Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1496308 wrote: Well, let's start with 1.

You really believe that Genesis in a factual and scientifically accurate account of the beginning of the Universe?

Is your faith that weak that you cannot consider the alternatives?


I believe it is a factual and accurate account of the beginning of the Universe?

It cannot be scientific. Neither can evolution, since science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Since neither is subject to observation and experiment, they are not scientific.

Since science disproves evolution, that leaves the only alternative: Creation.

[FourPart]

Pahu;1496315 wrote: I believe it is a factual and accurate account of the beginning of the Universe?

It cannot be scientific. Neither can evolution, since science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Since neither is subject to observation and experiment, they are not scientific.

Since science disproves evolution, that leaves the only alternative: Creation.


So you admit that the Bible is NOT scientific, but then try to use Science to discredit Evolution. Talk about trying to have your cake & eat it.

Put quite simply, Magic (Creationism) is not Scientific. Evolution is.

Furthermore, Science doesn't disprove anything. That is the nature of Science. It only works for the Positive - not the Negative. Therefore your false premise that Science Disproves Evolution is false, even from the topic name.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1496316 wrote:

So you admit that the Bible is NOT scientific, but then try to use Science to discredit Evolution. Talk about trying to have your cake & eat it.


Please notice I am not using the Bible to disprove evolution, I am using science. Reviewing my past posts will confirm this.

Put quite simply, Magic (Creationism) is not Scientific. Evolution is.


Please show me the science confirming evolution.

Furthermore, Science doesn't disprove anything. That is the nature of Science. It only works for the Positive - not the Negative. Therefore your false premise that Science Disproves Evolution is false, even from the topic name.


When science proved the earth was round, was in not disproving it was flat?

[FourPart]

Pahu;1496321 wrote: Please notice I am not using the Bible to disprove evolution, I am using science. Reviewing my past posts will confirm this.
1. Your posts consist of 99% repetetive pastings from Brown & can, therefore be disregarded. Despite your having been pasting your crap for so long, even I have probably made more original postings than you.

2. I used your words to show that you have directly contradicted yourself. You admit the Bible is not Scientific. Then you try to back up your misunderstanding of what Science is all about by saying that Evolution is not scientific either. It doesn't have anything to do with previous posts. It has everything to do with your own words (a rarity in itself) in a single post.

Please show me the science confirming evolution.
You just don't get it, do you. The Science / Evidence comes first. Evolution is the explanation - not vice versa.

When science proved the earth was round, was in not disproving it was flat?
Science accepts all things are possible. If a dichotomy exists, and it is able to prove one, but not the other, then it is the one that has been proved that is accepted as fact. The other possibility ceases to exist by default. The reason it could not prove the world was flat was simply because it isn't. It was, however able to prove it was round. Similarly Science cannot disprove the existence of a God - nor would it attempt to do so. On the other hand, it cannot prove the existence of a God, quite simply because there is nothing there to prove.

Science is a set procedure for everything. Take the evidence. Look to see a pattern. Form a hypothesis to explain the evidence. Experiment. Make predictions. Keep looking for new evidence. Weigh the new evidence. Eventually, if there is sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis it becomes a theory. If further evidence comes to light that doesn't fall in line with the theory, then the theory is changed accordingly. You see, the Science hasn't disproved anything. Only that the interpretation of the evidence was mistaken. This is where Science is totally different from Creationism. Scientists love being wrong, as it makes them readjust their views in order to get closer to the truth. Creationists, on the other hand, believe they already have all the answers in a single story book & refuse to even acknowledge anything that doesn't support it.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1496324 wrote:

You just don't get it, do you. The Science / Evidence comes first. Evolution is the explanation - not vice versa.


Let me know when you are capable of rational, logical thought.



Science accepts all things are possible. If a dichotomy exists, and it is able to prove one, but not the other, then it is the one that has been proved that is accepted as fact. The other possibility ceases to exist by default. The reason it could not prove the world was flat was simply because it isn't. It was, however able to prove it was round.


Therefor disproving it was flat.

Similarly Science cannot disprove the existence of a God - nor would it attempt to do so. On the other hand, it cannot prove the existence of a God, quite simply because there is nothing there to prove.


What makes you so sure? Using logic based on observation and experience, the existence of God is proved:

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

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

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

Evidence for the Existence of God

Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists

AlwaysBeReady.com

The First Cause Argument

Arguments for God's Existence

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God

Science is a set procedure for everything. Take the evidence. Look to see a pattern. Form a hypothesis to explain the evidence. Experiment. Make predictions. Keep looking for new evidence. Weigh the new evidence. Eventually, if there is sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis it becomes a theory. If further evidence comes to light that doesn't fall in line with the theory, then the theory is changed accordingly. You see, the Science hasn't disproved anything. Only that the interpretation of the evidence was mistaken. This is where Science is totally different from Creationism. Scientists love being wrong, as it makes them readjust their views in order to get closer to the truth. Creationists, on the other hand, believe they already have all the answers in a single story book & refuse to even acknowledge anything that doesn't support it.


And that "story book" is the Word of God which is truth. Truth cannot be changed. Truth is always true and never needs to be adjusted. Is the Bible true? Here are the facts:

Bible Accuracy




1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

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

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

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

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



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



Scientific Facts in The Bible

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.

[FourPart]

Pahu;1496331 wrote: Let me know when you are capable of rational, logical thought.
You've just proved my point. You don't get it.

Therefor disproving it was flat.
As I explained - the goal was not to disprove anything. The goal was to prove it was round. If you have 2 people arguing about something that no-one has seen - The first person says it is Black, the 2nd says it is White. The 3rd person, who is the Scientist says it is probably either Black or White, but that without the evidence it could be any other colour. He opens the box & discovers it to be White. Although it has proved that the 2nd person was right, it was only the Scientist who was accepted the possibility that they could all be wrong.

What makes you so sure? Using logic based on observation and experience, the existence of God is proved:
There is no evidence whatsoever.

Supposition #1 (No evidence to prove this)

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared,
Supposition #2 (It has been proved that it can)

which is impossible by any natural cause.
Supposition #3 (False Dichotomy). Anything that happens, happens, whether we understand how it happens or not. Therefore there is no such thing as Supernatural.

Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural,
Supposition #4 (False Claim)

proving the existence of God.




Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue,


They have been proved time & time again both by observation of the present, analysis of the past in fossil records, analysis of DNA evidence, predictions of supporting evidence yet to be found - confirmed by such discoveries. Give it a few million years & you will be able to observe it all being repeated & advanced. This is the problem with making accurate predictions about Evolution in the long term. It happens so slowly. When you watch the second hand on a clock you can see it ticking away. When you watch the minute hand it becomes much more difficult to see the movement. Even more so with the hour hand. Then there are clocks that include days, weeks, months, years, etc. How long must it take before you can actually observe them moving, but do you deny that they are doing so?

their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


No doubt this is the church that you & Brown attend?

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
Repeating the same unsubstantiated claim doesn't change its invalidity.

Everything else ignored as the usual pasted "Disregarded Crap".

[Pahu]

FourPart;1496334 wrote: You've just proved my point. You don't get it.



As I explained - the goal was not to disprove anything. The goal was to prove it was round. If you have 2 people arguing about something that no-one has seen - The first person says it is Black, the 2nd says it is White. The 3rd person, who is the Scientist says it is probably either Black or White, but that without the evidence it could be any other colour. He opens the box & discovers it to be White. Although it has proved that the 2nd person was right, it was only the Scientist who was accepted the possibility that they could all be wrong.



There is no evidence whatsoever.

Supposition #1 (No evidence to prove this)

Supposition #2 (It has been proved that it can)

Supposition #3 (False Dichotomy). Anything that happens, happens, whether we understand how it happens or not. Therefore there is no such thing as Supernatural.



Supposition #4 (False Claim)





They have been proved time & time again both by observation of the present, analysis of the past in fossil records, analysis of DNA evidence, predictions of supporting evidence yet to be found - confirmed by such discoveries. Give it a few million years & you will be able to observe it all being repeated & advanced. This is the problem with making accurate predictions about Evolution in the long term. It happens so slowly. When you watch the second hand on a clock you can see it ticking away. When you watch the minute hand it becomes much more difficult to see the movement. Even more so with the hour hand. Then there are clocks that include days, weeks, months, years, etc. How long must it take before you can actually observe them moving, but do you deny that they are doing so?

No doubt this is the church that you & Brown attend?



Repeating the same unsubstantiated claim doesn't change its invalidity.

Everything else ignored as the usual pasted "Disregarded Crap".


Evidence free denial of the facts! The fact remains 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.

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

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=71

http://www.apologeticspress.ws/articles/1762

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... cle&id=137

http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-c ... ument.html

http://www.existence-of-god.com/existence-of-god.html

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

[FourPart]

Pahu;1496344 wrote: Evidence free denial of the facts! The fact remains 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.


You are clearly stuck in a loop, repeating the same old rubbish based on the same old fallacies. There is no evidence one way or the other that there was nothing before the universe existed or if it always existed. That is the ONLY fact. Without evidence you cannot state ANYTHING as a fact. If you just happen to believe something to be true that is a SUPPOSITION, not a FACT. Evidence, on the other hand, has REPEATEDLY demonstrated the POSSIBILITY of something coming from nothing, in the instance of the Higgs Boson. It doesn't prove that's what happened. It doesn't prove it didn't happen. It just proved the ability for it to happen. You only seem to be able to think in terms of dichotomies. If it can't be proved that something happened, then you see that as proof that it didn't happen, as with your stupid Natural / Supernatural spiel that you keep falling back on. It's meaningless. You say that if something didn't happen by Natural causes then it must be Supernatural. Ok - what if it never happened in the first place? You say that before there was something there was nothing. Why? What proof have you that there wasn't always something? Even if there was nothing, then something COULD have come from something (proven fact). Therefore, if it did happen that way, then that would be a Natural occurrence. Whatever happened (or didn't happen), it was Natural that it should happen (or not, as the case may be). When nobody knows the answer for certain, without the hard evidence to back it up, it is simply arrogant & beyond stupidity to say that everybody else is wrong.

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


As has been seen, time & time again, experiments have been done & repeated, and peer reviewed. Science only seeks to prove things to be true - not to prove they are untrue. If something is demonstrated to be untrue as a result, that is simply incidental - it is not the objective.

Plus, I've already told you I have no respect whatsoever for your Church.



The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.


OK - You get yourself a job at the Hadron Collider & prove all the Scientists who have proven it that they're all wrong. Let's see how seriously they take you.

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by Pahu:

Evidence free denial of the facts! The fact remains 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.

FourPart;1496396 wrote: You are clearly stuck in a loop, repeating the same old rubbish based on the same old fallacies.


If that statement is "rubbish based on the same old fallacies," why can no one refute it?

There is no evidence one way or the other that there was nothing before the universe existed or if it always existed. That is the ONLY fact.


It is scientifically impossible for the universe to be eternal. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Without evidence you cannot state ANYTHING as a fact. If you just happen to believe something to be true that is a SUPPOSITION, not a FACT.


True, but see above for the evidence.

Evidence, on the other hand, has REPEATEDLY demonstrated the POSSIBILITY of something coming from nothing, in the instance of the Higgs Boson. It doesn't prove that's what happened. It doesn't prove it didn't happen. It just proved the ability for it to happen.


The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field—a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory, first suspected to exist in the 1960s. Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

“¦spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition¦Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation¦Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Who created God? • ChristianAnswers.Net

You only seem to be able to think in terms of dichotomies. If it can't be proved that something happened, then you see that as proof that it didn't happen, as with your stupid Natural / Supernatural spiel that you keep falling back on. It's meaningless. You say that if something didn't happen by Natural causes then it must be Supernatural. Ok - what if it never happened in the first place?


That is not an option. The universe is here. It did happen. Before it existed, there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural. That logical conclusion is based on the facts of science.

You say that before there was something there was nothing. Why? What proof have you that there wasn't always something?


See above.

Even if there was nothing, then something COULD have come from something (proven fact). Therefore, if it did happen that way, then that would be a Natural occurrence. Whatever happened (or didn't happen), it was Natural that it should happen (or not, as the case may be). When nobody knows the answer for certain, without the hard evidence to back it up, it is simply arrogant & beyond stupidity to say that everybody else is wrong.


Yes, it is a proven fact that something can come from something. It is also a proven fact that something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause. That is hard evidence that no scientist denies.

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

As has been seen, time & time again, experiments have been done & repeated, and peer reviewed.


But none have shown the universe created itself from nothing.

Plus, I've already told you I have no respect whatsoever for your Church.


So what, and what is my church?

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

OK - You get yourself a job at the Hadron Collider & prove all the Scientists who have proven it that they're all wrong. Let's see how seriously they take you.


Show how scientists have proven that to be wrong.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1496417 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:

Evidence free denial of the facts! The fact remains 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.



If that statement is "rubbish based on the same old fallacies," why can no one refute it?



It is scientifically impossible for the universe to be eternal. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.






This is all evidence-free speculation on your part. There is no evidence to support your claim that the universe was, at some time, non-existent. And your reference to entropy is getting very tired, as well, since the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to a closed system. I see no evidence that the universe is a closed system.

Therefore, everything else you claim here is meaningless.

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by Pahu:

Evidence free denial of the facts! The fact remains 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.



If that statement is "rubbish based on the same old fallacies," why can no one refute it?



It is scientifically impossible for the universe to be eternal. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.



LarsMac;1496424 wrote: This is all evidence-free speculation on your part. There is no evidence to support your claim that the universe was, at some time, non-existent. And your reference to entropy is getting very tired, as well, since the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to a closed system. I see no evidence that the universe is a closed system.

Therefore, everything else you claim here is meaningless.


The evidence is in the fact that it is observerd everything in the universe has a beginning, therefor it is logical to assume the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was no universe and therefor nothing.

An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: answers to critics - creation.com

[FourPart]

Pahu;1496425 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu:

Evidence free denial of the facts! The fact remains that before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause.

That is NOT a fact. It is a supposition. It can neither be proved nor disproved. Everything else you spout is based on that NON fact. Therefore every following argument falls apart.

Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
If something happens it is natural that it should happen. Even if there were a God who made it happen, by his doing so it would be natural that it should happen, because he made it so. Therefore that proves there is no such thing as "Supernatural".

If that statement is "rubbish based on the same old fallacies," why can no one refute it?


I just did. Or more to the point I pointed out that without evidence of anything being so, any claim of something being a fact is a fallacy. You are constantly claiming your suppositions to be facts, therefore they are the same old fallacies.

It is scientifically impossible for the universe to be eternal. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.




Try to understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynaimcs a bit before you start pasting it. It doesn't contradict anything. You are merely changing the conditions to try to make it fit your case, and the conditions don't apply. A simple explanation - if you have a light inside a sphere with a perfectly reflective surface, in a closed system, such as the sphere is, the energy of that light is soon absorbed (entropy), instead of being reflected in perpetuity. However, in a non-closed system, such as space, even after turning the light off, the light given off will continue to head outward until such time as it hits a solid object. A simplistic example, but when trying to explain it to someone as simple as yourself....

Some research material for you:

Entropy and the 2nd Law in Open Systems

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.


You have proved that statement to be incorrect by your (Brown's) later pasted quote.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.


Another supposition. You cannot say whether something was made to exist or had always existed. There is no way of knowing one way or the other. Therefore you cannot base any further arguments on a NON fact.

The evidence is in the fact that it is observerd everything in the universe has a beginning, therefor it is logical to assume the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was no universe and therefor nothing.


See above.

An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
John Ross is a known Creationist. I know of no other scientists who claim that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics applies to Open systems, seeing as it is defined as being to do with closed systems. It's like saying that the CO2 that is liquid when contained within a fire extinguisher remains liquid when it is opened.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.


All energy converts from one form into another - with or without machinery - 1st Law of Thermodynamics. As for order - there is order in disorder. When a couple of disordered hydrogen atoms fuse with a single oxygen one to make a water molecule, where is the increased disorder there?

The open systems argument does not help evolution.
That's because it's nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is a totally different subject. Evolution is the changing & adaptation of biological lifeforms. Thermodynamics applies with or without life.

Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things.
Energy doesn't generate anything - it simply is - cannot be created nor destroyed - 1st Law.

Undirected energy just speeds up destruction.
The sun isn't directed - unless you consider in every which direction as being directed.

Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy.
I suggest you look up melanin & Vitamin D

If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information).
And over millions of years mutations occur in a positive effect - such as increased levels of melanin in hot climates, where you get dark skinned people, and less in climates with less sun. Evolution.

Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.


If that were so, there would be no problem with bacteria becoming immune to anti-biotics. As it is, the bacteria evolve faster than the newer anti-biotics can keep up.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc
That's because pouring petrol on a car would be an open system. The energy used in a car's internal combustion engine is a closed system (entropy).

A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.


What's that got to do with anything?

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
Not necessarily. There are several types of energy. You seem to think there is just one. Sound, for instance is a form of energy, as is Light, Kinetic, Potential & Heat. All of which may be present in their 'raw' form. In the case of cells it can be as a bio-chemical Potential Energy, which breaks down into other forms of energy. There is no such thing as 'Raw' energy, per se. There are just forms of energy. The only thing that changes is the concentration of that energy. For example, a dim light is just Light Energy, but so is a Bright Light.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.


Therein lies the flaw in your argument. "When done properly". Anticipating Open Systems means that you accept the rules don't apply to that set of circumstances. It doesn't mean to conveniently rewrite the law when it doesn't fit in with your model.

[Pahu]

Young Comets




As comets pass near the Sun, some of their mass vaporizes, producing a long tail and other debris (a). Comets also fragment frequently or crash into the Sun (b) or planets. Typical comets should disintegrate after several hundred orbits. For many comets this is less than 10,000 years. There is no evidence for a distant shell of cometary material surrounding the solar system, and there is no known way to add comets to the solar system at rates that even remotely balance their destruction. Actually, the gravity of planets tends to expel comets from the solar system rather than capture them (c). So, comets and the solar system appear to be less than 10,000 years old. [For more on comets, see: “The Origin of Comets]

a. Ron Cowen, “Comets: Mudballs of the Solar System, Science News, Vol. 141, 14 March 1992, pp. 170–171.

b. Ray Jayawardhana, “Keeping Tabs on Cometary Breakups, Science, Vol. 264, 13 May 1994, p. 907.

c. “Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence. Sagan and Druyan, p.210.

However, Sagan and Druyan believed that the Oort cloud exists, and went on to predict (p. 211) that “with the refinement of our scientific instruments, and the development of space missions to go far beyond Pluto, the cloud will be seen, measured, and studied.

d. Raymond A. Lyttleton, “The Non-Existence of the Oort Cometary Shell, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, December 1974, p. 393.

If comet formation accompanies star formation, as evolutionists claim, then many comets should have been expelled from other stars. Some expelled comets should have passed through our solar system in recent years. No incoming comet has ever been observed with an interstellar (i.e. hyperbolic) orbit. [See Wetherill, p. 470.]

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown ]

[Pahu]

This is a painting by Akiane Kramarik when she was 8 years old. The first time I heard of Akiane, I was watching “Heaven is for Real by Todd Burpo. In the spring of 2003, the author’s little four year old boy, Colton, suffered from a near-fatal illness and hadvisions of heaven. After Colton recovered, his dad kept showing him images of Jesus, and Colton kept shaking his head and saying "no, that doesn’t look like him". Finally, Todd showed him Akiane’s painting of Jesus, and Colton said, "yes, that's him".

Akiane's life began in an unusual way, with an underwater home birth in a shack on the edge of a cornfield.

Although during her first years the family experienced severe hardships, Akiane grew up in a nurturing home-schooling environment. Her mother was a Lithuanian immigrant teacher and her father a chef from Chicago. In their rural Illinois home the family had no friends, no relatives, no television or radio, and their life was quite simple: long walks in nature, open conversations, and hands on explorations of knowledge.

When Akiane was four years old, even though the family was indifferent to spirituality or religion, suddenly she started experiencing vivid impressions about invisible realms and a great desire to express them through art utilizing whatever medium was found on hand: candles, lipstick, fruits, vegetables, charcoal or pencils.

Though once in while she would share many details about the self-aware universes she was seeing, most of her spiritual experiences, however, she kept secret, so as not to overwhelm her parents. "It is not time yet for you to know what I see. When that time comes, then you will know."

Whether it was Akiane's vivid imagination or real experiences, her realistic drawings of mostly faces, undoubtedly impressed everybody, and during the first local art exhibitions people often had a hard time believing that the work could actually be created by such a young child.

Soon afterwards, Akiane plunged into the world of colors, and a few more years later into the world of poetry leaving her family and audiences puzzled.

Gradually the days became filled with thinking, painting and writing, and at the tender age of eight the self-taught prodigy completed her first five-foot long oil paintings mastering realism equal to that of a seasoned artist.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1496500 wrote:

Young Comets




As comets pass near the Sun, some of their mass vaporizes, producing a long tail and other debris (a). Comets also fragment frequently or crash into the Sun (b) or planets. Typical comets should disintegrate after several hundred orbits. For many comets this is less than 10,000 years. There is no evidence for a distant shell of cometary material surrounding the solar system, and there is no known way to add comets to the solar system at rates that even remotely balance their destruction. Actually, the gravity of planets tends to expel comets from the solar system rather than capture them (c). So, comets and the solar system appear to be less than 10,000 years old. [For more on comets, see: “The Origin of Comets]

a. Ron Cowen, “Comets: Mudballs of the Solar System, Science News, Vol. 141, 14 March 1992, pp. 170–171.

b. Ray Jayawardhana, “Keeping Tabs on Cometary Breakups, Science, Vol. 264, 13 May 1994, p. 907.

c. “Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence. Sagan and Druyan, p.210.

However, Sagan and Druyan believed that the Oort cloud exists, and went on to predict (p. 211) that “with the refinement of our scientific instruments, and the development of space missions to go far beyond Pluto, the cloud will be seen, measured, and studied.

d. Raymond A. Lyttleton, “The Non-Existence of the Oort Cometary Shell, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, December 1974, p. 393.

If comet formation accompanies star formation, as evolutionists claim, then many comets should have been expelled from other stars. Some expelled comets should have passed through our solar system in recent years. No incoming comet has ever been observed with an interstellar (i.e. hyperbolic) orbit. [See Wetherill, p. 470.]

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown ]


Scientists hit pay dirt in drilling of dinosaur-killing impact crater | Science | AAAS

From the Article - Last week, researchers brought up a 3-meter core section from a depth of 670 meters that contained bits of granite along with minerals originally deposited in hot, fluid-filled cracks—the first sign that the team had entered the peak ring. “We predicted the peak ring would be a big hydrothermal system, says Gulick, a geophysicist at the University of Texas, Austin. He says it may be several more days of drilling before granite dominates the core samples and the team can declare itself entirely within the peak ring. However, Joanna Morgan, the other chief scientist at Imperial College London, thinks the presence of any granite at all signifies that the team is now working within the peak ring layer. “How far down into the peak ring is the peak ring? Gulick asks. “It’s almost a semantic argument.

[Pahu]

Small Comets




Photographs taken from Earth-orbiting satellites show small, ice-filled comets striking Earth’s upper atmosphere at an average rate of one every three seconds (a).



Figure*33: Small Comets. The Dynamic Explorer satellite took this picture in ultraviolet light showing small comets (the dark spots) colliding with Earth’s upper atmosphere. The comets begin to break up 800 miles above the Earth’s surface, then frictional heating vaporizes the pieces and their descent stops at an elevation of about 35 miles. The water vapor, which soon dissipates, blocks ultraviolet light from Earth, producing the dark spots. The northern lights are shown by the halo.

Each comet adds 20–40 tons of water to the Earth’s atmosphere. If this influx began when evolutionists say the Earth started to evolve, all our oceans would have come from small comets. Actually, impact rates were undoubtedly greater in the past, because the planets have swept many of these comets from the solar system. Therefore, small comets would have placed much more water on Earth than is here today. Obviously, this did not happen, so oceans look young. [See also pages 303 and 312

a. Louis A. Frank with Patrick Huyghe, The Big Splash (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990).

Richard Monastersky, “Comet Controversy Caught on Film, Science News, Vol. 133, 28 May 1988, p. 340.

Timothy M. Beardsley, “Ice Storm, Scientific American, Vol. 258, June 1988, p. 24.

Jonathan Eberhart, “A Bunch of Little Comets—But Just a Little Bunch, Science News, Vol. 132, 29 August 1987, p. 132.

Richard A. Kerr, “In Search of Elusive Little Comets, Science, Vol. 240, 10 June 1988, pp. 1403–1404.

Richard A. Kerr, “Double Exposures Reveal Mini-Comets? Science, Vol. 243, 13 January 1989, pp. 170–171.

Richard Monastersky, “Small Comet Controversy Flares Again, Science News, Vol. 137, 9 June 1990, p. 365.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown ]

[LarsMac]

"Two more of the ingredients for life as we know it have turned up in space, this time from a comet orbiting the sun. While hints of both have been seen in comets before, this is the clearest evidence to date."

"Life’s ingredients keep turning up in cosmic environments. Meteorites carry amino acids and simple sugars have been seen in interstellar clouds(SN: 10/9/04, p. 237). And several of the essential molecules for DNA and RNA, such as ribose, have been created in laboratory experiments that simulate ice grains exposed to ultraviolet radiation from young stars (SN: 4/30/16, p. 18)."

Link: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/com ... rus?tgt=nr

[LarsMac]

Recent fossil finds have indicated that Mammals may have flourished for as long as 20 million years before the asteroid strike that is presumed to have caused the demise of dinosaurs, and the proliferation of mammalian species.

Elis Newman, Ph D of Southampton, published the following paper in cooperation with the University of Chicago.

From the Abstract: "Recent years have witnessed an explosion of new fossil discoveries and analyses documenting the unappreciated ecological and morphological diversity of Mesozoic Mammaliaformes. In contrast, the taxonomic diversity dynamics through the first 165 million years of mammal evolution have not yet been rigorously analysed, leaving patterns of diversification during this important period open to conjecture. Here, we present a comprehensive statistical analysis of global mammaliaform diversity spanning from the Late Triassic appearance of mammaliaforms (~ 230 million years ago [hereafter, mya]) to the end Cretaceous mass extinction (66 mya)...."



Read more:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_dynamics

[FourPart]

LarsMac;1496709 wrote: Recent fossil finds have indicated that Mammals may have flourished for as long as 20 million years before the asteroid strike that is presumed to have caused the demise of dinosaurs, and the proliferation of mammalian species.

Elis Newman, Ph D of Southampton, published the following paper in cooperation with the University of Chicago.

From the Abstract: "Recent years have witnessed an explosion of new fossil discoveries and analyses documenting the unappreciated ecological and morphological diversity of Mesozoic Mammaliaformes. In contrast, the taxonomic diversity dynamics through the first 165 million years of mammal evolution have not yet been rigorously analysed, leaving patterns of diversification during this important period open to conjecture. Here, we present a comprehensive statistical analysis of global mammaliaform diversity spanning from the Late Triassic appearance of mammaliaforms (~ 230 million years ago [hereafter, mya]) to the end Cretaceous mass extinction (66 mya)...."



Read more:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_dynamics


Except that Pahu would argue that all fossils happened over the period of a week or 2, about 5000 years ago as a result of the flood. Hard evidence has no place here. He has much more reliable evidence - a 4000 year old story book.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1496708 wrote: "Two more of the ingredients for life as we know it have turned up in space, this time from a comet orbiting the sun. While hints of both have been seen in comets before, this is the clearest evidence to date."

"Life’s ingredients keep turning up in cosmic environments. Meteorites carry amino acids and simple sugars have been seen in interstellar clouds(SN: 10/9/04, p. 237). And several of the essential molecules for DNA and RNA, such as ribose, have been created in laboratory experiments that simulate ice grains exposed to ultraviolet radiation from young stars (SN: 4/30/16, p. 18)."

Link: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/com ... rus?tgt=nr


Proving they originated from Earth.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1496728 wrote: Except that Pahu would argue that all fossils happened over the period of a week or 2, about 5000 years ago as a result of the flood. Hard evidence has no place here. He has much more reliable evidence - a 4000 year old story book.


Bible Accuracy




1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

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

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

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

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



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



Scientific Facts in The Bible

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.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1496750 wrote: Bible Accuracy




1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

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

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

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

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



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



Scientific Facts in The Bible

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.


Talk about "Evidence-free speculation masquerading as science"

Yes, the bible has some historical accuracy, but there is little, if any "Science" in the Bible.

[LarsMac]

Here's some Science for you, Pahu:

Scientist says he found definitive proof that God exists.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence, he affirmed. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.

[FourPart]

Pahu;1496749 wrote: Proving they originated from Earth.
How does finding something heading towards Earth prove that they originated on Earth? They're heading in the opposite direction.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1496749 wrote: Proving they originated from Earth.


How do you figure THAT?

[Pahu]

FourPart;1496773 wrote: How does finding something heading towards Earth prove that they originated on Earth? They're heading in the opposite direction.


Because they contain organic matter and bacteria from Earth. They were expelled from Earth during the Flood and have established orbits. Comets may be the most dynamic, spectacular, variable, and mysterious bodies in the solar system. They even contain complex organic molecules—including trace amounts of the amino acid glycine, a complex building block of life on earth. Early scientists discovered other types of organic matter in comets “similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth, and concluded that they came from “decomposed organic bodies.

While simple organic compounds are not always a product of life, complex organic compounds almost certainly are. Furthermore different comets are expelling multiple organic compounds. Today, a popular belief is that comets brought life to Earth. Instead, comets have traces of life from Earth.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Comets

On 12 November 2014, the European Space Agency’s Rosetta spacecraft placed an instrumented lander on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko—a comet that is 72%–74% empty space. This was the first successful landing on a comet. Most noteworthy of this mission’s many discoveries on the comet were fifteen organic compounds.

“The COSAC [COmetary SAmpling and Composition apparatus] gas analyzing instrument on Philae was able to ‘sniff’ the atmosphere and detect the first organic molecules after landing, the DLR German Aerospace Center said. Victoria Bryan, “Comet Team Detects Organic Molecules, Basis of Life on Earth, Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters 2014/11/18/us-space-comet-idUSKCN0J21V520141118

The comet’s atmosphere contained methane, a simple organic molecule. Methane almost always comes from life, which means that life (such as bacteria) once was or is probably on Comet 67P. In rare cases, methane can be produced in other ways, such as when liquid water interacts with certain rocks. However, comets are too cold to have liquid water. Even if comets heated up when traveling close to the Sun or by an impact, the comet’s ice would immediately become a gas (steam), never liquid water. Therefore, bacteria probably were or are on Comet 67P—bacteria launched from earth. Don’t be fooled by claims that life on Earth came from comets or extraterrestrial bodies. Those ideas, called panspermia, beg the question of how life began, ignore all the deadly radiation in space, and don’t tell us what the critters ate. As mentioned earlier, NASA already discovered a complex organic molecule, glycine, on a comet in 2009. That definitely implies life.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Comet Composition

[LarsMac]

That all presumes that all organic matter originated on Earth.

Again, "Evidence-free speculation"

[FourPart]

When something is jettisoned outward & there is nothing to stop it, then the laws of physics state that it will keep going until it meets with something to stop it. It does not leave the solar system & then stop & say "Oh, I'm getting a bit homesick. I think I'll turn around & head back to Earth". If a tourist comes in on the plane to England from Africa, that doesn't mean that he started off from England. In fact, quite the opposite is true, seeing that human life first developed in Africa.

[Ted]

A lot of fulfilled prophesies were written long after the event. In other words fulfilled in hind site. If a positive event happened it was from God. If a negative event was had it was God's punishment. Like hurricane Katrina was branded as God's punishment for the evils of the US. What nonsense.

[Pahu]

Ted;1496969 wrote: A lot of fulfilled prophesies were written long after the event. In other words fulfilled in hind site. If a positive event happened it was from God. If a negative event was had it was God's punishment. Like hurricane Katrina was branded as God's punishment for the evils of the US. What nonsense.


What evidence do you have to support your assertions? Here are the facts:



To say that the Bible predicts the future could be more accurately stated as the Bible records the future in advance. What's the difference? Bible prophecy is not guessing about the future based on what we see now. A prediction most often is a statement about the future based on clues you look at now. The passages in the Bible that talk about future events were not guesses. They tell of what would happen, rather than what might happen. They declared things that God, who is eternal, already knew. The purposes were to warn people about the results of their actions, to give instruction, to give people hope in times of despair and to show the authenticity of God's Word.

The most important examples of how and why God included prophecy are the hundreds of prophecies about the Messiah. If those prophecies were not there, anyone could claim they were the Messiah. Even so, many did, to the peril of those who followed them, because they ignored God's Word. Other prophecies include what will happen to certain nations in the future. As the prophecies came to pass obviously they became more meaningful. After a prophecy has come to pass not only can we still benefit from the message, but it becomes the fingerprint or seal of God on that message. There is no other book in history with this fingerprint on it.

How to Disqualify a Prophecy

Should we test if the prophecies in the Bible are valid? Absolutely! There are many ways someone could make up a prophecy that seems to be fulfilled or for someone to fulfill a prophecy and claim God was involved in its fulfillment. Are the prophecies in the Bible of this sort?

1. Self-fulfilling a prophecy.

When a person who knows the prophecy causes it to take place then it can be called a self fulfilling prophecy. But this can be the case only if all aspects of a prophecy can be engineered by the person or people desiring its fulfillment. An example from the Bible would be when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey on the very day it was predicted that the Messiah would come. Jesus knew the prophecies and chose to fulfill them by his actions. But does this disqualify the accuracy of the original prophecies?

If these were the only prophecies about the Messiah then they would certainly be disqualified. Jesus chose to ride in on a donkey; he also chose the correct day. Any one could have done that. How many other would be Messiahs rode in to Jerusalem on that day? If that were all there were to being the Messiah then anyone could have fulfilled it. But there were a number of things required that Jesus could not have guaranteed. The unbroken donkey colt would have to be ridden. The crowd had to declare that he was Messiah and King. The religious leaders had to reject him. Jesus specifically chose several aspects of the prophecy that the Messiah was to fulfill, but he could not have engineered the rest.

Also there were hundreds of prophecies, many of which were out of Jesus' control. When Jesus was born the wheels preparing for the Messiah had been in motion for well over a thousand years. But because there were certain prophecies that Messiah had to do and do successfully. Jesus had to deliberately fulfill them, giving sight to the blind for example. So even if a prophecy is can be deliberately fulfilled it can be considered authentic if other non-self fulfilling prophecies were contingent on it or related to it. If we eliminate the few prophecies which the prophets themselves caused to pass, there are still many hundreds left to consider.

2. Fake it.

Imagine someone writing a prophecy about an event that had already occurred and then claiming it was written by someone else at an earlier time. This act of fraud is often claimed of the Bible, but has yet to be shown true. The Old Testament was finished 400 years before Christ and translated into Greek 270 years before Christ. The prophecies contained in scripture about Christ therefore could not have been written after the fact as some claim. There are many other prophetic events that occurred well after the books that predicted them were written, events that occur even after the most liberal dates given by any scholars. A good example is the book of Daniel. Liberal scholars have attempted to date in 165 BC because the book contains an accurate history of the Greek empire up to that point in history. But Daniel lived in the 6th century BC. So since the scholars don't believe that prophecy is possible, Daniel must have been an impostor. The problem is that the book of Daniel continues to accurately predict events that occur after 165 BC. So how did an imposter writing history after the fact accurately predict events and dates in the life of Jesus? Prophecy can be faked, but the Bible is authentic.

3. Revise the text.

This would be an attempt to alter existing documents so it looks like they were originally predictive. This only works when you have a few copies. Once you have many copies the changes have to be made to all existing copies in order for a revision to go unnoticed. We have thousands of copies of the Bible, and while there is a small amount of disagreement, mainly spelling, very few have any impact on prophecy in the Bible. Remember also that the prophecies of the Messiah were in the Torah, the Jewish Holy Book, what we call the Old Testament. They would have had to agree to alter all the existing texts to make it look like it contained the prophecies of the Christ that Jesus fulfilled. There have been many archeological confirmations that the Bible we have today is in fact very close to the original. So while it is possible to revise or change a document, the evidence tells us that this did not occur with the Bible.

4. Be vague.

A prophecy written in such a way that the prophecy could fit a lot of things. Such as "A great leader will come and make war with his enemies." The Bible however is not vague. It gives names, places, times, actions and details. Bible prophecy was not written in such a way that it can fit anything. It is the real revelation of God to his prophets, and it is not at all vague.

5. Predict the obvious.

When the enemy is at the doorstep of a city and your king's armies have been defeated, the citizens have been reduced to eating moldy bird dung and you say, "Very soon the city will fall." That's nothing more than what you might get in the morning news headlines. The Bible however does not make predictions of likely events. It often was very contrary to what people thought would take place. Consider the fact that in the nineteenth century many Bible scholars scoffed at the idea that Israel would ever become a nation again in spite of what the Bible clearly said. So to solve the contradiction many held to the doctrine that the Church had taken the place of Israel. Even today whenever they read "Israel" or "Jew" in the New Testament, they replaced it with "the Church." Its amazing how so many can still hold to this doctrine today even with the evidence right before their eyes? Another example is that the details of the crucifixion first appeared in prophecy five to seven hundred years before crucifixion was even invented. Sometimes things in scripture may seem obvious to us only because we live centuries after the fulfillment took place. The predictions in the Bible were not predictions based on the obvious, but on the truth.

6. Set no time limits.

This allows a prophecy to be fulfilled at any time after it was written. We of course assume that this would increase the likelihood of a prophecy being fulfilled because it has a longer time to happen. That's the same mentality that justifies evolutionary stories. But in reality, time limit or no, the longer a prophecy is left unfulfilled, the less likely it is to be fulfilled. Things change, civilizations, governments rise and fall. How could a prophet know what was going to happen centuries later based on what he could see then? The Bible contains both prophecies with a date and those with no specific date for fulfillment.

7. Cover all the bases.

If a lot of things are predicted then a few of them might actually happen. People are often impressed with the writings of Nostradamus because some of his predictions seemed to have come to pass. Yet only a small percentage of his prophecies can be tied to events that actually occurred, and those require interpretation. His prophecies would be a good example of covering all the bases and vagueness. The Bible does contain a lot of prophecy, but those prophecies are not ones that just proclaim random things or numerous possibilities that are likely to occur given enough time. The facts tell us that Bible prophecy hits it right on the mark, over and over again. Why else would the liberal scholars attempt to date, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel and many others as being written after prophecies were fulfilled? They know the prophecy is an accurate record. But their belief compels them to reject the idea that the records could have been written before they happened. The fact is that even the liberal scholars don't believe that prophecies are just thrown out hoping some will stick. The prophecies in the Bible are specific and they relate to the Bible's message. They are not just there for dramatic effect. They were made for a purpose and hundreds of them have been fulfilled. That's not the result of lucky guesses.

Does the Bible fit neatly into any of the above categories? The answer is no. The prophecies in the Bible are authentic and prove it’s divine origin. As you look at Bible prophecy it is good to test it against the above ideas. You will not find that it can be labeled as fraudulent, or that it has been tampered with, or that is it just plain lucky.

Why Bible Prophecy Is Genuine

[Ted]

LOL Crossan, Borg, Spong, Cox and a host of others. Look them up and read their works.

[FourPart]

Pretty much every Religion prophesies a 'Messiah' of some sort or another. Many claim them to have appeared, fulfilling the prophesies. There isn't even any evidence of the actual existence of Jesus. The claim of a census requiring each person to return to the place of their birth to be taxed is just a nonsense. A high proportion wouldn't even have known where they were born. Furthermore, why would the Romans require them to go anywhere in order to tax them? Why not simply tax them on the spot? Furthermore, there is no such record of any such census having taken place in the first place. Then come the intricate verbatim tales, written by people who weren't even born until his supposed existence. These were tales that were deliberately written in order to match the vagueries of Biblical 'predictions'. Dates were changed. Places were changed. People were changed. All in order to sell a story of an event that never happened. Any tabloid horoscope will make 'predictions', and the gullible believers will always see events happening that they will interpret as being proof positive that the predictions are 100% accurate. What are the odds of someone accurately selecting 6 numbers out of 50 possibilities to be drawn at the end of that week. It goes into millions to 1 - yet lottery winners do it successfully every week all over the world. The Bible, however, states that someday, somewhere, someone will turn up, and he might be the Messiah. Not only is that unbelievably vague about the details but it doesn't prove anything. Predicting that someone would arrive somewhere, without there being any evidence to the fact that anyone was even there at any time is hardly proof of an accurate prediction.

There have been many claims of certain other more modern events that have been accredited to the fulfillment of Biblical Prophesies. However, these claims seem to use the same prophecies to represent many different events. It was claimed that Biblical 'prophecies' of mortal men meeting their God in Heaven was a prophecy of the Apollo landings. Then it was claimed to refer to the Columbia disaster. Others simply refer to it as people dying at the normal course of their life. With inventive interpretation you can match pretty much any Biblical Prophecy to any incident throughout history. Just show me one Biblical Prophecy which gives a precise date, place, name or event that happened on time, as described, with documented evidence. As there is no documentary evidence of the existence of Jesus, even that is clearly not a viable example.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1497006 wrote: Pretty much every Religion prophesies a 'Messiah' of some sort or another. Many claim them to have appeared, fulfilling the prophesies. There isn't even any evidence of the actual existence of Jesus.


Ignoring the rest of your ignorant nonsense, I will address this one:

ANCIENT EVIDENCE FROM NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES THAT JESUS EXISTED



Evidence from Tacitus:

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.

There are many more references to Jesus outside of the Bible. We can be sure that Christ actually spoke the words found in the gospels.

If Jesus had not said such things surely His disciples would not have risked their lives for the cause of truth. If He had not said such things, those who opposed Him would have vehemently challenged such writings. However, no one during the early days of Christianity ever did. Two of the writers of the gospels were close companions of Christ. Both his disciples and his enemies heard his words openly. People in general he talked to heard his words. Yet, the letters of the gospels were never called into question. There are many historical writings about Christ from the early centuries to help substantiate his existence. During the early days when the gospel was preached publicly, no one questioned it because it was factual. Even Jesus’ close disciples died because of what Jesus taught them. If He had not actually said such things they would not have had such convictions.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger:

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and Sex stood accused of Christianity.

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast." This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism." The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus:

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, For he wrought surprising feats. . . When Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians has not disappeared.

We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

[continue]

[Pahu]

ANCIENT EVIDENCE FROM NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES THAT JESUS EXISTED

[continued]



Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud:

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do. If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian:

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Also consider the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin

[Pahu]

Hot Planets




Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune each radiate away more than twice the heat energy they receive from the Sun (a). Uranus (b) and Venus (c) also radiate too much heat. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from nuclear fusion (d), radioactive decay, gravitational contraction, or phase changes (e) within those planets. This suggests that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off (f).

a. H. H. Aumann and C. M. Gillespie Jr., “The Internal Powers and Effective Temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, July 1969, pp. L69–L72.

“Jupiter radiates into space rather more than twice the energy it receives from space. G. H. A. Cole, The Structure of Planets (New York: Crane, Russak & Co., Inc., 1978), p. 114.

M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Puzzle That Is Saturn, Science, 18 September 1981, p. 1351.

Jonathan Eberhart, “Neptune’s Inner Warmth, Science News, Vol. 112, 12 November 1977, p. 316.

b. Ibid.

c. “The Mystery of Venus’ Internal Heat, New Scientist, Vol. 88, 13 November 1980, p. 437.

d. To initiate nuclear fusion, a body must be at least ten times as massive as Jupiter. [See Andrew P. Ingersoll, “Jupiter and Saturn, Scientific American, Vol. 245, December 1981, p. 92.]

e. Ingersoll and others once proposed that Saturn and Jupiter could generate internal heat if their helium gas liquefied or their liquid hydrogen solidified. Neither is possible, because each planet’s temperature greatly exceeds the critical temperatures of helium and hydrogen. (The critical temperature of a particular gas is that temperature above which no amount of pressure can squeeze it into a liquid or solid.) Even if the temperature were cold enough to permit gases to liquefy, what could initiate nucleation? When I mentioned this in a private conversation with Ingersoll in December 1981, he quickly acknowledged his error.

f. Paul M. Steidl, “The Solar System: An Assessment of Recent Evidence—Planets, Comets, and Asteroids, Design and Origins in Astronomy, editor George Mulfinger Jr. (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1983), pp. 87, 91, 100.

Jupiter would have rapidly cooled to its present temperature, even if it had been an unreasonably hot 20,000 kelvins when it formed. Evolutionary models require too much time. [See Edwin V. Bishop and Wendell C. DeMarcus, “Thermal Histories of Jupiter Models, Icarus, Vol. 12, May 1970, pp. 317–330.]

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

I begin to wonder, which has become more confused - Pahu or Katsung

[FourPart]

LarsMac;1497024 wrote: I begin to wonder, which has become more confused - Pahu or Katsung


lol - or Macooo

I'm not going to bother going into all the other pasted garbage. We've already dealt with all that many times before & demonstrated how it has all been discredited, but sa you so fondly like to lead with Tacitus, here's a little video demonstrating how Tacitus was faked.

[LarsMac]

Actually, to their credit, Pahu and Macooo pretty much stick to their own thread and let us come around to harass them. And they are fairly reliable and polite about it.

Macooo actually even offers up the occasional nugget worth exercising some brain cells on.

[Ted]

hohm

[FourPart]

I've put Macooo on my ignore list. However, I'd still like some way of stopping his postings popping up in my New Posts list.

[Ted]

Lol

[Pahu]

Solar Wind




The Sun’s radiation applies an outward force on particles orbiting the Sun. Particles less than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have been “blown out of the solar system if it were billions of years old. Yet these particles are still orbiting the Sun. (a) Conclusion: the solar system appears young.

a. After showing abundant photographic evidence for the presence of micrometeorites as small as 10^-15 g that “struck every square centimeter of the lunar surface, Stuart Ross Taylor stated:

“It has been thought previously that radiation pressure would have swept less massive particles out of the inner solar system, but there is a finite flux below 10^-14 g. Stuart Ross Taylor, Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1975), p. 90.

Large lunar impacts are continually churning up and overturning the lunar surface. Therefore, for these micrometeorite impacts to blanket the surface so completely, they must have been recent. [For more details see: Figure 165]

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ted]

Now that is a joke. LOL

[Pahu]

Poynting-Robertson Effect




Dust particles larger than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter form a large disk-shaped cloud that orbits the Sun between the orbits of Venus and the asteroid belt. This cloud produces zodiacal light (a). Forces acting on these particles should spiral most of them into the Sun in less than 10,000 years. (This is called the Poynting-Robertson effect. ) Known forces and sources of replenishment cannot maintain this cloud, so the solar system is probably less than 10,000 years old.

This is how the Poynting-Robertson effect works: Rain falling on a speeding car tends to strike the front of the car and slow it down slightly. Likewise, the Sun’s rays that strike particles orbiting the Sun tend to slow them down, causing them to spiral into the Sun. Thus, the Sun’s radiation and gravity act as a giant vacuum cleaner that pulls in about 100,000 tons of nearby micrometeoroids per day. Disintegrating comets and asteroids add dust at less than half the rate at which it is being destroyed (b).

A disintegrating comet becomes a cluster of particles called a meteor stream. The Poynting-Robertson effect causes smaller particles in a meteor stream to spiral into the Sun more rapidly than larger particles. After about 10,000 years, these orbits should be visibly segregated by particle size. Because this segregation is generally not seen, meteor streams are probably a recent phenomenon (c).

Huge quantities of microscopic dust particles also have been discovered around some stars (d). Yet, according to the theory of stellar evolution, those stars are many millions of years old, so that dust should have been removed by stellar wind and the Poynting-Robertson effect. Until some process is discovered that continually resupplies vast amounts of dust, one should consider whether the “millions of years are imaginary.

a. “For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea [Hawaii] , above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill. ... In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring, [Donald N. B.] Hall [Director of the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy] was able to report within days that ‘the data were really superb.’ They don’t tell an entirely welcome story, though. ‘Unfortunately, they don’t seem to show any dust rings at all.’  Charles Petit, “A Mountain Cliffhanger of an Eclipse, Science, Vol. 253, 26 July 1991, pp. 386–387.

To understand the origin of zodiacal light, see page 319.



b. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 60–61.

Harold S. Slusher and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System: A Study of the Poynting-Robertson Effect and Extinction of Interplanetary Dust, ICR Technical Monograph No. 6, revised edition (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).

c. Stanley P. Wyatt Jr. and Fred L. Whipple, “The Poynting-Robertson Effect on Meteor Orbits, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 3, January 1950, pp. 134–141.

Ron Cowen, “Meteorites: To Stream or Not to Stream, Science News, Vol. 142, 1 August 1992, p. 71.

d. David A. Weintraub, “Comets in Collision, Nature, Vol. 351, 6 June 1991, pp. 440–441.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ted]

They read like wannabes.

[FourPart]

"Disregarded Crap"

[Pahu]

Supernova Remnants




In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b). So, the Milky Way looks young.



Figure 34: The Crab Nebula. In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians in New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and briefly was as bright as a full moon. Today, the remnants from that explosion comprise the Crab Nebula.

a. “An application of the present results to the [Milky Way] Galaxy yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae. G. A. Tammann, “On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.

A more recent technique that surveyed thousands of galaxies, including smaller galaxies, concluded that

... the time between [supernova] explosions is 100 years or more. Michael S. Turner, “Yes, Things Really Are Going Faster, Science, Vol. 299, 31 January 2003, p. 663.

b. Keith Davies, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), pp. 175–184.

“Where have all the remnants gone? Astronomy Survey Committee of the National Research Council, Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1498303 wrote:

Supernova Remnants




In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b). So, the Milky Way looks young.



Figure 34: The Crab Nebula. In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians in New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and briefly was as bright as a full moon. Today, the remnants from that explosion comprise the Crab Nebula.

a. “An application of the present results to the [Milky Way] Galaxy yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae. G. A. Tammann, “On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.

A more recent technique that surveyed thousands of galaxies, including smaller galaxies, concluded that

... the time between [supernova] explosions is 100 years or more. Michael S. Turner, “Yes, Things Really Are Going Faster, Science, Vol. 299, 31 January 2003, p. 663.

b. Keith Davies, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), pp. 175–184.

“Where have all the remnants gone? Astronomy Survey Committee of the National Research Council, Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


So, you guys just throw stuff up on the wall to see what will stick?

Given that we (Humans) have only been looking at the stars with any tools of any use for the last century, or so, it really is difficult to have come up with much really useful data for such long-term projections, yet.

[Ted]

Hey sh*t sticks to the wall. The evidence by world wide accepted scholars and scientists have shown beyon any reasonable doubt the the earth has been here for a few billion years. Give me a break. Creationists live in their own fantasy land. However they are entitled to their belief system which I personally think is nonsensical.

[Pahu]

Ted;1498331 wrote: Hey sh*t sticks to the wall. The evidence by world wide accepted scholars and scientists have shown beyon any reasonable doubt the the earth has been here for a few billion years.


What evidence supports that assertion?