Pahu;1498355 wrote: What evidence supports that assertion?
That is a great question.
Let's start with:
Radioactive decay
"Radioactive decay is distinct from the process of nuclear fission, which is the process of disintegration of atomic nuclei initiated by irradiation with neutrons, accompanied by the release of radiation, heat and more neutrons. Unlike radioactive decay, the rate of nuclear fission can be controlled by varying the neutron flux. Nuclear fission is used in nuclear power and nuclear weapons"
But, here, let someone else tell you all about it.
Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1498357 wrote: That is a great question.
Let's start with:
Radioactive decay
"Radioactive decay is distinct from the process of nuclear fission, which is the process of disintegration of atomic nuclei initiated by irradiation with neutrons, accompanied by the release of radiation, heat and more neutrons. Unlike radioactive decay, the rate of nuclear fission can be controlled by varying the neutron flux. Nuclear fission is used in nuclear power and nuclear weapons"
But, here, let someone else tell you all about it.
Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable
Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption is that simple measurements can lead to reliable ages. But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general—and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating.
In 2009, New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data showed that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the summer, and then sped up during the winter. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements.1 To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected these radioisotope decay rates, researchers laid a solar proximity plot atop the silicon decay plot, and they showed a close match.
Since that time, investigators have yet to discover a satisfying physical mechanism explaining how the sun might accelerate the decay of radioactive atomic nuclei.2 For example, although at the time of the Brookhaven and Stanford reports solar neutrinos were implicated, it appears that neutrinos are just too small and too few. The chances seem too slim for enough neutrinos to collide with enough radioactive atoms to have caused the observed fluctuations.
However, a new report on a separate isotope has again correlated radioisotope decay acceleration with nearness to the sun.3 The investigators locked radioactive radon-222 gas in a lead chamber and compared radioactive readouts taken from both inside and outside the chamber. The experiment was designed to test whether or not changes in radon decay rates are due to atmospheric effects such as gases mixing. The researchers found instead that significant changes were cyclical and corresponded to the relative positions of the earth and the sun.
They wrote, "Combining these observations implies a strong inter-connection between the seasonal and diurnal patterns. This in turn again implies a mutual connection to the rotation of earth around its axis and its rotation around the sun."3 The radon decay rates accelerated during the daylight hours and during the summer. Other rate fluctuations were irregular and remain mysterious.
Some unknown factor affects certain radioisotope decay rates. If this, or a similar factor, altered nuclear decay rates of the systems that are routinely used in rock dating, then any "age" determination provided by this method would have been compromised. And this is exactly what the Institute for Creation Research's project Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) reported in 2005.
In particular, RATE scientists found that radioisotope decay rates had been accelerated by orders of magnitude in the past and that one or more such acceleration events vastly inflated the apparent age of rocks (i.e., the age derived from the assumption that radioisotope decay has been constant through time). For example, RATE found a high accumulation of helium, a product of radioisotope decay, still trapped inside small crystals.4 If evolutionary ages are accurate, the helium should have leaked into the atmosphere millions of years ago. RATE researchers also found radiohalos and fission tracks, which are microscopic scars in minerals. Such scars could only exist if the parent isotope's decay rate had been dramatically accelerated.5
Nobody yet knows what (or who) accelerated nuclear decay in the past, just as nobody yet knows what mechanism causes the sun-related decay of silicon-32 or radon-222. But science clearly shows that radioisotope decay rates have not been constant or reliable enough to support the standard geological ages assigned to earth materials.
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research
Let's start with:
Radioactive decay
"Radioactive decay is distinct from the process of nuclear fission, which is the process of disintegration of atomic nuclei initiated by irradiation with neutrons, accompanied by the release of radiation, heat and more neutrons. Unlike radioactive decay, the rate of nuclear fission can be controlled by varying the neutron flux. Nuclear fission is used in nuclear power and nuclear weapons"
But, here, let someone else tell you all about it.
Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable
Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption is that simple measurements can lead to reliable ages. But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general—and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating.
In 2009, New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data showed that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the summer, and then sped up during the winter. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements.1 To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected these radioisotope decay rates, researchers laid a solar proximity plot atop the silicon decay plot, and they showed a close match.
Since that time, investigators have yet to discover a satisfying physical mechanism explaining how the sun might accelerate the decay of radioactive atomic nuclei.2 For example, although at the time of the Brookhaven and Stanford reports solar neutrinos were implicated, it appears that neutrinos are just too small and too few. The chances seem too slim for enough neutrinos to collide with enough radioactive atoms to have caused the observed fluctuations.
However, a new report on a separate isotope has again correlated radioisotope decay acceleration with nearness to the sun.3 The investigators locked radioactive radon-222 gas in a lead chamber and compared radioactive readouts taken from both inside and outside the chamber. The experiment was designed to test whether or not changes in radon decay rates are due to atmospheric effects such as gases mixing. The researchers found instead that significant changes were cyclical and corresponded to the relative positions of the earth and the sun.
They wrote, "Combining these observations implies a strong inter-connection between the seasonal and diurnal patterns. This in turn again implies a mutual connection to the rotation of earth around its axis and its rotation around the sun."3 The radon decay rates accelerated during the daylight hours and during the summer. Other rate fluctuations were irregular and remain mysterious.
Some unknown factor affects certain radioisotope decay rates. If this, or a similar factor, altered nuclear decay rates of the systems that are routinely used in rock dating, then any "age" determination provided by this method would have been compromised. And this is exactly what the Institute for Creation Research's project Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) reported in 2005.
In particular, RATE scientists found that radioisotope decay rates had been accelerated by orders of magnitude in the past and that one or more such acceleration events vastly inflated the apparent age of rocks (i.e., the age derived from the assumption that radioisotope decay has been constant through time). For example, RATE found a high accumulation of helium, a product of radioisotope decay, still trapped inside small crystals.4 If evolutionary ages are accurate, the helium should have leaked into the atmosphere millions of years ago. RATE researchers also found radiohalos and fission tracks, which are microscopic scars in minerals. Such scars could only exist if the parent isotope's decay rate had been dramatically accelerated.5
Nobody yet knows what (or who) accelerated nuclear decay in the past, just as nobody yet knows what mechanism causes the sun-related decay of silicon-32 or radon-222. But science clearly shows that radioisotope decay rates have not been constant or reliable enough to support the standard geological ages assigned to earth materials.
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Reliability of radiometric dating
"The overall reliability of radiometric dating was addressed in some detail in a recent book by Brent Dalrymple, a premier expert in the field. He wrote [Dalrymple2004, pg. 80-81]:
These methods provide valid age data in most instances, although there is a small percentage of instances in which even these generally reliable methods yield incorrect results. Such failures may be due to laboratory errors (mistakes happen), unrecognized geologic factors (nature sometimes fools us), or misapplication of the techniques (no one is perfect).
We scientists who measure isotope ages do not rely entirely on the error estimates and the self-checking features of age diagnostic diagrams to evaluate the accuracy of radiometric ages. Whenever possible we design an age study to take advantage of other ways of checking the reliability of the age measurements. The simplest means is to repeat the analytical measurements in order to check for laboratory errors. Another method is to make age measurements on several samples from the same rock unit. This technique helps identify post-formation geologic disturbances because different minerals respond differently to heating and chemical changes. The isochron techniques are partly based on this principle.
The use of different dating methods on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that's powerful evidence that the ages are probably correct.
Along this line, Roger Wiens, a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, asks those who are skeptical of radiometric dating to consider the following (quoted in several cases from [Wiens2002]):
There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some [skeptics] make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple."
Reliability of radiometric dating
"The overall reliability of radiometric dating was addressed in some detail in a recent book by Brent Dalrymple, a premier expert in the field. He wrote [Dalrymple2004, pg. 80-81]:
These methods provide valid age data in most instances, although there is a small percentage of instances in which even these generally reliable methods yield incorrect results. Such failures may be due to laboratory errors (mistakes happen), unrecognized geologic factors (nature sometimes fools us), or misapplication of the techniques (no one is perfect).
We scientists who measure isotope ages do not rely entirely on the error estimates and the self-checking features of age diagnostic diagrams to evaluate the accuracy of radiometric ages. Whenever possible we design an age study to take advantage of other ways of checking the reliability of the age measurements. The simplest means is to repeat the analytical measurements in order to check for laboratory errors. Another method is to make age measurements on several samples from the same rock unit. This technique helps identify post-formation geologic disturbances because different minerals respond differently to heating and chemical changes. The isochron techniques are partly based on this principle.
The use of different dating methods on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that's powerful evidence that the ages are probably correct.
Along this line, Roger Wiens, a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, asks those who are skeptical of radiometric dating to consider the following (quoted in several cases from [Wiens2002]):
There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some [skeptics] make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple."
Reliability of radiometric dating
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1498367 wrote: Reliability of radiometric dating
"The overall reliability of radiometric dating was addressed in some detail in a recent book by Brent Dalrymple, a premier expert in the field. He wrote [Dalrymple2004, pg. 80-81]:
These methods provide valid age data in most instances, although there is a small percentage of instances in which even these generally reliable methods yield incorrect results. Such failures may be due to laboratory errors (mistakes happen), unrecognized geologic factors (nature sometimes fools us), or misapplication of the techniques (no one is perfect).
For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.
Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:
First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.
Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.
These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research
Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable | The Institute for Creation Research
The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research
Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? | The Institute for Creation Research
The use of different dating methods on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that's powerful evidence that the ages are probably correct.
Along this line, Roger Wiens, a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, asks those who are skeptical of radiometric dating to consider the following (quoted in several cases from [Wiens2002]):
There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
Tree rings are more than a record of years. Year-to-year variation in the width of rings records information about the growth conditions in the particular year. Insect infestation clearly manifests itself, as does disease or fire damage. Each of these interrupts the normal growth cycle. Day length, amount of sunshine, water potential, nutrients, age of tree, temperature, rainfall, height above ground, and proximity to a branch all impact tree growth and tree ring production. By assuming the outer ring records the most recent year and that each ring signals one year, a researcher can determine the “date of a particular ring simply by counting rings.
Tree Ring Dating | The Institute for Creation Research
The Greenland Society of Atlanta has recently attempted to excavate a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice pack to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice.
If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated.
Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth | The Institute for Creation Research
The lost squadron - creation.com
"The overall reliability of radiometric dating was addressed in some detail in a recent book by Brent Dalrymple, a premier expert in the field. He wrote [Dalrymple2004, pg. 80-81]:
These methods provide valid age data in most instances, although there is a small percentage of instances in which even these generally reliable methods yield incorrect results. Such failures may be due to laboratory errors (mistakes happen), unrecognized geologic factors (nature sometimes fools us), or misapplication of the techniques (no one is perfect).
For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.
Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:
First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.
Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.
These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research
Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable | The Institute for Creation Research
The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research
Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? | The Institute for Creation Research
The use of different dating methods on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that's powerful evidence that the ages are probably correct.
Along this line, Roger Wiens, a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, asks those who are skeptical of radiometric dating to consider the following (quoted in several cases from [Wiens2002]):
There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
Tree rings are more than a record of years. Year-to-year variation in the width of rings records information about the growth conditions in the particular year. Insect infestation clearly manifests itself, as does disease or fire damage. Each of these interrupts the normal growth cycle. Day length, amount of sunshine, water potential, nutrients, age of tree, temperature, rainfall, height above ground, and proximity to a branch all impact tree growth and tree ring production. By assuming the outer ring records the most recent year and that each ring signals one year, a researcher can determine the “date of a particular ring simply by counting rings.
Tree Ring Dating | The Institute for Creation Research
The Greenland Society of Atlanta has recently attempted to excavate a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice pack to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice.
If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated.
Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth | The Institute for Creation Research
The lost squadron - creation.com
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1498402 wrote: For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.
...
To view science as challenging the Bible is your main mistake.
The Bible offers no science. It offers no direct authority on the actual age of the earth, or the universe.
The Bible was never intended as a source of scientific integrity. In fact Science did not even exist in the days of the Bible.
There is no justification for finding conflict between biblical doctrine and Science.
...
To view science as challenging the Bible is your main mistake.
The Bible offers no science. It offers no direct authority on the actual age of the earth, or the universe.
The Bible was never intended as a source of scientific integrity. In fact Science did not even exist in the days of the Bible.
There is no justification for finding conflict between biblical doctrine and Science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Lars good points. The Bible is not a science book is correct nor is it a history book though it does contain some history. It is primarily a religious book. Not going to list authors because it is a waste of time here. Archaeological dating has around 2 dozen different processes. Want to learn get a bona fide book on archaeology booksd. I have a few myselfd on dating.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1498406 wrote: To view science as challenging the Bible is your main mistake.
The Bible offers no science. It offers no direct authority on the actual age of the earth, or the universe.
The Bible was never intended as a source of scientific integrity. In fact Science did not even exist in the days of the Bible.
There is no justification for finding conflict between biblical doctrine and Science.
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. This has been going on all during human history.
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
The Bible offers no science. It offers no direct authority on the actual age of the earth, or the universe.
The Bible was never intended as a source of scientific integrity. In fact Science did not even exist in the days of the Bible.
There is no justification for finding conflict between biblical doctrine and Science.
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. This has been going on all during human history.
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
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1498408 wrote: Lars good points. The Bible is not a science book is correct nor is it a history book though it does contain some history. It is primarily a religious book. Not going to list authors because it is a waste of time here. Archaeological dating has around 2 dozen different processes. Want to learn get a bona fide book on archaeology booksd. I have a few myselfd on dating.
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
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
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
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
First of all archaeology does not support the accuracy of the Bible Finkelstein and Silberman. There are many others as well. The problem with those sites is the so called archaeologists start from the wrong end. They have a vested interest in making the Bible accurate. I like the agnostic or atheist or Jewish archaeologists because the simply want the truth no matter where it leads. Some start out to prove they're correct and others simply want t he truth.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1498416 wrote: 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
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
Poppycock
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
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
Poppycock
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu doesn't think for himself. That much is self evident as he never formulates any arguments for himself. He just copies & pastes into every forum unfotunate enough to have him as a member. He simply believes that Dolt Brown's fantasy ideas contain more factual knowledge that the past few centuries of amassed scientific learning. Because he has a PHd in Engineering that, obviously makes him an international authority, exceeding the level of Einstein & Hawking, qualifying him to deny all the years of learning.
Science Disproves Evolution
I agree FourPart. That is the best explanation. The wannabes.
Science Disproves Evolution
Thought I heard a strange noise. Must be those damned rocks crying out. LOL
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1498424 wrote: Pahu doesn't think for himself. That much is self evident as he never formulates any arguments for himself. He just copies & pastes into every forum unfotunate enough to have him as a member. He simply believes that Dolt Brown's fantasy ideas contain more factual knowledge that the past few centuries of amassed scientific learning. Because he has a PHd in Engineering that, obviously makes him an international authority, exceeding the level of Einstein & Hawking, qualifying him to deny all the years of learning.
How does your resume compare with his?:
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
How does your resume compare with his?:
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Connected Galaxies
Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts. This happens too often for all examples to be coincidences (a). If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), these galaxies and quasars haven’t been moving apart for very long. If redshifts do not always imply velocities, many astronomical conclusions are in error.
a. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.
Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar, “On the Nature of Mass, Nature, Vol.*233, 3*September 1971, pp.*41–44.
William Kaufmann III, “The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth, Science Digest, July 1981, pp.*76–81, 117.
Geoffrey Burbidge, “Redshift Rift, Science 81, December 1981, p.*18.
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]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1498481 wrote:
Connected Galaxies
Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts. This happens too often for all examples to be coincidences (a). If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), these galaxies and quasars haven’t been moving apart for very long. If redshifts do not always imply velocities, many astronomical conclusions are in error.
a. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.
Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar, “On the Nature of Mass, Nature, Vol.*233, 3*September 1971, pp.*41–44.
William Kaufmann III, “The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth, Science Digest, July 1981, pp.*76–81, 117.
Geoffrey Burbidge, “Redshift Rift, Science 81, December 1981, p.*18.
If what appears to be a cluster of galaxies are all exhibiting different levels of red shift, then the obvious conclusion is that they are all moving in the same general direction, relative to the observer (us) but at different velocities. An observer in a different part of the universe would likely see things much differently. We see everything from a fairly limited perspective.
Connected Galaxies
Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts. This happens too often for all examples to be coincidences (a). If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), these galaxies and quasars haven’t been moving apart for very long. If redshifts do not always imply velocities, many astronomical conclusions are in error.
a. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.
Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar, “On the Nature of Mass, Nature, Vol.*233, 3*September 1971, pp.*41–44.
William Kaufmann III, “The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth, Science Digest, July 1981, pp.*76–81, 117.
Geoffrey Burbidge, “Redshift Rift, Science 81, December 1981, p.*18.
If what appears to be a cluster of galaxies are all exhibiting different levels of red shift, then the obvious conclusion is that they are all moving in the same general direction, relative to the observer (us) but at different velocities. An observer in a different part of the universe would likely see things much differently. We see everything from a fairly limited perspective.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Red shift is much the same as the Doppler Effect with sound.When a train passes you it doesn't really change its frequency because you're standing there. It's simply because of the relative speeds coming towards you and heading away from you. It's the same as if you're in a stationary train, and another train moves slowly past you. It feels as if you're moving. Similarly if you're moving in a high speed train and there is another high speed train beside you you feel as if you're stationary.
Major sized objects are generally moving outward from the origin source of the Big Bang. If the Earth were the original source, then the Universe would be heading away from us, as we would be the centre. The fact is, though, that we are not the centre. Nor are we anything like being the centre. We're not even the centre of our own Galaxy. We're not even the centre of our own Solar System.
I can hear your next retort asking why everything is not moving in the same direction. Simple answer - consider a Pool Table. The Cue Ball spot is the origin of the Big Bang. The Cue Ball heads outward. In the resulting chaos everything bounces against everything else. If it didn't all the balls would end up neatly lined up along the end cushion.
Major sized objects are generally moving outward from the origin source of the Big Bang. If the Earth were the original source, then the Universe would be heading away from us, as we would be the centre. The fact is, though, that we are not the centre. Nor are we anything like being the centre. We're not even the centre of our own Galaxy. We're not even the centre of our own Solar System.
I can hear your next retort asking why everything is not moving in the same direction. Simple answer - consider a Pool Table. The Cue Ball spot is the origin of the Big Bang. The Cue Ball heads outward. In the resulting chaos everything bounces against everything else. If it didn't all the balls would end up neatly lined up along the end cushion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Here is something you may find interesting:
REAL OR FAKE? GHOSTLY PHOTO MESMERIZES SOCIAL MEDIA
Deadly motorcycle scene shows eerie figure: 'That is freaky'
Published: 2 hours ago
Real or fake? That’s the big question surrounding the latest social media buzz – a photograph posted by a man who says he witnessed the scene of a fatal motorcycle accident from afar, snapped a quick picture, and noticed, while looking at it and posting on Facebook, a shadowy whitish figure hovering above an emergency response official’s head.
Saul Vazquez of Mount Sterling, Kentucky, posted this to his Facebook page, alongside the photo: “I took this picture just few minutes ago from the cab of my truck it was an accident between Campton and Stanton on the service road just off of the mountain parkway, zoom in and pay attention to the shadow just off the top of the state trooper hat. All I say is I hope everyone involved is okay!!
The crash victim was taken to the hospital, but later died, the Palm Beach Post reported.
Vazquez told LEX 18 he snapped the photo from the bed of his truck, while driving past the scene, and assures the photograph’s not been tampered with in any way.
His post has been shared more than 8,700 times. And most comments show individuals appear to believe the photo is genuine.
“That’s crazy wild, wrote one.
“That is freaky, wrote another.
“Wow, brother that’s amazing, said another.
And yet another: “I think there’s a person that passed away is watching his looking down on his own body.
Vazquez interacted with some of the posters, saying he “pulled over, roll[ed down] the passenger side window and snap[ped] the picture.
Officials said to LEX 18 the crash only involved the motorcyclist.
After that, another poster asked: “Wow. Have you seen how many shares???
Read more at Real or fake? Ghostly photo mesmerizes social media
REAL OR FAKE? GHOSTLY PHOTO MESMERIZES SOCIAL MEDIA
Deadly motorcycle scene shows eerie figure: 'That is freaky'
Published: 2 hours ago
Real or fake? That’s the big question surrounding the latest social media buzz – a photograph posted by a man who says he witnessed the scene of a fatal motorcycle accident from afar, snapped a quick picture, and noticed, while looking at it and posting on Facebook, a shadowy whitish figure hovering above an emergency response official’s head.
Saul Vazquez of Mount Sterling, Kentucky, posted this to his Facebook page, alongside the photo: “I took this picture just few minutes ago from the cab of my truck it was an accident between Campton and Stanton on the service road just off of the mountain parkway, zoom in and pay attention to the shadow just off the top of the state trooper hat. All I say is I hope everyone involved is okay!!
The crash victim was taken to the hospital, but later died, the Palm Beach Post reported.
Vazquez told LEX 18 he snapped the photo from the bed of his truck, while driving past the scene, and assures the photograph’s not been tampered with in any way.
His post has been shared more than 8,700 times. And most comments show individuals appear to believe the photo is genuine.
“That’s crazy wild, wrote one.
“That is freaky, wrote another.
“Wow, brother that’s amazing, said another.
And yet another: “I think there’s a person that passed away is watching his looking down on his own body.
Vazquez interacted with some of the posters, saying he “pulled over, roll[ed down] the passenger side window and snap[ped] the picture.
Officials said to LEX 18 the crash only involved the motorcyclist.
After that, another poster asked: “Wow. Have you seen how many shares???
Read more at Real or fake? Ghostly photo mesmerizes social media
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
If it's on FaceBook it must be true.
Science Disproves Evolution
I got hung up wondering what the Palm Beach Post was reporting on an accident in Mount Sterling, Kentucky.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1498481 wrote:
Connected Galaxies
Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts. This happens too often for all examples to be coincidences (a). If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), these galaxies and quasars haven’t been moving apart for very long. If redshifts do not always imply velocities, many astronomical conclusions are in error.
a. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.
Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar, “On the Nature of Mass, Nature, Vol.*233, 3*September 1971, pp.*41–44.
William Kaufmann III, “The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth, Science Digest, July 1981, pp.*76–81, 117.
Geoffrey Burbidge, “Redshift Rift, Science 81, December 1981, p.*18.
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]
It is as FourPart said. the redshift is simply an indication of the Doppler effect at light frequencies.
And it is worth remembering that it is not so much that the galaxies are moving away from us as those galaxies, and our galaxy cluster are a moving away from each other.
And rather than relying on 30 - plus year old science articles, perhaps you should read something more current
How about this one: Detection of an oxygen emission line from a high-redshift galaxy in the reionization epoch Science 24 Jun 2016: Vol. 352, Issue 6293, pp. 1559-1562
Abstract:
The physical properties and elemental abundances of the interstellar medium in galaxies during cosmic reionization are important for understanding the role of galaxies in this process. We report the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array detection of an oxygen emission line at a wavelength of 88 micrometers from a galaxy at an epoch about 700 million years after the Big Bang. The oxygen abundance of this galaxy is estimated at about one-tenth that of the Sun. The nondetection of far-infrared continuum emission indicates a deficiency of interstellar dust in the galaxy. A carbon emission line at a wavelength of 158 micrometers is also not detected, implying an unusually small amount of neutral gas. These properties might allow ionizing photons to escape into the intergalactic medium -
Connected Galaxies
Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts. This happens too often for all examples to be coincidences (a). If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), these galaxies and quasars haven’t been moving apart for very long. If redshifts do not always imply velocities, many astronomical conclusions are in error.
a. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.
Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar, “On the Nature of Mass, Nature, Vol.*233, 3*September 1971, pp.*41–44.
William Kaufmann III, “The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth, Science Digest, July 1981, pp.*76–81, 117.
Geoffrey Burbidge, “Redshift Rift, Science 81, December 1981, p.*18.
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]
It is as FourPart said. the redshift is simply an indication of the Doppler effect at light frequencies.
And it is worth remembering that it is not so much that the galaxies are moving away from us as those galaxies, and our galaxy cluster are a moving away from each other.
And rather than relying on 30 - plus year old science articles, perhaps you should read something more current
How about this one: Detection of an oxygen emission line from a high-redshift galaxy in the reionization epoch Science 24 Jun 2016: Vol. 352, Issue 6293, pp. 1559-1562
Abstract:
The physical properties and elemental abundances of the interstellar medium in galaxies during cosmic reionization are important for understanding the role of galaxies in this process. We report the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array detection of an oxygen emission line at a wavelength of 88 micrometers from a galaxy at an epoch about 700 million years after the Big Bang. The oxygen abundance of this galaxy is estimated at about one-tenth that of the Sun. The nondetection of far-infrared continuum emission indicates a deficiency of interstellar dust in the galaxy. A carbon emission line at a wavelength of 158 micrometers is also not detected, implying an unusually small amount of neutral gas. These properties might allow ionizing photons to escape into the intergalactic medium -
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Unstable Galaxies
Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universe’s assumed evolutionary age (a). The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.
a. David Fleischer, “The Galaxy Maker, Science Digest, October 1981, Vol.*89, pp.*12, 116.
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]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1498710 wrote:
Unstable Galaxies
Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universe’s assumed evolutionary age (a). The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.
a. David Fleischer, “The Galaxy Maker, Science Digest, October 1981, Vol.*89, pp.*12, 116.
Seriously? a reference to a 35 year-old pop-sci rag? And you think that galaxies aren't changing?
Have you thought about the fact that what we are actually seeing in most galaxies is what they looked like years, even thousands of years ago?
Have you considered that we have only been looking at most of them for a few decades?
Pahu;1498710 wrote: 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]
Do you think that somehow repeating this in every post will somehow make it more true?
Unstable Galaxies
Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universe’s assumed evolutionary age (a). The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.
a. David Fleischer, “The Galaxy Maker, Science Digest, October 1981, Vol.*89, pp.*12, 116.
Seriously? a reference to a 35 year-old pop-sci rag? And you think that galaxies aren't changing?
Have you thought about the fact that what we are actually seeing in most galaxies is what they looked like years, even thousands of years ago?
Have you considered that we have only been looking at most of them for a few decades?
Pahu;1498710 wrote: 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]
Do you think that somehow repeating this in every post will somehow make it more true?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1498714 wrote: Seriously? a reference to a 35 year-old pop-sci rag? And you think that galaxies aren't changing?
That is what science shows.
Have thought about the fact that what we are actually seeing in most galaxies is what they looked like years, even thousands of years ago?
Have you considered that we have only been looking at most of them for a few decades?
True. Here is something to consider:
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
That is what science shows.
Have thought about the fact that what we are actually seeing in most galaxies is what they looked like years, even thousands of years ago?
Have you considered that we have only been looking at most of them for a few decades?
True. Here is something to consider:
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1498720 wrote: That is what science shows.
Seriously? THAT's your answer? Again, "Where is the Science?"
You have yet to show any Science. And THAT article you referred to is not Science.
You have no Science to offer.
Pahu;1498720 wrote:
True. Here is something to consider:
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
You prove my point, once again.
Good job.
Seriously? THAT's your answer? Again, "Where is the Science?"
You have yet to show any Science. And THAT article you referred to is not Science.
You have no Science to offer.
Pahu;1498720 wrote:
True. Here is something to consider:
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
You prove my point, once again.
Good job.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Some interesting myths.
Science Disproves Evolution
Just recently watched a program showing the skeletal remains of a 11 or 12 boy from 2 million years ago.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1498798 wrote: Just recently watched a program showing the skeletal remains of a 11 or 12 boy from 2 million years ago.
How do they know it was from 2 million years ago? For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.
Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:
First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.
Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.
These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research
Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable | The Institute for Creation Research
The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research
Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? | The Institute for Creation Research
How do they know it was from 2 million years ago? For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.
Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:
First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.
Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.
These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable | The Institute for Creation Research
Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable | The Institute for Creation Research
The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research
Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu you are a joke. There are a few dozen methods of dating archaeological finds. Get a life!!
Science Disproves Evolution
Galaxy Clusters
Hundreds of rapidly moving galaxies often cluster tightly together. Their relative velocities, as inferred by the redshifts of their light, are so high that these clusters should be flying apart, because each cluster’s visible mass is much too small to hold its galaxies together gravitationally (a). Because galaxies within clusters are so close together, they have not been flying apart for very long.
A similar statement can be made concerning many stars in spiral galaxies and gas clouds that surround some galaxies (b). These stars and gas clouds have such high relative velocities that they should have broken their “gravitational bonds long ago if they were billions of years old. If the redshifted starlight always indicates a star’s velocity, then a billion-year-old universe is completely inconsistent with what is observed.
These observations have led some to conclude, not that the universe is young, but that unseen, undetected mass—called dark matter—is holding these stars and galaxies together. For this to work, about 80% of the mass in the universe must be invisible—and hidden in the right places. However, many experiments have shown that the needed “missing mass does not exist (c). Some researchers are still searching, because the alternative is a young universe. See Missing Mass.
a. “In 1933 the late Fritz Zwicky pointed out that the galaxies of the Coma cluster are moving too fast: there is not enough visible mass in the galaxies to bind the cluster together by gravity. Subsequent observations verified this ‘missing’ mass in other clusters. M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Science, Vol. 219, 4 March 1983, p. 1050.
b. Faye Flam, “NASA PR: Hype or Public Education? Science, Vol. 260, 4 June 1993, pp. 1417–1418.
“It turns out that in almost every case the velocities of the individual galaxies are high enough to allow them to escape from the cluster. In effect, the clusters are ‘boiling.’ This statement is certainly true if we assume that the only gravitational force present is that exerted by visible matter, but it is true even if we assume that every galaxy in the cluster, like the Milky Way, is surrounded by a halo of dark matter that contains 90 percent of the mass of the galaxy. Trefil, p. 93.
Gerardus D. Bouw, “Galaxy Clusters and the Mass Anomaly, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 14, September 1977, pp. 108–112.
Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 179–185.
Silk, The Big Bang, pp. 188–191.
Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.
Halton M. Arp, “NGC-1199, Astronomy, Vol. 6, September 1978, p. 15.
Halton M. Arp, “Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts, Astrophysical Journal, 15 July 1980, pp. 469–474.
c. A huge dust ring has been observed orbiting two galaxies. The measured orbital velocity of this ring allows the calculation of the mass of the two galaxies and any hidden mass. There was little hidden mass. Statistical analyses of 155 other small galactic groups also suggest that there is not enough hidden mass to hold them together. [See Stephen E. Schneider, “Neutral Hydrogen in the M96 Group: The Galaxies and the Intergalactic Ring, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 343, 1 August 1989, pp. 94–106.]
Conclusion
All dating techniques, especially the few that suggest vast ages, presume that a process observed today has proceeded at a known, but not necessarily constant, rate. This assumption may be grossly inaccurate. Projecting present processes and rates far back in time is more likely to produce errors than extrapolation over a much shorter time. Furthermore, a much better understanding usually exists for dating “clocks that show a young Earth and a young universe.
This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Maybe you should read Walter Brueggemann. or D. Crossan, Bishop J. Spong, or B. Ehrmann. and a library full of others. Perhaps you are afraid of the truth?
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1499144 wrote:
Galaxy Clusters
Hundreds of rapidly moving galaxies often cluster tightly together. Their relative velocities, as inferred by the redshifts of their light, are so high that these clusters should be flying apart, because each cluster’s visible mass is much too small to hold its galaxies together gravitationally (a). Because galaxies within clusters are so close together, they have not been flying apart for very long.
A similar statement can be made concerning many stars in spiral galaxies and gas clouds that surround some galaxies (b). These stars and gas clouds have such high relative velocities that they should have broken their “gravitational bonds long ago if they were billions of years old. If the redshifted starlight always indicates a star’s velocity, then a billion-year-old universe is completely inconsistent with what is observed.
These observations have led some to conclude, not that the universe is young, but that unseen, undetected mass—called dark matter—is holding these stars and galaxies together. For this to work, about 80% of the mass in the universe must be invisible—and hidden in the right places. However, many experiments have shown that the needed “missing mass does not exist (c). Some researchers are still searching, because the alternative is a young universe. See Missing Mass.
a. “In 1933 the late Fritz Zwicky pointed out that the galaxies of the Coma cluster are moving too fast: there is not enough visible mass in the galaxies to bind the cluster together by gravity. Subsequent observations verified this ‘missing’ mass in other clusters. M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Science, Vol. 219, 4 March 1983, p. 1050.
b. Faye Flam, “NASA PR: Hype or Public Education? Science, Vol. 260, 4 June 1993, pp. 1417–1418.
“It turns out that in almost every case the velocities of the individual galaxies are high enough to allow them to escape from the cluster. In effect, the clusters are ‘boiling.’ This statement is certainly true if we assume that the only gravitational force present is that exerted by visible matter, but it is true even if we assume that every galaxy in the cluster, like the Milky Way, is surrounded by a halo of dark matter that contains 90 percent of the mass of the galaxy. Trefil, p. 93.
Gerardus D. Bouw, “Galaxy Clusters and the Mass Anomaly, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 14, September 1977, pp. 108–112.
Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 179–185.
Silk, The Big Bang, pp. 188–191.
Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.
Halton M. Arp, “NGC-1199, Astronomy, Vol. 6, September 1978, p. 15.
Halton M. Arp, “Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts, Astrophysical Journal, 15 July 1980, pp. 469–474.
c. A huge dust ring has been observed orbiting two galaxies. The measured orbital velocity of this ring allows the calculation of the mass of the two galaxies and any hidden mass. There was little hidden mass. Statistical analyses of 155 other small galactic groups also suggest that there is not enough hidden mass to hold them together. [See Stephen E. Schneider, “Neutral Hydrogen in the M96 Group: The Galaxies and the Intergalactic Ring, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 343, 1 August 1989, pp. 94–106.]
Conclusion
All dating techniques, especially the few that suggest vast ages, presume that a process observed today has proceeded at a known, but not necessarily constant, rate. This assumption may be grossly inaccurate. Projecting present processes and rates far back in time is more likely to produce errors than extrapolation over a much shorter time. Furthermore, a much better understanding usually exists for dating “clocks that show a young Earth and a young universe.
This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Again you offer commentary made long before the data that had been gathered long before modern techniques, tools and data analysis were available.
You offering is almost as useless as the old family tree data compiled before DNA and genetic data was available.
And the good doctor Arp was long ago proven incorrect.
Galaxy Clusters
Hundreds of rapidly moving galaxies often cluster tightly together. Their relative velocities, as inferred by the redshifts of their light, are so high that these clusters should be flying apart, because each cluster’s visible mass is much too small to hold its galaxies together gravitationally (a). Because galaxies within clusters are so close together, they have not been flying apart for very long.
A similar statement can be made concerning many stars in spiral galaxies and gas clouds that surround some galaxies (b). These stars and gas clouds have such high relative velocities that they should have broken their “gravitational bonds long ago if they were billions of years old. If the redshifted starlight always indicates a star’s velocity, then a billion-year-old universe is completely inconsistent with what is observed.
These observations have led some to conclude, not that the universe is young, but that unseen, undetected mass—called dark matter—is holding these stars and galaxies together. For this to work, about 80% of the mass in the universe must be invisible—and hidden in the right places. However, many experiments have shown that the needed “missing mass does not exist (c). Some researchers are still searching, because the alternative is a young universe. See Missing Mass.
a. “In 1933 the late Fritz Zwicky pointed out that the galaxies of the Coma cluster are moving too fast: there is not enough visible mass in the galaxies to bind the cluster together by gravity. Subsequent observations verified this ‘missing’ mass in other clusters. M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Science, Vol. 219, 4 March 1983, p. 1050.
b. Faye Flam, “NASA PR: Hype or Public Education? Science, Vol. 260, 4 June 1993, pp. 1417–1418.
“It turns out that in almost every case the velocities of the individual galaxies are high enough to allow them to escape from the cluster. In effect, the clusters are ‘boiling.’ This statement is certainly true if we assume that the only gravitational force present is that exerted by visible matter, but it is true even if we assume that every galaxy in the cluster, like the Milky Way, is surrounded by a halo of dark matter that contains 90 percent of the mass of the galaxy. Trefil, p. 93.
Gerardus D. Bouw, “Galaxy Clusters and the Mass Anomaly, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 14, September 1977, pp. 108–112.
Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 179–185.
Silk, The Big Bang, pp. 188–191.
Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.
Halton M. Arp, “NGC-1199, Astronomy, Vol. 6, September 1978, p. 15.
Halton M. Arp, “Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts, Astrophysical Journal, 15 July 1980, pp. 469–474.
c. A huge dust ring has been observed orbiting two galaxies. The measured orbital velocity of this ring allows the calculation of the mass of the two galaxies and any hidden mass. There was little hidden mass. Statistical analyses of 155 other small galactic groups also suggest that there is not enough hidden mass to hold them together. [See Stephen E. Schneider, “Neutral Hydrogen in the M96 Group: The Galaxies and the Intergalactic Ring, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 343, 1 August 1989, pp. 94–106.]
Conclusion
All dating techniques, especially the few that suggest vast ages, presume that a process observed today has proceeded at a known, but not necessarily constant, rate. This assumption may be grossly inaccurate. Projecting present processes and rates far back in time is more likely to produce errors than extrapolation over a much shorter time. Furthermore, a much better understanding usually exists for dating “clocks that show a young Earth and a young universe.
This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Again you offer commentary made long before the data that had been gathered long before modern techniques, tools and data analysis were available.
You offering is almost as useless as the old family tree data compiled before DNA and genetic data was available.
And the good doctor Arp was long ago proven incorrect.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu that is a load of crap.
Science Disproves Evolution
Perhaps Pahu needs his eyes checked.
Science Disproves Evolution
If it weren't for the digital age being able to store terraquads of Scientific data & evidence, there probably wouldn't be enough room on the earth to store paper copies. However, Pahu seems to think that a single book, written by someone who is totally unqualified in the field (apart from Engineering, in which he holds his PHd), based on an unfounded fantasy, which relies on discredited information, decades out of date written as a vain attempt to prove the validity of an even older book supercedes all this advanced information. He seems to think that Evolutionists have some concern about the formation of the Universe. He doesn't seem to understand that this is Cosmology, not Evolution, and that the existence of one far preceded the other by a matter of millions of years. He accepts that the stars we see are millions of light years away, but doesn't seem to understand that the very fact that we can see them means that we are seeing what happened millions of years ago, yet he still seems to believe that the Earth & the Universe is only a few thousand years old. All of this can be verified all the more by constantly pasting extracts from the same meaningless book. Of course, everyone knows that the more you repeat something, the more true it becomes, no matter how ridiculous.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1499270 wrote: If it weren't for the digital age being able to store terraquads of Scientific data & evidence, there probably wouldn't be enough room on the earth to store paper copies. However, Pahu seems to think that a single book, written by someone who is totally unqualified in the field (apart from Engineering, in which he holds his PHd), based on an unfounded fantasy, which relies on discredited information, decades out of date written as a vain attempt to prove the validity of an even older book supercedes all this advanced information.
Well, that is quite a mouthful. First, Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Second, Brown is qualified in fields other than engineering:
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
Well, that is quite a mouthful. First, Brown's conclusions are confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Second, Brown is qualified in fields other than engineering:
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1499270 wrote: [Walt Brown] seems to think that Evolutionists have some concern about the formation of the Universe.
They do.
He doesn't seem to understand that this is Cosmology, not Evolution...
Here is what Wikipedia says: Cosmology (from the Greek κόσμος, kosmos "world" and -λογία, -logia "study of"), is the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities.[1]
...and that the existence of one far preceded the other by a matter of millions of years.
Evidence free speculation.
He accepts that the stars we see are millions of light years away, but doesn't seem to understand that the very fact that we can see them means that we are seeing what happened millions of years ago, yet he still seems to believe that the Earth & the Universe is only a few thousand years old. All of this can be verified all the more by constantly pasting extracts from the same meaningless book. Of course, everyone knows that the more you repeat something, the more true it becomes, no matter how ridiculous.
Truth exists regardless of repetition, belief, etc. Here is one explanation for the speed of light: There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
They do.
He doesn't seem to understand that this is Cosmology, not Evolution...
Here is what Wikipedia says: Cosmology (from the Greek κόσμος, kosmos "world" and -λογία, -logia "study of"), is the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities.[1]
...and that the existence of one far preceded the other by a matter of millions of years.
Evidence free speculation.
He accepts that the stars we see are millions of light years away, but doesn't seem to understand that the very fact that we can see them means that we are seeing what happened millions of years ago, yet he still seems to believe that the Earth & the Universe is only a few thousand years old. All of this can be verified all the more by constantly pasting extracts from the same meaningless book. Of course, everyone knows that the more you repeat something, the more true it becomes, no matter how ridiculous.
Truth exists regardless of repetition, belief, etc. Here is one explanation for the speed of light: There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Wishful dreaming.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1499283 wrote:
Truth exists regardless of repetition, belief, etc. ...
Finally, something we can actually agree on.
Truth exists regardless of repetition, belief, etc. ...
Finally, something we can actually agree on.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Yep!!!
Science Disproves Evolution
Same Old, Same Old. Same old list of names & journals. Names which have either been proved here to be invalid shaisters, fraudsters & discredited wannabes, or have no relation to claims made by Brown whatsoever. Time after time I have challenged you to provide connections between those names & specific links to back up the claims. The famous lists are 2 totally different lists. Nowhere does it give any relevant connection between the 2. Sure, Brown may have been mentioned in any one of those journals. The chances are that he was mentioned in there whilst debunking Creationist phonies. It still technically means he's been named in the journal. Now then - you've never replied to the challenge to provide links to anything positive said about him. So now try coming up with something to say that any mention about him wasn't in a negative context. Quite simply you can't. Why not? Because Brown doesn't give any more information than that which you repeatedly blindly copy & paste without checking the facts for yourself. As you said yourself - Truth is not to be found in repetition - and you are certainly the king of repetition.
Science Disproves Evolution
Personally, I take the definitions of the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the Internationally recognised authority of defining the meaning of words over Wikipedia any day.
Evolution
noun
1 The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Example sentences Synonyms
The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin towards a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin’s theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology.
2 The gradual development of something: the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution
More example sentences Synonyms
3 Chemistry The giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat: the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process
More example sentences
4 [count noun] A pattern of movements or manoeuvres: flocks of waders often perform aerial evolutions
evolution - definition of evolution in English from the Oxford dictionary
Now, where, in that definition is there any mention of Cosmology?
Cosmology
noun (plural cosmologies)
[mass noun]
1 The science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.
Example sentences
1.1 [count noun] An account or theory of the origin of the universe.
And where, in that definition, is there any mention of Evolution?
Cosmology & Evolution are 2 totally different things. Just because you can find a tin of beans in a Supermarket doesn't mean a Supermarket is the same thing as a tin of beans. Cosmology is the Supermarket. Evolution is the Tin of Beans. Cosmology exists regardless of Evolution. Evolution exists independently within the Cosmological environment.
Evolution
noun
1 The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Example sentences Synonyms
The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin towards a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin’s theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology.
2 The gradual development of something: the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution
More example sentences Synonyms
3 Chemistry The giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat: the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process
More example sentences
4 [count noun] A pattern of movements or manoeuvres: flocks of waders often perform aerial evolutions
evolution - definition of evolution in English from the Oxford dictionary
Now, where, in that definition is there any mention of Cosmology?
Cosmology
noun (plural cosmologies)
[mass noun]
1 The science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.
Example sentences
1.1 [count noun] An account or theory of the origin of the universe.
And where, in that definition, is there any mention of Evolution?
Cosmology & Evolution are 2 totally different things. Just because you can find a tin of beans in a Supermarket doesn't mean a Supermarket is the same thing as a tin of beans. Cosmology is the Supermarket. Evolution is the Tin of Beans. Cosmology exists regardless of Evolution. Evolution exists independently within the Cosmological environment.
Science Disproves Evolution
As for calling the age of distance stars "Evidence Free Speculation" - just what sort of evidence do you want? You, yourself, have brought up the subject of Red Shifts without even knowing what they are & what they mean. The varying frequencies of these shifts are used to calculate the distance they are from Earth & the speed at which they are traveling away from us. You have admitted that these stars are Millions of Light Years away - yet we can still see them. The very definition of a Light Year is the distance light travels in 1 year. This means that for a star to be seen 1 million miles away, means that what we see happened 1 million years ago. That is not speculation, it is hard FACT. It has been observed. It is being observed. It will continue to be observed.
Why don't you try putting Brown to one side for a change & doing some independent research for once. You have a world of information at your fingertips on Google. Ask questions. Give the answers serious consideration instead of dismissing them out of hand because they don't match with Brown's fantasies. Take the blinkers off for once.
Why don't you try putting Brown to one side for a change & doing some independent research for once. You have a world of information at your fingertips on Google. Ask questions. Give the answers serious consideration instead of dismissing them out of hand because they don't match with Brown's fantasies. Take the blinkers off for once.
Science Disproves Evolution
Good post and very interesting. I find it rather humorous that some folks still believe in creationism as a science. They are wannabees.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1499526 wrote: Same Old, Same Old. Same old list of names & journals. Names which have either been proved here to be invalid shaisters, fraudsters & discredited wannabes, or have no relation to claims made by Brown whatsoever. Time after time I have challenged you to provide connections between those names & specific links to back up the claims. The famous lists are 2 totally different lists. Nowhere does it give any relevant connection between the 2. Sure, Brown may have been mentioned in any one of those journals. The chances are that he was mentioned in there whilst debunking Creationist phonies. It still technically means he's been named in the journal. Now then - you've never replied to the challenge to provide links to anything positive said about him. So now try coming up with something to say that any mention about him wasn't in a negative context. Quite simply you can't. Why not? Because Brown doesn't give any more information than that which you repeatedly blindly copy & paste without checking the facts for yourself. As you said yourself - Truth is not to be found in repetition - and you are certainly the king of repetition.
Here are some positive statements:
Walt Brown’s book is the rarest of species: It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions. This book is essential for any teacher or student who is serious about resolving these issues on the basis of the evidences rather than on opinions or unsubstantiated or unverifiable hypotheses.
Dr. C. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Furman University
The subject of origins is not peripheral; it is foundational. I have spent most of my adult career in universities in the U.S. and Europe (as a Fulbright scholar), and it is clear that Christianity is losing ground on college campuses. The Christian faith is becoming unraveled with bad science. I can say without reservation that In the Beginning is the single most useful resource I know of on this subject, bar none. Walt is both diligent and creative, and you will find the arguments concise and thought provoking. The material is helpful on almost any level, and the references will be invaluable to those wishing to dig deeper. If I had to send my child off with only two books, they would be the Bible and In the Beginning.
Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, The Center for Electromechanics, University of Texas at Austin
Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.
Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College
Dr. Walt Brown uses three striking gifts in his creation science research and teaching: (1) a highly organized mind, (2) the ability to consider scientific evidence without the encumbrance of conventional paradigms, and (3) the ability to articulate the material with complete clarity. Walt is a born teacher. This enables him to develop significant new theories, such as the hydroplate theory, and to present them with remarkable clarity in both his seminars and this book. I am convinced that everyone needs to be familiar with the landmark work documented in this book.
Dr. Stanley A. Mumma, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Walt Brown’s seminal text, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood has developed into a mature exposition of an important new approach to the geological sciences. The hydroplate theory is an alternate explanation of events of the Noahic flood, present-day geological features of the world, and actual mechanisms that operated then and continue to do so now. It directly challenges the current plate tectonics model of large-scale geology, and suggests a major revamping of the geological events associated with the flood God sent upon the world in light of the clear text of Genesis. It represents, then, a serious attempt at reconstructing the science of geology from the ground up.
Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Geology: Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory, Chalcedon Report
The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.
Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - HERE’S WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THIS EXCITING BOOK
Here are some positive statements:
Walt Brown’s book is the rarest of species: It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions. This book is essential for any teacher or student who is serious about resolving these issues on the basis of the evidences rather than on opinions or unsubstantiated or unverifiable hypotheses.
Dr. C. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Furman University
The subject of origins is not peripheral; it is foundational. I have spent most of my adult career in universities in the U.S. and Europe (as a Fulbright scholar), and it is clear that Christianity is losing ground on college campuses. The Christian faith is becoming unraveled with bad science. I can say without reservation that In the Beginning is the single most useful resource I know of on this subject, bar none. Walt is both diligent and creative, and you will find the arguments concise and thought provoking. The material is helpful on almost any level, and the references will be invaluable to those wishing to dig deeper. If I had to send my child off with only two books, they would be the Bible and In the Beginning.
Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, The Center for Electromechanics, University of Texas at Austin
Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.
Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College
Dr. Walt Brown uses three striking gifts in his creation science research and teaching: (1) a highly organized mind, (2) the ability to consider scientific evidence without the encumbrance of conventional paradigms, and (3) the ability to articulate the material with complete clarity. Walt is a born teacher. This enables him to develop significant new theories, such as the hydroplate theory, and to present them with remarkable clarity in both his seminars and this book. I am convinced that everyone needs to be familiar with the landmark work documented in this book.
Dr. Stanley A. Mumma, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Walt Brown’s seminal text, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood has developed into a mature exposition of an important new approach to the geological sciences. The hydroplate theory is an alternate explanation of events of the Noahic flood, present-day geological features of the world, and actual mechanisms that operated then and continue to do so now. It directly challenges the current plate tectonics model of large-scale geology, and suggests a major revamping of the geological events associated with the flood God sent upon the world in light of the clear text of Genesis. It represents, then, a serious attempt at reconstructing the science of geology from the ground up.
Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Geology: Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory, Chalcedon Report
The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.
Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - HERE’S WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THIS EXCITING BOOK
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1499527 wrote: Personally, I take the definitions of the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the Internationally recognised authority of defining the meaning of words over Wikipedia any day.
evolution - definition of evolution in English from the Oxford dictionary
Now, where, in that definition is there any mention of Cosmology?
And where, in that definition, is there any mention of Evolution?
That is the definition of organic evolution, which differs from cosmology evolution.
Cosmology & Evolution are 2 totally different things. Just because you can find a tin of beans in a Supermarket doesn't mean a Supermarket is the same thing as a tin of beans. Cosmology is the Supermarket. Evolution is the Tin of Beans. Cosmology exists regardless of Evolution. Evolution exists independently within the Cosmological environment.
And yet scientists refer to the evolution of the universe, don't they?
evolution - definition of evolution in English from the Oxford dictionary
Now, where, in that definition is there any mention of Cosmology?
And where, in that definition, is there any mention of Evolution?
That is the definition of organic evolution, which differs from cosmology evolution.
Cosmology & Evolution are 2 totally different things. Just because you can find a tin of beans in a Supermarket doesn't mean a Supermarket is the same thing as a tin of beans. Cosmology is the Supermarket. Evolution is the Tin of Beans. Cosmology exists regardless of Evolution. Evolution exists independently within the Cosmological environment.
And yet scientists refer to the evolution of the universe, don't they?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1499528 wrote: As for calling the age of distance stars "Evidence Free Speculation" - just what sort of evidence do you want? You, yourself, have brought up the subject of Red Shifts without even knowing what they are & what they mean. The varying frequencies of these shifts are used to calculate the distance they are from Earth & the speed at which they are traveling away from us. You have admitted that these stars are Millions of Light Years away - yet we can still see them. The very definition of a Light Year is the distance light travels in 1 year. This means that for a star to be seen 1 million miles away, means that what we see happened 1 million years ago. That is not speculation, it is hard FACT. It has been observed. It is being observed. It will continue to be observed.
Why don't you try putting Brown to one side for a change & doing some independent research for once. You have a world of information at your fingertips on Google. Ask questions. Give the answers serious consideration instead of dismissing them out of hand because they don't match with Brown's fantasies. Take the blinkers off for once.
Since science proves the existence of God, we can consider this:
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
Why don't you try putting Brown to one side for a change & doing some independent research for once. You have a world of information at your fingertips on Google. Ask questions. Give the answers serious consideration instead of dismissing them out of hand because they don't match with Brown's fantasies. Take the blinkers off for once.
Since science proves the existence of God, we can consider this:
There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:
The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.
Conclusion
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.
Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1499537 wrote: Since science proves the existence of God, we can consider this:
...
But, you have yet to show how science does even THAT.
You demonstrate some flawed logic that you claim proves such a notion, but alas, no science.
...
But, you have yet to show how science does even THAT.
You demonstrate some flawed logic that you claim proves such a notion, but alas, no science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1499530 wrote: Good post and very interesting. I find it rather humorous that some folks still believe in creationism as a science. They are wannabees.
Actually the facts of science support creation:
Tenets of Scientific Creationism
1. The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
2. The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
3.Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
4.The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
5. Earth pre-history, as preserved especially in the crustal rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of uniformitarian process rates. There is therefore no a priori reason for not considering the many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to the scientific evidences that most of the earth's fossiliferous sediments were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
6. Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention must be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
7. The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
8. Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there does exist ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
9. Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestation of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan.
The Tenets of Creationism | The Institute for Creation Research
Actually the facts of science support creation:
Tenets of Scientific Creationism
1. The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
2. The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
3.Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
4.The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
5. Earth pre-history, as preserved especially in the crustal rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of uniformitarian process rates. There is therefore no a priori reason for not considering the many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to the scientific evidences that most of the earth's fossiliferous sediments were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
6. Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention must be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
7. The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
8. Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there does exist ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
9. Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestation of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan.
The Tenets of Creationism | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1499540 wrote: Actually the facts of science support creation:
Tenets of Scientific Creationism
1. The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
2. The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
3.Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
4.The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
5. Earth pre-history, as preserved especially in the crustal rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of uniformitarian process rates. There is therefore no a priori reason for not considering the many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to the scientific evidences that most of the earth's fossiliferous sediments were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
6. Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention must be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
7. The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
8. Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there does exist ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
9. Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestation of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan.
The Tenets of Creationism | The Institute for Creation Research
"Evidence-Free Speculation" at its best.
Tenets of Scientific Creationism
1. The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
2. The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
3.Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
4.The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
5. Earth pre-history, as preserved especially in the crustal rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of uniformitarian process rates. There is therefore no a priori reason for not considering the many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to the scientific evidences that most of the earth's fossiliferous sediments were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
6. Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention must be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
7. The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
8. Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there does exist ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
9. Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestation of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan.
The Tenets of Creationism | The Institute for Creation Research
"Evidence-Free Speculation" at its best.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence