisonville Times (Morrisonville, Illinois), 11 June 1891, p. 1.
e. Robin Dennell, “The World’s Oldest Spears, Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 767–768.
Hartmut Thieme, “Lower Palaeolithic Hunting Spears from Germany, Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 807–810.
f. “A Relic of a By-Gone Age, Scientific American, Vol. 7, 5 June 1852, p. 298.
g. David Brewster, “Queries and Statements Concerning a Nail Found Imbedded in a Block of Sandstone Obtained from Kingoodie (Mylnfield) Quarry, North Britain, reported to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1844.
Rene Noorbergen, Secrets of the Lost Races (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1977), p. 42.
h. Ibid.
i. J. R. Jochmans, “Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth, Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1979, p. 1.
j. Robert E. Gentet and Edward C. Lain, “The Nampa Image—An Ancient Artifact? Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, March 1999, pp. 203–210.
G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 297–300.
G. Frederick Wright, “The Idaho Find, American Antiquarian, Vol. 2, 1889, pp. 379–381.
G. Frederick Wright, “An Archaeological Discovery in Idaho, Scribner’s Magazine, Vol. 7, 1890, pp. 235–238.
k. Frank Calvert, “On the Probable Existence of Man during the Miocene Period, Anthropological Institute Journal, Vol. 3, 1873, pp. 127–129.
J. B. Browne, “Singular Impression in Marble, The American Journal of Science and Arts, January 1831, p. 361.
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]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
"Disregarded Crap"
Science Disproves Evolution
A new carnivorous dinosaur species named Dracoraptor hanigani uncovered in the south of Wales is possibly the oldest known Jurassic dinosaur from the UK, according to a study published January 20, 2016 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by David Martill from the University of Portsmouth, England, and colleagues from National Museum Wales and University of Manchester.
Read more at: 200 million-year-old Jurassic dinosaur uncovered in Wales
200 million-year-old Jurassic dinosaur uncovered in Wales
Read more at: 200 million-year-old Jurassic dinosaur uncovered in Wales
200 million-year-old Jurassic dinosaur uncovered in Wales
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
A small team of researchers from Brazil and Argentina has found via skull analysis and modeling that a kind of new-world monkey appears to have undergone changes in individual parts of its brain during evolutionary periods which led to advances in cognitive development. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team describes their study and results and why they believe what they found might apply to humans as well.
Read more at: Monkey skull study suggests brain evolved in spurts
Monkey skull study suggests brain evolved in spurts
Read more at: Monkey skull study suggests brain evolved in spurts
Monkey skull study suggests brain evolved in spurts
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Organisation trumps size in primate brain evolution
The evolution of anthropoid primates, including monkeys, apes and humans, over the past 40 million years was largely driven by brain reorganization, and not brain size, according to new research from UCL.
The study, which is published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, found that around three quarters of differences between the brains of species of monkeys and apes are due to internal reorganization that is independent of size, dispelling the idea that variation in size is the primary factor characterising anthropoid primate brain evolution.
Dr Jeroen Smaers (UCL Anthropology and UCL Genetics, Evolution & Environment), lead author of the study said: "The brain is central to how animals adapt and modify their behaviour in a changing environment.
"What we've found is that in relation to the brain, species differences are mainly explained by how the brain is organized and wired internally, not how large the brain is. This suggests that brain reorganization, not size, may have been the principal force driving brain evolution."
To trace the evolutionary history of the anthropoid brain, the team collected the overall size of the brain and its internal structures for 17 anthropoid primate species. They then mapped and compared the evolutionary changes in these structures to get an insight into how the brains of each of the species specialised while adapting to their respective environments.
Dr Christophe Soligo (UCL Anthropology) said: "Changes in the overall size of the brain have often been proposed as the main solution to producing a more complex brain that supports more complex behaviour.
"A bigger brain is, however, energetically very expensive and may not always be an option. Sometimes animals do not have the choice to increase their energetic input but are still faced with a pressure to adapt. This is when reorganisation may come into play."
By analysing the overall and relative size of 20 brain structures, the team also found that the prefrontal cortex – a brain area that synthesizes information processed in other parts of the brain to produce complex judgements and behaviours - plays the biggest role in explaining the evolutionary changes in anthropoid primate brain organisation.
"We've known for a while that brain reorganization is important. But we had no idea it would explain as much variation between species as it does. We've also been further able to characterize evolutionary specializations allowing us to pinpoint what makes certain species special - such as motor learning in great apes and humans - and how far back in time specific evolutionary lineages started to evolve differently from other lineages," added Dr Soligo.
Dr Smaers said: "As the principal base of behaviour, the brain lies at the heart of the adaptive profile of any animal. By mapping detailed patterns of how the brain evolved, we can increase our understanding of the selective pressures that have shaped a species' natural history. This not only adds to our understanding of the natural world, but also helps us understand the evolutionary history of brain systems that underlie human brain disorders."
Organisation trumps size in primate brain evolution
The evolution of anthropoid primates, including monkeys, apes and humans, over the past 40 million years was largely driven by brain reorganization, and not brain size, according to new research from UCL.
The study, which is published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, found that around three quarters of differences between the brains of species of monkeys and apes are due to internal reorganization that is independent of size, dispelling the idea that variation in size is the primary factor characterising anthropoid primate brain evolution.
Dr Jeroen Smaers (UCL Anthropology and UCL Genetics, Evolution & Environment), lead author of the study said: "The brain is central to how animals adapt and modify their behaviour in a changing environment.
"What we've found is that in relation to the brain, species differences are mainly explained by how the brain is organized and wired internally, not how large the brain is. This suggests that brain reorganization, not size, may have been the principal force driving brain evolution."
To trace the evolutionary history of the anthropoid brain, the team collected the overall size of the brain and its internal structures for 17 anthropoid primate species. They then mapped and compared the evolutionary changes in these structures to get an insight into how the brains of each of the species specialised while adapting to their respective environments.
Dr Christophe Soligo (UCL Anthropology) said: "Changes in the overall size of the brain have often been proposed as the main solution to producing a more complex brain that supports more complex behaviour.
"A bigger brain is, however, energetically very expensive and may not always be an option. Sometimes animals do not have the choice to increase their energetic input but are still faced with a pressure to adapt. This is when reorganisation may come into play."
By analysing the overall and relative size of 20 brain structures, the team also found that the prefrontal cortex – a brain area that synthesizes information processed in other parts of the brain to produce complex judgements and behaviours - plays the biggest role in explaining the evolutionary changes in anthropoid primate brain organisation.
"We've known for a while that brain reorganization is important. But we had no idea it would explain as much variation between species as it does. We've also been further able to characterize evolutionary specializations allowing us to pinpoint what makes certain species special - such as motor learning in great apes and humans - and how far back in time specific evolutionary lineages started to evolve differently from other lineages," added Dr Soligo.
Dr Smaers said: "As the principal base of behaviour, the brain lies at the heart of the adaptive profile of any animal. By mapping detailed patterns of how the brain evolved, we can increase our understanding of the selective pressures that have shaped a species' natural history. This not only adds to our understanding of the natural world, but also helps us understand the evolutionary history of brain systems that underlie human brain disorders."
Organisation trumps size in primate brain evolution
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1492631 wrote: A new carnivorous dinosaur species named Dracoraptor hanigani uncovered in the south of Wales is possibly the oldest known Jurassic dinosaur from the UK, according to a study published January 20, 2016 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by David Martill from the University of Portsmouth, England, and colleagues from National Museum Wales and University of Manchester.
Read more at: 200 million-year-old Jurassic dinosaur uncovered in Wales
200 million-year-old Jurassic dinosaur uncovered in Wales
Proof Man and Dinosaurs lived together
Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago. Therefore, these art works are not frauds perpetrated by mischievous European newcomers (who had no motive for such a fraud), but were made by natives long ago, showing men and dinosaurs living together. In the ancient city of Angkor in Cambodia, we can see a stegosaurus carved in one of the temple walls. In Mexico, many hundreds ancient dinosaur figurines have been unearthed, some even with men riding them! (see below)
This is not just accidental similarity between the Indian artwork and what we believe the edmontosaurus looked like!
This remarkable pictograph can be seen etched into the canyon walls of the Grand Canyon. Other animals show the same clarity. The people living there not too long ago saw reptiles that we only see in books. They painted what they observed. Dinosaurs did not become extinct 65 million years before the "evolution" of man. They were obviously created at the same time!
Cave drawing to the right of a long neck dragon. Bottom picture is outlined in white to show it's shape better.
Ica Stone, found in the Ica valley in Peru. The people lived there about 3,000 years ago. How did they know what dinosaurs looked like?
More Indian artwork from Canada. The evolutionary time-table has been proved entirely wrong.
This carving was found on a Cambodian temple wall. It is an excellent depiction of a stegosaurus, many hundreds of years old. How could they have known about stegosaurs if they had never seen one?
Thousands of Indian clay figurines have been unearthed in Acambaro, Mexico.
This pottery is several thousand years old. Remember we aren't supposed to know what dinosaurs looked like until the late 1800's really the mid 1900's. This Pottery is dated back to between 800BC and 200 AD.
The Alvis Delk Track
This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.
Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.
The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!
Precambrian Trilobites are supposed to be separated from man by millions of years, yet fossils appear in "recent" strata and even within a fossil sandal print. There are thousands of fossils that are "out of order" and even sophisticated man-made artifacts in "ancient" rock. There are fossil clams on the highest mountains and human tracks in supposed ancient layers of volcanic ash.
A fossil footprint was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.
This photo was taken by the late Dr. Cecil Daugherty, in the 1970's. It shows a human footprint within a trail of dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
Read more at: 200 million-year-old Jurassic dinosaur uncovered in Wales
200 million-year-old Jurassic dinosaur uncovered in Wales
Proof Man and Dinosaurs lived together
Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago. Therefore, these art works are not frauds perpetrated by mischievous European newcomers (who had no motive for such a fraud), but were made by natives long ago, showing men and dinosaurs living together. In the ancient city of Angkor in Cambodia, we can see a stegosaurus carved in one of the temple walls. In Mexico, many hundreds ancient dinosaur figurines have been unearthed, some even with men riding them! (see below)
This is not just accidental similarity between the Indian artwork and what we believe the edmontosaurus looked like!
This remarkable pictograph can be seen etched into the canyon walls of the Grand Canyon. Other animals show the same clarity. The people living there not too long ago saw reptiles that we only see in books. They painted what they observed. Dinosaurs did not become extinct 65 million years before the "evolution" of man. They were obviously created at the same time!
Cave drawing to the right of a long neck dragon. Bottom picture is outlined in white to show it's shape better.
Ica Stone, found in the Ica valley in Peru. The people lived there about 3,000 years ago. How did they know what dinosaurs looked like?
More Indian artwork from Canada. The evolutionary time-table has been proved entirely wrong.
This carving was found on a Cambodian temple wall. It is an excellent depiction of a stegosaurus, many hundreds of years old. How could they have known about stegosaurs if they had never seen one?
Thousands of Indian clay figurines have been unearthed in Acambaro, Mexico.
This pottery is several thousand years old. Remember we aren't supposed to know what dinosaurs looked like until the late 1800's really the mid 1900's. This Pottery is dated back to between 800BC and 200 AD.
The Alvis Delk Track
This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.
Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.
The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!
Precambrian Trilobites are supposed to be separated from man by millions of years, yet fossils appear in "recent" strata and even within a fossil sandal print. There are thousands of fossils that are "out of order" and even sophisticated man-made artifacts in "ancient" rock. There are fossil clams on the highest mountains and human tracks in supposed ancient layers of volcanic ash.
A fossil footprint was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.
This photo was taken by the late Dr. Cecil Daugherty, in the 1970's. It shows a human footprint within a trail of dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Most of this stuff has long ago been debunked.
Some has, admittedly, not been fully explained, but hardly qualifies as "Proof" of what you claim.
Pahu;1492641 wrote: Proof Man and Dinosaurs lived together
Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago. Therefore, these art works are not frauds perpetrated by mischievous European newcomers (who had no motive for such a fraud), but were made by natives long ago, showing men and dinosaurs living together. In the ancient city of Angkor in Cambodia, we can see a stegosaurus carved in one of the temple walls. In Mexico, many hundreds ancient dinosaur figurines have been unearthed, some even with men riding them! (see below)
This is not just accidental similarity between the Indian artwork and what we believe the edmontosaurus looked like!
This remarkable pictograph can be seen etched into the canyon walls of the Grand Canyon. Other animals show the same clarity. The people living there not too long ago saw reptiles that we only see in books. They painted what they observed. Dinosaurs did not become extinct 65 million years before the "evolution" of man. They were obviously created at the same time!
Cave drawing to the right of a long neck dragon. Bottom picture is outlined in white to show it's shape better.
Ica Stone, found in the Ica valley in Peru. The people lived there about 3,000 years ago. How did they know what dinosaurs looked like?
More Indian artwork from Canada. The evolutionary time-table has been proved entirely wrong.
This carving was found on a Cambodian temple wall. It is an excellent depiction of a stegosaurus, many hundreds of years old. How could they have known about stegosaurs if they had never seen one?
Thousands of Indian clay figurines have been unearthed in Acambaro, Mexico.
This pottery is several thousand years old. Remember we aren't supposed to know what dinosaurs looked like until the late 1800's really the mid 1900's. This Pottery is dated back to between 800BC and 200 AD.
The Alvis Delk Track
This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.
Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.
The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!
Precambrian Trilobites are supposed to be separated from man by millions of years, yet fossils appear in "recent" strata and even within a fossil sandal print. There are thousands of fossils that are "out of order" and even sophisticated man-made artifacts in "ancient" rock. There are fossil clams on the highest mountains and human tracks in supposed ancient layers of volcanic ash.
A fossil footprint was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.
This photo was taken by the late Dr. Cecil Daugherty, in the 1970's. It shows a human footprint within a trail of dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
Some has, admittedly, not been fully explained, but hardly qualifies as "Proof" of what you claim.
Pahu;1492641 wrote: Proof Man and Dinosaurs lived together
Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago. Therefore, these art works are not frauds perpetrated by mischievous European newcomers (who had no motive for such a fraud), but were made by natives long ago, showing men and dinosaurs living together. In the ancient city of Angkor in Cambodia, we can see a stegosaurus carved in one of the temple walls. In Mexico, many hundreds ancient dinosaur figurines have been unearthed, some even with men riding them! (see below)
This is not just accidental similarity between the Indian artwork and what we believe the edmontosaurus looked like!
This remarkable pictograph can be seen etched into the canyon walls of the Grand Canyon. Other animals show the same clarity. The people living there not too long ago saw reptiles that we only see in books. They painted what they observed. Dinosaurs did not become extinct 65 million years before the "evolution" of man. They were obviously created at the same time!
Cave drawing to the right of a long neck dragon. Bottom picture is outlined in white to show it's shape better.
Ica Stone, found in the Ica valley in Peru. The people lived there about 3,000 years ago. How did they know what dinosaurs looked like?
More Indian artwork from Canada. The evolutionary time-table has been proved entirely wrong.
This carving was found on a Cambodian temple wall. It is an excellent depiction of a stegosaurus, many hundreds of years old. How could they have known about stegosaurs if they had never seen one?
Thousands of Indian clay figurines have been unearthed in Acambaro, Mexico.
This pottery is several thousand years old. Remember we aren't supposed to know what dinosaurs looked like until the late 1800's really the mid 1900's. This Pottery is dated back to between 800BC and 200 AD.
The Alvis Delk Track
This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.
Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.
The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!
Precambrian Trilobites are supposed to be separated from man by millions of years, yet fossils appear in "recent" strata and even within a fossil sandal print. There are thousands of fossils that are "out of order" and even sophisticated man-made artifacts in "ancient" rock. There are fossil clams on the highest mountains and human tracks in supposed ancient layers of volcanic ash.
A fossil footprint was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.
This photo was taken by the late Dr. Cecil Daugherty, in the 1970's. It shows a human footprint within a trail of dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1492646 wrote: Most of this stuff has long ago been debunked.
For example?
Some has, admittedly, not been fully explained, but hardly qualifies as "Proof" of what you claim.
It looks like proof to me.
For example?
Some has, admittedly, not been fully explained, but hardly qualifies as "Proof" of what you claim.
It looks like proof to me.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Lars, I grew up within half a mile of where Swanscombe man was found. We always joked that she looked much like most the residents of Swanscombe. She was certainly a local. We knew that as soon as we saw her but she still looked good for her age....400,000 years old
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanscombe_Heritage_Park
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanscombe_Heritage_Park
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
I like that.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1492649 wrote: For example?
It looks like proof to me.
But you are unqualified to make that judgement
It looks like proof to me.
But you are unqualified to make that judgement
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
The usual "Disregarded Crap" which has already been debunked in this thread.
Alleged Dinosaurs and in Ancient Art
Just one brief coverage of it.
In many 50s B Movies, dinosaur 'monsters' were portrayed mainly by using modeled animation. However, many also used films of actual reptiles portrayed to depict monster sizes. Imagination regarding proportions are nothing new. Folklore of legendary heroes fighting & riding dragons, etc. have existed since the earliest campfire tales. Little children will make models of such things with Plasticine, and sit little 'men' on top of them. Does this mean that they have actually witnessed such things? Ancient cultures used to mummify their animals & bury them with their owners, yet not one 'dinosaur' has ever been found mummified with its owner. Hindus show images of their Gods, with multiple arms & heads etc. Were these creatures that walked the earth? The cave 'drawings' that are referred to are known to be fake interpretations. Without the Photoshopped chalk lines around them they look nothing like the claims that they were dinosaurs. In fact there is so little detail that it could just as easily be a giraffe or a pouncing tiger. The famous 'human footprints' were debunked as not being anything of the kind, as it was demonstrated that under such conditions a human foot would not have left toe marks at all - just undetailed blobs, whereas some kind of dinosaur, not dissimilar to an ostrich would have.
As usual, all Brown's claims are unfounded fantasy based on interpretation, hearsay and folklore, and using that as 'proof'.
Alleged Dinosaurs and in Ancient Art
Just one brief coverage of it.
In many 50s B Movies, dinosaur 'monsters' were portrayed mainly by using modeled animation. However, many also used films of actual reptiles portrayed to depict monster sizes. Imagination regarding proportions are nothing new. Folklore of legendary heroes fighting & riding dragons, etc. have existed since the earliest campfire tales. Little children will make models of such things with Plasticine, and sit little 'men' on top of them. Does this mean that they have actually witnessed such things? Ancient cultures used to mummify their animals & bury them with their owners, yet not one 'dinosaur' has ever been found mummified with its owner. Hindus show images of their Gods, with multiple arms & heads etc. Were these creatures that walked the earth? The cave 'drawings' that are referred to are known to be fake interpretations. Without the Photoshopped chalk lines around them they look nothing like the claims that they were dinosaurs. In fact there is so little detail that it could just as easily be a giraffe or a pouncing tiger. The famous 'human footprints' were debunked as not being anything of the kind, as it was demonstrated that under such conditions a human foot would not have left toe marks at all - just undetailed blobs, whereas some kind of dinosaur, not dissimilar to an ostrich would have.
As usual, all Brown's claims are unfounded fantasy based on interpretation, hearsay and folklore, and using that as 'proof'.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1492562 wrote:
Human Artifacts
At various times and places, man-made objects have been found encased in coal. Examples include a thimble (a), an iron pot (b), an iron instrument (c) an 8-karat gold chain (d), three throwing-spears (e), and a metallic vessel inlaid with silver (f). Other “out-of-place artifacts have been found inside deeply buried rocks: nails (g), a screw (h), a strange coin (i) a tiny ceramic doll (j), and other objects of obvious human manufacture (k). By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man.* Again, something is wrong.
a. J. Q. Adams, “Eve’s Thimble, American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, October 1883, pp. 331–332.
Sorry, but this is hearsay, from over 100 years ago. Anecdotal evidence with no real foundation in science.
Not science
Pahu;1492562 wrote:
b. Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Human Footprints in Rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, March 1971, pp. 201–202.
Hearsay. Not science
Pahu;1492562 wrote:
c. John Buchanan, “Discovery of an Iron Instrument Lately Found Imbedded in a Natural Seam of Coal in the Neighbourhood of Glasgow, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part 2, Section IV, 1853.
Hearsay. Not science
Pahu;1492562 wrote:
d. “A Necklace of a Prehistoric God, Morrisonville Times (Morrisonville, Illinois), 11 June 1891, p. 1.
e. Robin Dennell, “The World’s Oldest Spears, Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 767–768.
Hearsay. Not science
Pahu;1492562 wrote:
Hartmut Thieme, “Lower Palaeolithic Hunting Spears from Germany, Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 807–810.
f. “A Relic of a By-Gone Age, Scientific American, Vol. 7, 5 June 1852, p. 298.
g. David Brewster, “Queries and Statements Concerning a Nail Found Imbedded in a Block of Sandstone Obtained from Kingoodie (Mylnfield) Quarry, North Britain, reported to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1844.
Hearsay. Not science
Pahu;1492562 wrote:
Rene Noorbergen, Secrets of the Lost Races (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1977), p. 42.
h. Ibid.
i. J. R. Jochmans, “Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth, Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1979, p. 1.
j. Robert E. Gentet and Edward C. Lain, “The Nampa Image—An Ancient Artifact? Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, March 1999, pp. 203–210.
G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 297–300.
G. Frederick Wright, “The Idaho Find, American Antiquarian, Vol. 2, 1889, pp. 379–381.
G. Frederick Wright, “An Archaeological Discovery in Idaho, Scribner’s Magazine, Vol. 7, 1890, pp. 235–238.
k. Frank Calvert, “On the Probable Existence of Man during the Miocene Period, Anthropological Institute Journal, Vol. 3, 1873, pp. 127–129.
J. B. Browne, “Singular Impression in Marble, The American Journal of Science and Arts, January 1831, p. 361.
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]
Most of those examples are popular periodicals and the articles are written by non-scientific persons, and based on hearsay.
No science here.
Human Artifacts
At various times and places, man-made objects have been found encased in coal. Examples include a thimble (a), an iron pot (b), an iron instrument (c) an 8-karat gold chain (d), three throwing-spears (e), and a metallic vessel inlaid with silver (f). Other “out-of-place artifacts have been found inside deeply buried rocks: nails (g), a screw (h), a strange coin (i) a tiny ceramic doll (j), and other objects of obvious human manufacture (k). By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man.* Again, something is wrong.
a. J. Q. Adams, “Eve’s Thimble, American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, October 1883, pp. 331–332.
Sorry, but this is hearsay, from over 100 years ago. Anecdotal evidence with no real foundation in science.
Not science
Pahu;1492562 wrote:
b. Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Human Footprints in Rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, March 1971, pp. 201–202.
Hearsay. Not science
Pahu;1492562 wrote:
c. John Buchanan, “Discovery of an Iron Instrument Lately Found Imbedded in a Natural Seam of Coal in the Neighbourhood of Glasgow, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part 2, Section IV, 1853.
Hearsay. Not science
Pahu;1492562 wrote:
d. “A Necklace of a Prehistoric God, Morrisonville Times (Morrisonville, Illinois), 11 June 1891, p. 1.
e. Robin Dennell, “The World’s Oldest Spears, Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 767–768.
Hearsay. Not science
Pahu;1492562 wrote:
Hartmut Thieme, “Lower Palaeolithic Hunting Spears from Germany, Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 807–810.
f. “A Relic of a By-Gone Age, Scientific American, Vol. 7, 5 June 1852, p. 298.
g. David Brewster, “Queries and Statements Concerning a Nail Found Imbedded in a Block of Sandstone Obtained from Kingoodie (Mylnfield) Quarry, North Britain, reported to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1844.
Hearsay. Not science
Pahu;1492562 wrote:
Rene Noorbergen, Secrets of the Lost Races (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1977), p. 42.
h. Ibid.
i. J. R. Jochmans, “Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth, Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1979, p. 1.
j. Robert E. Gentet and Edward C. Lain, “The Nampa Image—An Ancient Artifact? Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, March 1999, pp. 203–210.
G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 297–300.
G. Frederick Wright, “The Idaho Find, American Antiquarian, Vol. 2, 1889, pp. 379–381.
G. Frederick Wright, “An Archaeological Discovery in Idaho, Scribner’s Magazine, Vol. 7, 1890, pp. 235–238.
k. Frank Calvert, “On the Probable Existence of Man during the Miocene Period, Anthropological Institute Journal, Vol. 3, 1873, pp. 127–129.
J. B. Browne, “Singular Impression in Marble, The American Journal of Science and Arts, January 1831, p. 361.
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]
Most of those examples are popular periodicals and the articles are written by non-scientific persons, and based on hearsay.
No science here.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Alleged Iron Pot in Coal
The London Artifact (Texas) - Bad Archaeology
I live in a hard water area & the kettles, water heaters & pipes frequently get blocked in limescale. This limescale is, in effect, sedimentary rock. Just because they have been encased in rock in this way doesn't mean it's fossilised.
The London Artifact (Texas) - Bad Archaeology
I live in a hard water area & the kettles, water heaters & pipes frequently get blocked in limescale. This limescale is, in effect, sedimentary rock. Just because they have been encased in rock in this way doesn't mean it's fossilised.
Science Disproves Evolution
Parallel Layers
Because no worldwide or even continental unconformity exists in Earth’s sedimentary layers, those layers must have been deposited rapidly. (An unconformity represents a time break of unknown duration—for example, an erosional surface between two adjacent strata.) Parallel layers (called conformities) imply continuous, relatively rapid deposition. Because unconformities
are simply local phenomena (a), one can trace continuous paths, which sometimes move horizontally, from the bottom to the top of the stratigraphic record that avoid these time breaks. The sedimentary layers along those paths must have been deposited rapidly and continuously as a unit (b).
Frequently, two adjacent and parallel sedimentary layers contain such different index fossils that evolutionists conclude they were deposited hundreds of millions of years apart. However, because the adjacent layers are conformable, they must have been deposited without interruption or erosion. [For an explanation of how conformable layers can have such different fossils, see pages 191-204].
Often, in sequences showing no sign of disturbance, the layer considered older by evolutionists is on top! [See “Out-of-Sequence Fossils].
Evolutionary dating rules are self-contradictory (c).
a. Geologists have known this for many years. [See Archibald Geikie, Text-Book of Geology (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1882), p. 602.]
b. Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, General Edition (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), p. 113.
c. “Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on. William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219.
George McCready Price, The New Geology, 2nd edition (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1923), pp. 486, 500, 504, 506, 543, 620–627.
George McCready Price, Evolutionary Geology and the New Catastrophism (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1926), pp. 90–104.
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
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
"Disregarded Crap"
Science Disproves Evolution
A Mathematician Explains the Irreducible Complexity of Metamorphosis
The new documentary Metamorphosis presents, as ENV readers will know, the case for intelligent design in a powerful way. The metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly is a spectacular example of "irreducible complexity," and here is one way of explaining why that's so.
In my 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article "A Mathematician's View of Evolution," I compared the development of the genetic code of life with the development of a computer program, such as my finite element code PDE2D. I pointed out that the record of PDE2D's development would be similar to the fossil record, with large gaps where major new features (new orders, classes and phyla) appeared, and smaller gaps where minors ones (new families, genera or species) appeared (see also this short video). I argued,
“Whether at the microscopic or macroscopic level, major, complex, evolutionary advances...also involve the addition of many interrelated and interdependent pieces. These complex advances, like those made to computer programs, are not always "irreducibly complex" -- sometimes there are useful intermediate stages. But just as major improvements to a computer program cannot be made 5 or 6 characters at a time, certainly no major evolutionary advance is reducible to a chain of tiny improvements, each small enough to be bridged by a single random mutation.
In the real world of biological evolution, or of computer programs, "climbing up Mount Improbable" involves not just taking large numbers of tiny steps upward, but scaling many steep cliffs. You not only have to explain how the giraffe's neck grew longer, but how the bacterial flagellum developed, with dozens of parts (each essential for function) similar to those of an outboard motor, or how aquatic bladderworts developed their carnivorous traps. These traps
“have trigger hairs attached to a valve-like door, which normally keeps the trap tightly closed. The sides of the trap are compressed under tension, but when a small form of animal life touches one of the trigger hairs the valve opens, the bladder suddenly expands, and the animal is sucked into the trap. The door closes at once, and in about 20 minutes the trap is set ready for another victim.
The problem with making this argument, as all who have tried it know, is that Darwinists have very fertile imaginations, they can imagine some alternative uses, some selective advantages, for the individual parts of a bacterial flagellum, or for a partially constructed vacuum chamber before it could catch small animals. No matter what example of irreducible complexity is set before them, they will propose far-fetched functions for 2 or 3 intermediate stages and consider the problem solved. Sometimes they can actually find the intermediate stages in Nature.
But metamorphosis is different. The process of transforming a caterpillar into a butterfly is surely far more complex than anything ever accomplished by man. The information needed to control this process, stored somewhere in the caterpillar's cells, must be far greater than that stored in any man-made computer program. And explaining how this enormous program arose through many "5 or 6 character" improvements is even more challenging here, because now the intermediate stages are not just useless, they are fatal. Metamorphosis involves the destruction of the caterpillar: the butterfly, with an almost completely new body plan, is constructed from dissolved and recycled tissues and cells of the caterpillar. Now we are not talking about climbing Mount Improbable, we are talking about building a bridge across an enormous chasm, between caterpillar and butterfly. (Ann Gauger and Paul Nelson use this metaphor in the free companion e-book to Metamorphosis.)
Until construction of this extremely long and complicated bridge is almost complete, it is a bridge to nowhere. Unless a butterfly (or another organism capable of reproduction) comes out at the end, the chrysalis only serves as a casket for the caterpillar, which cannot reproduce. Now we do not have to simply imagine uses for not-quite-watertight vacuum chamber traps, we have to imagine a selective advantage for committing suicide before you are able to reproduce, and that is a more difficult challenge!
Of course, if Darwinism fails to explain metamorphosis, we just have to wait for science to come up with an alternative theory; there is no need to resort to intelligent design, which, we are told, is not scientific. Well, we can define science to exclude intelligent design and wait as long as we want, but intelligence will still be the only force of Nature that can look ahead to see a desired function and keep adding useless lines of computer code until the code can perform that function, and it will still be the only force that can guide the development—gradual or not so gradual—of new organs through their initial useless stages.
And it will still be the only thing that can imagine a butterfly as the final product and develop a gigantic code for metamorphosis, through intermediate stages that would produce nothing but the destruction of the caterpillar.
A Mathematician Explains the Irreducible Complexity of Metamorphosis - Evolution News & Views
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Have you ever wondered why Creationists who claim qualifications never seem to have their qualifications in any relevant field. Walt Brown, for instance has his PhD in Engineering. Just what does that have to do with Biology & Evolution - or even Theology, for that matter. This is someone who claims to be a mathematician. He claims that computer software is only changed by big steps. Not so. There are add on, plugins, subroutines, etc. However, that's beside the point. Computers ARE Intelligent Design. They are designed by humans. Computers do not evolve on their own. That is because (so far - the time, no doubt, will come) they are not organic. Computers & Maths work fine with each other. Life forms do not.
Just as with the usual Creationist garbage he makes the claim that there are "Massive Gaps" in fossil records. Of course there are. Conditions in which something gets fossilised are fairly rare. This means that for every billion or so life forms of a particular species there are, only 1 or 2 will encounter the conditions required for fossilisation. Creationists somehow seem to think that everything should be neatly catalogued in order, with every being that ever existed be fossilised immediately at the very moment of its death. There is a set order of things. If you take samples from different locations around the world that order remains constant. The only difference is that some locations will include remains that are missing in others. This doesn't mean that they didn't exist in the areas where they weren't found - just that they didn't happen to be fossilised there.
Practically every life form (as in Fauna) is essentially the same - a basic worm. A tube that consumes food at one end & ejects waste at the other. This is true right down to the simple amoeba. The carniverous plants that are used to demonstrate 'Intelligent Design' are no different. The inlet valves are simply mouths. No different to any other. In fact, if you think about it, the example of the bladderwort is a good example for evolution. It is still a plant, but it is in the early stages of evolving into animal form by adopting the wormlike approach to survival.
As for the bacterial flagellum. You just need to look at all sorts of jellyfish. There are some which are merely a floating blob of jelly which simply contracts slightly to give it sufficient impetus to move. Then there are those that elongate themselves a bit further, enabling a more efficient form of motion. This goes through all through the different species until you get those with recogniseable tails. They are simply developments of what has come to work best. They didn't suddenly appear from nowhere. Even if you reverse the procedure, rather than simply removing an entire mechanism (which is the Creationist view), if you simply remove PART of that mechanism (such as making the tail a bit shorter), it would continue to survive. Having it longer would make it easier to survive, but it would survive nonetheless. Then make that tail a bit shorter - and a bit shorter still. It continues to survive. Eventually it will have no tail, but it will continue to survive, as it continues to adapt.
Just as with the usual Creationist garbage he makes the claim that there are "Massive Gaps" in fossil records. Of course there are. Conditions in which something gets fossilised are fairly rare. This means that for every billion or so life forms of a particular species there are, only 1 or 2 will encounter the conditions required for fossilisation. Creationists somehow seem to think that everything should be neatly catalogued in order, with every being that ever existed be fossilised immediately at the very moment of its death. There is a set order of things. If you take samples from different locations around the world that order remains constant. The only difference is that some locations will include remains that are missing in others. This doesn't mean that they didn't exist in the areas where they weren't found - just that they didn't happen to be fossilised there.
Practically every life form (as in Fauna) is essentially the same - a basic worm. A tube that consumes food at one end & ejects waste at the other. This is true right down to the simple amoeba. The carniverous plants that are used to demonstrate 'Intelligent Design' are no different. The inlet valves are simply mouths. No different to any other. In fact, if you think about it, the example of the bladderwort is a good example for evolution. It is still a plant, but it is in the early stages of evolving into animal form by adopting the wormlike approach to survival.
As for the bacterial flagellum. You just need to look at all sorts of jellyfish. There are some which are merely a floating blob of jelly which simply contracts slightly to give it sufficient impetus to move. Then there are those that elongate themselves a bit further, enabling a more efficient form of motion. This goes through all through the different species until you get those with recogniseable tails. They are simply developments of what has come to work best. They didn't suddenly appear from nowhere. Even if you reverse the procedure, rather than simply removing an entire mechanism (which is the Creationist view), if you simply remove PART of that mechanism (such as making the tail a bit shorter), it would continue to survive. Having it longer would make it easier to survive, but it would survive nonetheless. Then make that tail a bit shorter - and a bit shorter still. It continues to survive. Eventually it will have no tail, but it will continue to survive, as it continues to adapt.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1492880 wrote: Have you ever wondered why Creationists who claim qualifications never seem to have their qualifications in any relevant field. Walt Brown, for instance has his PhD in Engineering. Just what does that have to do with Biology & Evolution - or even Theology, for that matter.
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1492880 wrote: This is someone who claims to be a mathematician. He claims that computer software is only changed by big steps.
That is not what he said. Look again.
Computers ARE Intelligent Design. They are designed by humans. Computers do not evolve on their own. That is because (so far - the time, no doubt, will come) they are not organic. Computers & Maths work fine with each other. Life forms do not.
Computers are the result of intelligent design. Why do you believe life forms, which are millions of times more intricate than computers, just happened?
Just as with the usual Creationist garbage he makes the claim that there are "Massive Gaps" in fossil records. Of course there are. Conditions in which something gets fossilised are fairly rare.
That is true now, but not during the Flood when billions of fossils were buried, without one transitional form.
In fact, if you think about it, the example of the bladderwort is a good example for evolution. It is still a plant, but it is in the early stages of evolving into animal form by adopting the wormlike approach to survival.
Where is evidence supporting your assertion?
In the carnivorous plants, Utricularia (the bladderworts), small bladders of elaborate design are maintained under negative hydrostatic pressures of about 17kPa and possess an opening covered by a watertight trapdoor. The bladders are attached to underwater stems and when a tiny animal disturbs the hairs projecting from the trapdoor, the trapdoor suddenly swings inwards, and water, together with prey, is sucked into the bladder. The trapdoor then shuts tight; the entire process taking 0.03 seconds. Small worms and even young tadpoles have been observed to be sucked in and digested. There is strong evidence that the hairs of the trapdoor function as mechanoreceptors converting the mechanical stimulus to an electrical pulse which is transmitted to specialised cells activating the trapdoor.
Plants and Darwinism - creation.com
Do you really believe all these intricately designed parts happened by unintelligent chance? How do you suppose the bladderwort survived while it was slowly developing those parts over millions of years?
As for the bacterial flagellum. You just need to look at all sorts of jellyfish.
Where is the comparison? Here are the facts:
The amazing motorized germ
What do your skin, a compost pile and Lake Superior all have in common? Each of them is home to an abundance of microscopic germs, properly called bacteria. Bacteria seem to be thought of as ‘simple’ compared to many-celled organisms, but certain motorized bacteria (such as E. coli or Spirilla) reveal immense engineering complexity.
Efficient design
These motorized bacteria are hardly ‘simple’. The bacterium swims about with a whip-like cord called a flagellum (plural flagella), driven by a fantastic motor embedded in the outer shell. The flagellar motor is powered by proton flow, and closely resembles microscopic electric motors, powered by electron flow. The motor generates waves in the cord, which drive the germ forward.
A bacterial flagellar motor has the amazing quality of combining speed with efficiency. These extremely efficient motors can quickly stop, start, change speeds, and reach a top speed of about 100,000 rpm (revolutions per minute)!1,2 The cell is propelled up to 15 body-lengths per second at top speed.2 If this could be scaled up, it would be like a person of height 1.8 m (6 ft) swimming at 100 km/h (60 mph).
It is also very versatile, because it has forward and reverse gears, enabling the germ to reverse direction within a quarter of a turn.
Most man-made electric motors are up to 75–95% efficient at larger sizes, but lose efficiency as they get smaller.3 The bacterial motor is almost 100% efficient at cruising speed.2 The bacterium uses only 2% of its total energy for swimming.1
Microscopic design
Biological flagellum motors are also superior in their minute size. The smallest man-made electric motor weighs 0.37 grams and is the size of a housefly,4 but bacterial motors weigh almost nothing. To view them you need an electron microscope, because they are 25 nanometres (one millionth of an inch) in diameter.
Eight million of them would fit in the cross-sectional area of an average human hair.2 Scaling a regular electric motor to this size would bog it down with friction, because water tends to get ‘stickier’ as things are smaller. But it does not cause any problems for the flagellar motor.
Purposeful design
There are no motors of any type that are as rapid, efficient, and small as flagellar motors in bacteria. Could such a motor that far exceeds man’s inventions be the result of a cosmic accident billions of years ago? Every example of man-made electric motors proves to be primitively clumsy compared to the superior complexity and efficiency of the flagellum motor. The reasonable solution is that motorized bacteria had an all-wise designer, Jesus Christ our Creator (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2).
‘For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’ (Romans 1:20).
Diagram of a germ’s motor and flagellum
How do evolutionists explain away such exquisite design?
Scientific American tried to explain this amazing miniature motor by evolution, by claiming that the parts were ‘co-opted’ from other functions:
‘The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature ¦
‘In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. ¦
‘The key is that the flagellum’s component structures ¦ can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution.’1
Scientific American’s argument is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components.
Dr Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho, a world expert on the flagellar motor, disagrees with Scientific American. He says that his belief that this motor has been intelligently designed has given him many research insights. Minnich points out that the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines.2 He also points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can possibly be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new.
Finally, Dr Minnich’s research shows that the flagellum won’t form above 37°C; instead, some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum. Minnich says that although it is more complex, the motor came first, so it couldn’t have been derived from them.3
The amazing motorized germ - creation.com
That is not what he said. Look again.
Computers ARE Intelligent Design. They are designed by humans. Computers do not evolve on their own. That is because (so far - the time, no doubt, will come) they are not organic. Computers & Maths work fine with each other. Life forms do not.
Computers are the result of intelligent design. Why do you believe life forms, which are millions of times more intricate than computers, just happened?
Just as with the usual Creationist garbage he makes the claim that there are "Massive Gaps" in fossil records. Of course there are. Conditions in which something gets fossilised are fairly rare.
That is true now, but not during the Flood when billions of fossils were buried, without one transitional form.
In fact, if you think about it, the example of the bladderwort is a good example for evolution. It is still a plant, but it is in the early stages of evolving into animal form by adopting the wormlike approach to survival.
Where is evidence supporting your assertion?
In the carnivorous plants, Utricularia (the bladderworts), small bladders of elaborate design are maintained under negative hydrostatic pressures of about 17kPa and possess an opening covered by a watertight trapdoor. The bladders are attached to underwater stems and when a tiny animal disturbs the hairs projecting from the trapdoor, the trapdoor suddenly swings inwards, and water, together with prey, is sucked into the bladder. The trapdoor then shuts tight; the entire process taking 0.03 seconds. Small worms and even young tadpoles have been observed to be sucked in and digested. There is strong evidence that the hairs of the trapdoor function as mechanoreceptors converting the mechanical stimulus to an electrical pulse which is transmitted to specialised cells activating the trapdoor.
Plants and Darwinism - creation.com
Do you really believe all these intricately designed parts happened by unintelligent chance? How do you suppose the bladderwort survived while it was slowly developing those parts over millions of years?
As for the bacterial flagellum. You just need to look at all sorts of jellyfish.
Where is the comparison? Here are the facts:
The amazing motorized germ
What do your skin, a compost pile and Lake Superior all have in common? Each of them is home to an abundance of microscopic germs, properly called bacteria. Bacteria seem to be thought of as ‘simple’ compared to many-celled organisms, but certain motorized bacteria (such as E. coli or Spirilla) reveal immense engineering complexity.
Efficient design
These motorized bacteria are hardly ‘simple’. The bacterium swims about with a whip-like cord called a flagellum (plural flagella), driven by a fantastic motor embedded in the outer shell. The flagellar motor is powered by proton flow, and closely resembles microscopic electric motors, powered by electron flow. The motor generates waves in the cord, which drive the germ forward.
A bacterial flagellar motor has the amazing quality of combining speed with efficiency. These extremely efficient motors can quickly stop, start, change speeds, and reach a top speed of about 100,000 rpm (revolutions per minute)!1,2 The cell is propelled up to 15 body-lengths per second at top speed.2 If this could be scaled up, it would be like a person of height 1.8 m (6 ft) swimming at 100 km/h (60 mph).
It is also very versatile, because it has forward and reverse gears, enabling the germ to reverse direction within a quarter of a turn.
Most man-made electric motors are up to 75–95% efficient at larger sizes, but lose efficiency as they get smaller.3 The bacterial motor is almost 100% efficient at cruising speed.2 The bacterium uses only 2% of its total energy for swimming.1
Microscopic design
Biological flagellum motors are also superior in their minute size. The smallest man-made electric motor weighs 0.37 grams and is the size of a housefly,4 but bacterial motors weigh almost nothing. To view them you need an electron microscope, because they are 25 nanometres (one millionth of an inch) in diameter.
Eight million of them would fit in the cross-sectional area of an average human hair.2 Scaling a regular electric motor to this size would bog it down with friction, because water tends to get ‘stickier’ as things are smaller. But it does not cause any problems for the flagellar motor.
Purposeful design
There are no motors of any type that are as rapid, efficient, and small as flagellar motors in bacteria. Could such a motor that far exceeds man’s inventions be the result of a cosmic accident billions of years ago? Every example of man-made electric motors proves to be primitively clumsy compared to the superior complexity and efficiency of the flagellum motor. The reasonable solution is that motorized bacteria had an all-wise designer, Jesus Christ our Creator (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2).
‘For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’ (Romans 1:20).
Diagram of a germ’s motor and flagellum
How do evolutionists explain away such exquisite design?
Scientific American tried to explain this amazing miniature motor by evolution, by claiming that the parts were ‘co-opted’ from other functions:
‘The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature ¦
‘In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. ¦
‘The key is that the flagellum’s component structures ¦ can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution.’1
Scientific American’s argument is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components.
Dr Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho, a world expert on the flagellar motor, disagrees with Scientific American. He says that his belief that this motor has been intelligently designed has given him many research insights. Minnich points out that the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines.2 He also points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can possibly be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new.
Finally, Dr Minnich’s research shows that the flagellum won’t form above 37°C; instead, some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum. Minnich says that although it is more complex, the motor came first, so it couldn’t have been derived from them.3
The amazing motorized germ - creation.com
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You are blindly copying & pasting without understanding or questioning a thing about what is being said.
First of all you start off by supporting my initial statement about the way that Walt Brown makes such a big deal about his qualification in Engineering. So what does engineering have to do with Biology, Evolution, Cosmology - or even Theology, come to that? The other things he claims to be "knowledgeable" at are not substantiated in any way. I could just as easily claim to be knowledgeable on the mating habits of the fluffy pink elephants. A self effacing claim doesn't mean a thing.
As usual you combine 2 totally different aspects assuming them to be the same thing. A computer is Intelligent Design because it is artificial. Lifeforms are not artificial You ask (rhetorically) if I believe that they occurred by "Unintelligent Chance". A perfect example of 2 different things in just 2 words. Unintelligent - yes. Chance - not exactly. Nothing in evolution happens totally by 'chance', per se. The initial change may be a chance mutation, but if that mutation is beneficial it thrives to pass on its genes to successive generations. If it isn't, it doesn't - it's as simple as that. That much is not chance. Nor is it intelligence.
Once again you assume that the bladderwort began as a bladderwort. I never made any such claims. Carnivorous plants are the same as any other plants - they are just a little more advanced along the evolutionary scale. All plants rely on nutrition from the minerals & phospates from other decaying lifeforms. They have just developed gradually to make this process more efficient. You may not realise it, but even the tomato plant is carnivorous. The hairs on its stems are toxic to small insects, such as flies, who fall onto the soil in order to supplement the plant's nutritional needs. Most plants also have movement of their leaves - as night draws on they tend to close, only to open up again at dawn. This demonstrates that even simple plants have the facility of movement. Pitcher plants are also simplified versions of the bladderwort, only they don't need to move. They draw their prey into them using bait. Then they fall into the cup into the pool of enzymes to be broken down & absorbed. Now, combine the facilities of a pitcher with those of a folding leaf & you have the basic workings of a bladderwort. It's just that different types of plants evolve in different directions, adapting to the circumstances that suit them best. There are so many different evolutionary adaptations the bladderwort (or any carnivorous plant) can have gone through, each stage at a time - not necessarily in any particular order. For instance - developing sticky hairs on the stems & leaves, such as with the tomato. The leaves folding at night, but insects continue to enter - only to be trapped in the sticky hairs. Over time the plants evolve to increase the opening & closing of the leaves - much like a Venus Fly Trap. Eventually it develops to the point that it doesn't need to open at all - just let the insects fall in (as with the Pitcher Plants). Then the next evolutionary step - to use those increased movements to hasten the insect's entry. You see - it's not a case of everything being complete from the start - it gets to add components, bit by bit. None of these techniques are unique - indeed, they are common to most carnivorous plants, as I have demonstrated by using just 3 other examples (Tomato, Pitchers & Venus Fly Traps), each of which use different methods, but the similarities of each of them, and how simple changes can improve efficiency over time is clear.
Put quite simply - evolution doesn't go from A - Z in one massive jump, as you seem to suppose - it uses all the other letters in between
First of all you start off by supporting my initial statement about the way that Walt Brown makes such a big deal about his qualification in Engineering. So what does engineering have to do with Biology, Evolution, Cosmology - or even Theology, come to that? The other things he claims to be "knowledgeable" at are not substantiated in any way. I could just as easily claim to be knowledgeable on the mating habits of the fluffy pink elephants. A self effacing claim doesn't mean a thing.
As usual you combine 2 totally different aspects assuming them to be the same thing. A computer is Intelligent Design because it is artificial. Lifeforms are not artificial You ask (rhetorically) if I believe that they occurred by "Unintelligent Chance". A perfect example of 2 different things in just 2 words. Unintelligent - yes. Chance - not exactly. Nothing in evolution happens totally by 'chance', per se. The initial change may be a chance mutation, but if that mutation is beneficial it thrives to pass on its genes to successive generations. If it isn't, it doesn't - it's as simple as that. That much is not chance. Nor is it intelligence.
Once again you assume that the bladderwort began as a bladderwort. I never made any such claims. Carnivorous plants are the same as any other plants - they are just a little more advanced along the evolutionary scale. All plants rely on nutrition from the minerals & phospates from other decaying lifeforms. They have just developed gradually to make this process more efficient. You may not realise it, but even the tomato plant is carnivorous. The hairs on its stems are toxic to small insects, such as flies, who fall onto the soil in order to supplement the plant's nutritional needs. Most plants also have movement of their leaves - as night draws on they tend to close, only to open up again at dawn. This demonstrates that even simple plants have the facility of movement. Pitcher plants are also simplified versions of the bladderwort, only they don't need to move. They draw their prey into them using bait. Then they fall into the cup into the pool of enzymes to be broken down & absorbed. Now, combine the facilities of a pitcher with those of a folding leaf & you have the basic workings of a bladderwort. It's just that different types of plants evolve in different directions, adapting to the circumstances that suit them best. There are so many different evolutionary adaptations the bladderwort (or any carnivorous plant) can have gone through, each stage at a time - not necessarily in any particular order. For instance - developing sticky hairs on the stems & leaves, such as with the tomato. The leaves folding at night, but insects continue to enter - only to be trapped in the sticky hairs. Over time the plants evolve to increase the opening & closing of the leaves - much like a Venus Fly Trap. Eventually it develops to the point that it doesn't need to open at all - just let the insects fall in (as with the Pitcher Plants). Then the next evolutionary step - to use those increased movements to hasten the insect's entry. You see - it's not a case of everything being complete from the start - it gets to add components, bit by bit. None of these techniques are unique - indeed, they are common to most carnivorous plants, as I have demonstrated by using just 3 other examples (Tomato, Pitchers & Venus Fly Traps), each of which use different methods, but the similarities of each of them, and how simple changes can improve efficiency over time is clear.
Put quite simply - evolution doesn't go from A - Z in one massive jump, as you seem to suppose - it uses all the other letters in between
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1492911 wrote: You are blindly copying & pasting without understanding or questioning a thing about what is being said.
First of all you start off by supporting my initial statement about the way that Walt Brown makes such a big deal about his qualification in Engineering. So what does engineering have to do with Biology, Evolution, Cosmology - or even Theology, come to that? The other things he claims to be "knowledgeable" at are not substantiated in any way. I could just as easily claim to be knowledgeable on the mating habits of the fluffy pink elephants. A self effacing claim doesn't mean a thing.
As usual you combine 2 totally different aspects assuming them to be the same thing. A computer is Intelligent Design because it is artificial. Lifeforms are not artificial You ask (rhetorically) if I believe that they occurred by "Unintelligent Chance". A perfect example of 2 different things in just 2 words. Unintelligent - yes. Chance - not exactly. Nothing in evolution happens totally by 'chance', per se. The initial change may be a chance mutation, but if that mutation is beneficial it thrives to pass on its genes to successive generations. If it isn't, it doesn't - it's as simple as that. That much is not chance. Nor is it intelligence.
Once again you assume that the bladderwort began as a bladderwort. I never made any such claims. Carnivorous plants are the same as any other plants - they are just a little more advanced along the evolutionary scale. All plants rely on nutrition from the minerals & phospates from other decaying lifeforms. They have just developed gradually to make this process more efficient. You may not realise it, but even the tomato plant is carnivorous. The hairs on its stems are toxic to small insects, such as flies, who fall onto the soil in order to supplement the plant's nutritional needs. Most plants also have movement of their leaves - as night draws on they tend to close, only to open up again at dawn. This demonstrates that even simple plants have the facility of movement. Pitcher plants are also simplified versions of the bladderwort, only they don't need to move. They draw their prey into them using bait. Then they fall into the cup into the pool of enzymes to be broken down & absorbed. Now, combine the facilities of a pitcher with those of a folding leaf & you have the basic workings of a bladderwort. It's just that different types of plants evolve in different directions, adapting to the circumstances that suit them best. There are so many different evolutionary adaptations the bladderwort (or any carnivorous plant) can have gone through, each stage at a time - not necessarily in any particular order. For instance - developing sticky hairs on the stems & leaves, such as with the tomato. The leaves folding at night, but insects continue to enter - only to be trapped in the sticky hairs. Over time the plants evolve to increase the opening & closing of the leaves - much like a Venus Fly Trap. Eventually it develops to the point that it doesn't need to open at all - just let the insects fall in (as with the Pitcher Plants). Then the next evolutionary step - to use those increased movements to hasten the insect's entry. You see - it's not a case of everything being complete from the start - it gets to add components, bit by bit. None of these techniques are unique - indeed, they are common to most carnivorous plants, as I have demonstrated by using just 3 other examples (Tomato, Pitchers & Venus Fly Traps), each of which use different methods, but the similarities of each of them, and how simple changes can improve efficiency over time is clear.
Put quite simply - evolution doesn't go from A - Z in one massive jump, as you seem to suppose - it uses all the other letters in between
Where is evidence for your assertions? Or are your assertions/stories just the blind product of your imagination?
First of all you start off by supporting my initial statement about the way that Walt Brown makes such a big deal about his qualification in Engineering. So what does engineering have to do with Biology, Evolution, Cosmology - or even Theology, come to that? The other things he claims to be "knowledgeable" at are not substantiated in any way. I could just as easily claim to be knowledgeable on the mating habits of the fluffy pink elephants. A self effacing claim doesn't mean a thing.
As usual you combine 2 totally different aspects assuming them to be the same thing. A computer is Intelligent Design because it is artificial. Lifeforms are not artificial You ask (rhetorically) if I believe that they occurred by "Unintelligent Chance". A perfect example of 2 different things in just 2 words. Unintelligent - yes. Chance - not exactly. Nothing in evolution happens totally by 'chance', per se. The initial change may be a chance mutation, but if that mutation is beneficial it thrives to pass on its genes to successive generations. If it isn't, it doesn't - it's as simple as that. That much is not chance. Nor is it intelligence.
Once again you assume that the bladderwort began as a bladderwort. I never made any such claims. Carnivorous plants are the same as any other plants - they are just a little more advanced along the evolutionary scale. All plants rely on nutrition from the minerals & phospates from other decaying lifeforms. They have just developed gradually to make this process more efficient. You may not realise it, but even the tomato plant is carnivorous. The hairs on its stems are toxic to small insects, such as flies, who fall onto the soil in order to supplement the plant's nutritional needs. Most plants also have movement of their leaves - as night draws on they tend to close, only to open up again at dawn. This demonstrates that even simple plants have the facility of movement. Pitcher plants are also simplified versions of the bladderwort, only they don't need to move. They draw their prey into them using bait. Then they fall into the cup into the pool of enzymes to be broken down & absorbed. Now, combine the facilities of a pitcher with those of a folding leaf & you have the basic workings of a bladderwort. It's just that different types of plants evolve in different directions, adapting to the circumstances that suit them best. There are so many different evolutionary adaptations the bladderwort (or any carnivorous plant) can have gone through, each stage at a time - not necessarily in any particular order. For instance - developing sticky hairs on the stems & leaves, such as with the tomato. The leaves folding at night, but insects continue to enter - only to be trapped in the sticky hairs. Over time the plants evolve to increase the opening & closing of the leaves - much like a Venus Fly Trap. Eventually it develops to the point that it doesn't need to open at all - just let the insects fall in (as with the Pitcher Plants). Then the next evolutionary step - to use those increased movements to hasten the insect's entry. You see - it's not a case of everything being complete from the start - it gets to add components, bit by bit. None of these techniques are unique - indeed, they are common to most carnivorous plants, as I have demonstrated by using just 3 other examples (Tomato, Pitchers & Venus Fly Traps), each of which use different methods, but the similarities of each of them, and how simple changes can improve efficiency over time is clear.
Put quite simply - evolution doesn't go from A - Z in one massive jump, as you seem to suppose - it uses all the other letters in between
Where is evidence for your assertions? Or are your assertions/stories just the blind product of your imagination?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1492921 wrote: Where is evidence for your assertions? Or are your assertions/stories just the blind product of your imagination?
This entire thread is evidence for your interminal pasting of the same garbage over & over again. Don't you even realise what a laughing stock you have made of yourself, not only here but all over the internet in all the other forums where you paste the same old crap?
As for where is the evidence for evolution - where am I expected to start? Go to any Scientific source & you will find it. That is to say REAL Scientific source - "Creation Science" is an oxymoron & not scientific at all. Science looks at the evidence & then forms theories to fit the evidence & to test them. If the tests don't match then the theories are changed until they do. In other words, the evidence comes FIRST. With Creationism there is a preconception based on the Bible. It then tries to find evidence to support it, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary & trying to deny the already established evidence & to deliberately misinterpret things.
In the past Mankind was ignorant & the superstition of the Bible was all they had to go on. Then as they evolved they started to ask questions - eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, if you will. They then started to see that the superstitions they had been brought up with were nothing more than wild fantasies invented to explain the inexplicable - at least inexplicable at the time. I find it totally incomprehensible that in this day & age there still remain those who remain deep rooted in the Neolithic mindset of imagination & fear of the unknown.
There are masses of indisputable evidence to support Evolution & none to support Creationism. It is amazing that Creationists should even deny that Evolution may have been part of their God's almighty plan. It means they are second guessing their God's ability, arrogantly putting the importance of their own existence above all others.
This entire thread is evidence for your interminal pasting of the same garbage over & over again. Don't you even realise what a laughing stock you have made of yourself, not only here but all over the internet in all the other forums where you paste the same old crap?
As for where is the evidence for evolution - where am I expected to start? Go to any Scientific source & you will find it. That is to say REAL Scientific source - "Creation Science" is an oxymoron & not scientific at all. Science looks at the evidence & then forms theories to fit the evidence & to test them. If the tests don't match then the theories are changed until they do. In other words, the evidence comes FIRST. With Creationism there is a preconception based on the Bible. It then tries to find evidence to support it, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary & trying to deny the already established evidence & to deliberately misinterpret things.
In the past Mankind was ignorant & the superstition of the Bible was all they had to go on. Then as they evolved they started to ask questions - eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, if you will. They then started to see that the superstitions they had been brought up with were nothing more than wild fantasies invented to explain the inexplicable - at least inexplicable at the time. I find it totally incomprehensible that in this day & age there still remain those who remain deep rooted in the Neolithic mindset of imagination & fear of the unknown.
There are masses of indisputable evidence to support Evolution & none to support Creationism. It is amazing that Creationists should even deny that Evolution may have been part of their God's almighty plan. It means they are second guessing their God's ability, arrogantly putting the importance of their own existence above all others.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1492994 wrote: This entire thread is evidence for your interminal pasting of the same garbage over & over again. Don't you even realise what a laughing stock you have made of yourself, not only here but all over the internet in all the other forums where you paste the same old crap?
As for where is the evidence for evolution - where am I expected to start? Go to any Scientific source & you will find it. That is to say REAL Scientific source - "Creation Science" is an oxymoron & not scientific at all. Science looks at the evidence & then forms theories to fit the evidence & to test them. If the tests don't match then the theories are changed until they do. In other words, the evidence comes FIRST. With Creationism there is a preconception based on the Bible. It then tries to find evidence to support it, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary & trying to deny the already established evidence & to deliberately misinterpret things.
In the past Mankind was ignorant & the superstition of the Bible was all they had to go on. Then as they evolved they started to ask questions - eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, if you will. They then started to see that the superstitions they had been brought up with were nothing more than wild fantasies invented to explain the inexplicable - at least inexplicable at the time. I find it totally incomprehensible that in this day & age there still remain those who remain deep rooted in the Neolithic mindset of imagination & fear of the unknown.
There are masses of indisputable evidence to support Evolution & none to support Creationism. It is amazing that Creationists should even deny that Evolution may have been part of their God's almighty plan. It means they are second guessing their God's ability, arrogantly putting the importance of their own existence above all others.
First, you have failed to produce any evidence that evolution is not more than evidence free speculation masquerading as science. You claim there is evidence proving evolution but you seem unable to produce it. On the other hand I have provided numerous evidence scientifically disproving evolution and proving creation.
Second, your assertion that scientists only go where the evidence leads only applies to areas that do not threaten their erroneous preconceptions, such as evolution. In that case they fit your erroneous notions concerning creationism.
Third, your assertions concerning the Bible are wrong. The modern scientific method was developed by Bible believing creationists interested in examining God's creation. Their reason for believing in God was based on their understand of the evidence. For example they accepted the logic based on the fact that 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. They accepted the Bible as the Word of God because:
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.
To deny these facts is to deny reality is favor of your evidence free myths.
As for where is the evidence for evolution - where am I expected to start? Go to any Scientific source & you will find it. That is to say REAL Scientific source - "Creation Science" is an oxymoron & not scientific at all. Science looks at the evidence & then forms theories to fit the evidence & to test them. If the tests don't match then the theories are changed until they do. In other words, the evidence comes FIRST. With Creationism there is a preconception based on the Bible. It then tries to find evidence to support it, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary & trying to deny the already established evidence & to deliberately misinterpret things.
In the past Mankind was ignorant & the superstition of the Bible was all they had to go on. Then as they evolved they started to ask questions - eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, if you will. They then started to see that the superstitions they had been brought up with were nothing more than wild fantasies invented to explain the inexplicable - at least inexplicable at the time. I find it totally incomprehensible that in this day & age there still remain those who remain deep rooted in the Neolithic mindset of imagination & fear of the unknown.
There are masses of indisputable evidence to support Evolution & none to support Creationism. It is amazing that Creationists should even deny that Evolution may have been part of their God's almighty plan. It means they are second guessing their God's ability, arrogantly putting the importance of their own existence above all others.
First, you have failed to produce any evidence that evolution is not more than evidence free speculation masquerading as science. You claim there is evidence proving evolution but you seem unable to produce it. On the other hand I have provided numerous evidence scientifically disproving evolution and proving creation.
Second, your assertion that scientists only go where the evidence leads only applies to areas that do not threaten their erroneous preconceptions, such as evolution. In that case they fit your erroneous notions concerning creationism.
Third, your assertions concerning the Bible are wrong. The modern scientific method was developed by Bible believing creationists interested in examining God's creation. Their reason for believing in God was based on their understand of the evidence. For example they accepted the logic based on the fact that 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. They accepted the Bible as the Word of God because:
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.
To deny these facts is to deny reality is favor of your evidence free myths.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1493014 wrote: First, you have failed to produce any evidence that evolution is not more than evidence free speculation masquerading as science. You claim there is evidence proving evolution but you seem unable to produce it. On the other hand I have provided numerous evidence scientifically disproving evolution and proving creation.
Second, your assertion that scientists only go where the evidence leads only applies to areas that do not threaten their erroneous preconceptions, such as evolution. In that case they fit your erroneous notions concerning creationism.
Third, your assertions concerning the Bible are wrong. The modern scientific method was developed by Bible believing creationists interested in examining God's creation. Their reason for believing in God was based on their understand of the evidence. For example they accepted the logic based on the fact that 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. They accepted that Bible as the Word of God because:
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.
To deny these facts is to deny reality is favor of your evidence free myths.
Evolution is all around us, and yet you deny it with your evidence-free speculation of ridiculous religious assertions,
Second, your assertion that scientists only go where the evidence leads only applies to areas that do not threaten their erroneous preconceptions, such as evolution. In that case they fit your erroneous notions concerning creationism.
Third, your assertions concerning the Bible are wrong. The modern scientific method was developed by Bible believing creationists interested in examining God's creation. Their reason for believing in God was based on their understand of the evidence. For example they accepted the logic based on the fact that 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. They accepted that Bible as the Word of God because:
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.
To deny these facts is to deny reality is favor of your evidence free myths.
Evolution is all around us, and yet you deny it with your evidence-free speculation of ridiculous religious assertions,
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1493014 wrote: First, you have failed to produce any evidence that evolution is not more than evidence free speculation masquerading as science. You claim there is evidence proving evolution but you seem unable to produce it. On the other hand I have provided numerous evidence scientifically disproving evolution and proving creation.
Second, your assertion that scientists only go where the evidence leads only applies to areas that do not threaten their erroneous preconceptions, such as evolution. In that case they fit your erroneous notions concerning creationism.
Third, your assertions concerning the Bible are wrong. The modern scientific method was developed by Bible believing creationists interested in examining God's creation. Their reason for believing in God was based on their understand of the evidence. For example they accepted the logic based on the fact that 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. They accepted that Bible as the Word of God because:
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.
To deny these facts is to deny reality is favor of your evidence free myths.
Evolution is all around us, and yet you deny it with your evidence-free speculation of ridiculous religious assertions,
Second, your assertion that scientists only go where the evidence leads only applies to areas that do not threaten their erroneous preconceptions, such as evolution. In that case they fit your erroneous notions concerning creationism.
Third, your assertions concerning the Bible are wrong. The modern scientific method was developed by Bible believing creationists interested in examining God's creation. Their reason for believing in God was based on their understand of the evidence. For example they accepted the logic based on the fact that 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. They accepted that Bible as the Word of God because:
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.
To deny these facts is to deny reality is favor of your evidence free myths.
Evolution is all around us, and yet you deny it with your evidence-free speculation of ridiculous religious assertions,
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1493016 wrote: Evolution is all around us, and yet you deny it with your evidence-free speculation of ridiculous religious assertions,
Please show us evidence that evolution is all around us.
Please show us evidence that evolution is all around us.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1493017 wrote: Please show us evidence that evolution is all around us.
Thousands and thousands of words have been written demonstrating such proof.
And yet, you have failed to offer up any real science in all the pages of this thread to support your claim.
Thousands and thousands of words have been written demonstrating such proof.
And yet, you have failed to offer up any real science in all the pages of this thread to support your claim.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1493020 wrote: Thousands and thousands of words have been written demonstrating such proof [of evolution].
And yet, you have failed to offer up any real science in all the pages of this thread to support your claim.
Why are you unable to produce those "Thousands and thousands of words have been written demonstrating such proof [of evolution]?"
The evidence I have shared disproving evolution is scientifically valid.
And yet, you have failed to offer up any real science in all the pages of this thread to support your claim.
Why are you unable to produce those "Thousands and thousands of words have been written demonstrating such proof [of evolution]?"
The evidence I have shared disproving evolution is scientifically valid.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Unlike you I don't intend on going over old ground. I have provided links to many different independent sources of evidence, which I doubt you even bothered to look at. All you have ever done is to paste interminal chapters from Dolt Brown, claiming it to be 'evidence', when it is nothing of the sort. The only external links you have provided have been extracts from the same book, which invariably point to Creationist sites which have a direct connection with Brown, as I have previously proven by investigating them individually & showing my results & the sources. Your / Brown's claims have been shown to be falsehoods, lies, misinterpretations & deliberately taking partial quotes from respectable scientists out of context in order to give misleading information (also proved by producing the entire quotes).
You want some evidence - ok, here's a few links for you - not that I believe you'll bother to read them, of course. You are a typical Creationist, with a blinkered view - the 3 Wise Monkeys of Creationism
Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
You want some evidence - ok, here's a few links for you - not that I believe you'll bother to read them, of course. You are a typical Creationist, with a blinkered view - the 3 Wise Monkeys of Creationism
Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1493021 wrote: Why are you unable to produce those "Thousands and thousands of words have been written demonstrating such proof [of evolution]?"
The evidence I have shared disproving evolution is scientifically valid.
Evidence? You have shown no evidence. No science. Nothing but opinion.
The evidence I have shared disproving evolution is scientifically valid.
Evidence? You have shown no evidence. No science. Nothing but opinion.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Evolution is a Scientific Theory. This means that is fits itself to the evidence. That is the key point - that the evidence comes FIRST. The Theory fits into the Evidence. Therefore there has to be Evidence. That much is a no brainer.
Creationism, on the other hand, is Faith based. Faith, however, by definition, requires no evidence. Everything is taken on ...Faith. However, the difference lies is when Creationists try to masquerade as Scientists. They always base their premise on an initial unfounded assumption & then try to say that everything from that point is 'Evidence'. They make claims which are blatantly false, and then claim these to be 'Facts'. If you were to say "I believe the Bible to be true in the absolute literal sense, therefore I do not believe in Evolution", that would be a Fact, because you are expressing your opinion & the reason for that opinion. It wouldn't claim any Scientific basis & would be perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't agree with that opinion, but I would accept it as being your opinion. However, you don't do this. You don't even go to the trouble of forming the opinions for yourself. You leave that to Dolt Brown. He makes wild claims, using false information, lies, misquotes & out of context partial quotes, misleading information, citations to unknowns who support his beliefs - unknowns who on further investigation have financial interests in him. Links to other Creationist sites - many of which, when further investigated, actually denounce him as well. He is an aging charlatan who tries to use a qualification in Engineering to elate himself as some expert on Theology, Biology, Nuclear Physics & Cosmology, etc. Believe it or not, I too have qualifications in Engineering. I got them at school. They are more commonly know as Metalwork & Car Maintenance, but officially, on the certificate it says "Engineering" & "Motor Vehicle Engineering". To be honest, I was never really that much good at either, but I got the qualification nonetheless. That doesn't make me any sort of authority on Physics or Biology (although I do have much higher certificates in both of these subjects also), as they are entirely different subjects. I also have qualifications in Book Keeping & Accountancy, but they don't make me an Economist, even when those subjects are, at least, related.
Brown has no qualifications in the area in which he claims to be an authority, yet he sees fit to decry those who have spent a lifetime in studying & gaining practical experience in order to become so. You are even worse. When faced with the out of context quote from Stephen Hawking, proving the sort of fakery Brown uses you even went as far (not just once, but on numerous occasions), to accuse Hawking of basing his theories on "Unfounded Fantasies". The man is an internationally accepted genius in his field, and you have the gaul to say that he doesn't know what he's talking about, just because I proved to you that contrary to what Brown was trying to make out he was saying, had been, in REALITY, the exact opposite. So one minute he was a genius, because you believed what Brown was saying, that he agreed with Brown. The next, once the truth of Brown's Charlatanry was presented, you immediately claimed that what Hawking said was based on "Unfounded Fantasies". This much is a classic as it is one of the very few independent lines you have come up with. Even Brown wasn't stupid enough to make that sort of claim about Hawking.
I must say, though, I still like the other of your independent statements which admit to your "erroneous preconceptions" (your words). Not just once, but twice in successive postings.
Creationism, on the other hand, is Faith based. Faith, however, by definition, requires no evidence. Everything is taken on ...Faith. However, the difference lies is when Creationists try to masquerade as Scientists. They always base their premise on an initial unfounded assumption & then try to say that everything from that point is 'Evidence'. They make claims which are blatantly false, and then claim these to be 'Facts'. If you were to say "I believe the Bible to be true in the absolute literal sense, therefore I do not believe in Evolution", that would be a Fact, because you are expressing your opinion & the reason for that opinion. It wouldn't claim any Scientific basis & would be perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't agree with that opinion, but I would accept it as being your opinion. However, you don't do this. You don't even go to the trouble of forming the opinions for yourself. You leave that to Dolt Brown. He makes wild claims, using false information, lies, misquotes & out of context partial quotes, misleading information, citations to unknowns who support his beliefs - unknowns who on further investigation have financial interests in him. Links to other Creationist sites - many of which, when further investigated, actually denounce him as well. He is an aging charlatan who tries to use a qualification in Engineering to elate himself as some expert on Theology, Biology, Nuclear Physics & Cosmology, etc. Believe it or not, I too have qualifications in Engineering. I got them at school. They are more commonly know as Metalwork & Car Maintenance, but officially, on the certificate it says "Engineering" & "Motor Vehicle Engineering". To be honest, I was never really that much good at either, but I got the qualification nonetheless. That doesn't make me any sort of authority on Physics or Biology (although I do have much higher certificates in both of these subjects also), as they are entirely different subjects. I also have qualifications in Book Keeping & Accountancy, but they don't make me an Economist, even when those subjects are, at least, related.
Brown has no qualifications in the area in which he claims to be an authority, yet he sees fit to decry those who have spent a lifetime in studying & gaining practical experience in order to become so. You are even worse. When faced with the out of context quote from Stephen Hawking, proving the sort of fakery Brown uses you even went as far (not just once, but on numerous occasions), to accuse Hawking of basing his theories on "Unfounded Fantasies". The man is an internationally accepted genius in his field, and you have the gaul to say that he doesn't know what he's talking about, just because I proved to you that contrary to what Brown was trying to make out he was saying, had been, in REALITY, the exact opposite. So one minute he was a genius, because you believed what Brown was saying, that he agreed with Brown. The next, once the truth of Brown's Charlatanry was presented, you immediately claimed that what Hawking said was based on "Unfounded Fantasies". This much is a classic as it is one of the very few independent lines you have come up with. Even Brown wasn't stupid enough to make that sort of claim about Hawking.
I must say, though, I still like the other of your independent statements which admit to your "erroneous preconceptions" (your words). Not just once, but twice in successive postings.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1493026 wrote: Unlike you I don't intend on going over old ground. I have provided links to many different independent sources of evidence, which I doubt you even bothered to look at. All you have ever done is to paste interminal chapters from Dolt Brown, claiming it to be 'evidence', when it is nothing of the sort. The only external links you have provided have been extracts from the same book, which invariably point to Creationist sites which have a direct connection with Brown, as I have previously proven by investigating them individually & showing my results & the sources. Your / Brown's claims have been shown to be falsehoods, lies, misinterpretations & deliberately taking partial quotes from respectable scientists out of context in order to give misleading information (also proved by producing the entire quotes).
You want some evidence - ok, here's a few links for you - not that I believe you'll bother to read them, of course. You are a typical Creationist, with a blinkered view - the 3 Wise Monkeys of Creationism
Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1
Part 1 of Ashby Camp's rebuttal of Douglas Theobald's ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' ... Intro, by Ashby Camp Part 1 “One True Phylogenetic Tree, Part 2 ... On the contrary, the claim of universal common ancestry is incompatible with the .... of these organisms is (or was) biochemically unique (witness the speculations ...
- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 -
A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 2
Part 2 of Ashby Camp's rebuttal of Douglas Theobald's ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' ... Part 1, by Ashby Camp Part 2 “Past History, Part 3 ... In any event, vestigial structures provide no support for the claim of universal common ancestry. ..... The standard phylogenetic tree predicts that new species must originate close ...
- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 2 -
You want some evidence - ok, here's a few links for you - not that I believe you'll bother to read them, of course. You are a typical Creationist, with a blinkered view - the 3 Wise Monkeys of Creationism
Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1
Part 1 of Ashby Camp's rebuttal of Douglas Theobald's ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' ... Intro, by Ashby Camp Part 1 “One True Phylogenetic Tree, Part 2 ... On the contrary, the claim of universal common ancestry is incompatible with the .... of these organisms is (or was) biochemically unique (witness the speculations ...
- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 -
A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 2
Part 2 of Ashby Camp's rebuttal of Douglas Theobald's ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' ... Part 1, by Ashby Camp Part 2 “Past History, Part 3 ... In any event, vestigial structures provide no support for the claim of universal common ancestry. ..... The standard phylogenetic tree predicts that new species must originate close ...
- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 2 -
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1493034 wrote: Evolution is a Scientific Theory. This means that is fits itself to the evidence. That is the key point - that the evidence comes FIRST. The Theory fits into the Evidence. Therefore there has to be Evidence. That much is a no brainer.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Opinions. All opinions.
Not science.
Not science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Definitely not science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Not only opinions but all are out of context. We've been here so many times before. Pahu doesn't consider context important.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1493045 wrote: Not only opinions but all are out of context. We've been here so many times before. Pahu doesn't consider context important.
Show us where the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Show us where the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1493045 wrote: Not only opinions but all are out of context. We've been here so many times before. Pahu doesn't consider context important.
[QUOTE=Pahu;1493054]
Show us where the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Perhaps, but he is predictable
[QUOTE=Pahu;1493054]
Show us where the quotes change the meaning of the contexts.
Perhaps, but he is predictable
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence