ForumGarden

You should be more tolerant. Pahu's only offering his subjective expression and interpretation of alternative views. Geeze! He has a right to believe what he wants. No?

Ahso!;1516960 wrote: You should be more tolerant. Pahu's only offering his subjective expression and interpretation of alternative views. Geeze! He has a right to believe what he wants. No?


I am sure that he does.

However, should I have any beliefs that I wish to hold unchallenged, I would keep them to myself.

LarsMac;1516933 wrote: I know several scientists who believe in God, but they don't buy into the creationists' young earth ideology.

And they don't spend all their time trying to "disprove Evolution" either.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




Diamond Research Points to a Recent Formation

Most diamonds are formed at depths of 150 or so miles. Deep diamonds, however, formed at depths of over 400 miles. The discovery of a new cache of deep diamonds near Eurelia, Southern Australia, has caused some researchers to speculate that they formed much more recently than previously believed.

The Australian diamond source is located on a broad distribution pattern. After mapping the worldwide sources of deep diamonds, it seems that they “were found in areas that would once have lined the edge of the ancient supercontinent Gondwana.1 Creation researchers agree that the earth used to have a single landmass from which today’s smaller continents originated, but they maintain that it was broken, reshaped, and its remnants distributed across the earth’s surface during the year-long Flood of Noah.

According to eyewitness accounts from Scripture, the ancient single landmass existed for about 1,600 years, from creation until the Flood occurred at about 2350 BC. In contrast, the accepted evolutionary timeline for the beginning of the breakup of southern Gondwana from the larger, single landmass Pangaea is about 200 million years ago. These deep diamond sources may have formed at the same time that the separate landmass of Gondwana did. However, this starkly contrasts with the standard age given for diamonds, which is up to 3 billion years.

John Luddun of the British Geological Survey told New Scientist that “this may well result in a revision of exploration models for kimberlites and the diamonds they host.1 It could instead lead to a revision of old-age thinking about diamond formation and the age of the earth. With this proposal—that deep diamonds formed when Gondwana did—comes the instant removal of about 2.8 billion years of evolutionary time (93 percent of the standard age)! That these evolutionary time scales are largely fictional is corroborated by the presence of very young carbon-14 in the diamonds’ mineral matrices.2

Another feature of deep diamonds is the unique minerals they contain. “Ca [Calcium] silicate perovskite inclusions are enriched in trace elements many times above primitive mantle levels, suggesting an enriched source such as subducted crust, one study revealed.3 Subduction is (or was) a geological process whereby a portion of crustal rock with high density slides beneath an adjacent crustal rock with lower density. If subducting crust provided the unique source of these diamond inclusions (and perhaps even the carbon source for the diamonds themselves), then the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model of continental breakup during the Flood could easily provide part of the explanation for their formation.4

Both the researchers’ admission of this possible gross discrepancy of dates, and the explanatory power of the Creation-Flood model as applied to diamond formation, indicate that the Bible’s history offers an accurate depiction of earth’s past.

Diamond Research Points to a Recent Formation | The Institute for Creation Research

Ted;1516930 wrote: Just checked with the National Academy of Science. They are in support of evolution.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




Red Butte: Remnant of the Flood

Sixteen miles from Grand Canyon's south rim, a cone-shaped butte rises like a lone sentinel 1,000 feet above the Coconino Plateau floor. Thousands of tourists rush past on Arizona Highway 64 without giving it another thought, yet this humble little hill testifies to a remarkable past.

Red Butte is composed of flat-lying shales of the Moenkopi Formation, overlain by Shinarump Conglomerate of the Chinle Formation. Continuous exposures of these two formations are not found for tens of miles around, yet they occur here. These strata sit on a foundation of flat-lying and resistant Kaibab Limestone, the rim rock for most of Grand Canyon and surface of the Coconino Plateau. A basalt (lava) flow tops the butte, protecting the softer layers below from erosion. Lava ordinarily flows downhill, so how did it get on top? Answer: it flowed onto a surface that was once 1,000 feet higher than the present Coconino Plateau! Strata of the Moenkopi, Chinle, and perhaps other formations were stripped away by erosion. Red Butte stands as the most prominent vestige of this once continuous layer.

The butte's shale slopes tell another story. These shales belong to the Moenkopi Formation, a stratum that can be traced across parts of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. Lateral equivalents of the Moenkopi may extend to Connecticut, England, Germany, Spain, and Bulgaria.1 Fossil plants, crinoids, brachiopods, gastropods, bivalves, ammonoids, nautiloids, arthropods, fish, reptiles, and labyrinthodont amphibians have been recovered from Moenkopi strata in the Grand Canyon region.2 To explain this odd assortment of terrestrial and marine taxa, and the persistence of the strata, geologists envision for western North America "a broad, continental plain that was periodically flooded by an ocean."3

A global Flood may provide the framework for a more credible depositional model. During the Flood, sediment-choked waters deposited 1,200 meters of flat-lying "Grand Canyon strata" and around 4,000 meters of Mesozoic strata (seen today atop Utah's Grand Staircase to the north, and Arizona's Black Mesa to the east). The unique vertical movements in the earth's crust during the Flood's retreat4 uplifted the region, and an enormous quantity of soft sediment was removed from its top--a volume far greater than that excavated from Grand Canyon proper.5 Red Butte is a tiny remnant from this vast erosion. When the strata gained sufficient internal strength to stand as near-vertical walls, Grand Canyon itself was incised into the plateau.

Deposition and erosion on such scales boggle the mind, yet they unquestionably took place. This humble little butte challenges geologists to think big. Perhaps this is why the Grand Canyon region fits so well with a global Flood model of earth history.6

Red Butte: Remnant of the Flood | The Institute for Creation Research

LarsMac;1516961 wrote: I am sure that he does.

However, should I have any beliefs that I wish to hold unchallenged, I would keep them to myself.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




Mantle Rotation and the Flood

In August 2005, ICR installed a highspeed research computer and gave it the name Epiphany (to reveal or show forth) to reflect its purpose in using computer modeling to explore the natural processes of our world. Since then Dr. John Baumgardner, head of the ICR computer center, has conducted research on a range of topics.

One recent Epiphany project has explored the possibility that during the year of the Genesis Flood, the mantle and crust of the earth became rotationally unstable and rotated a few dozen times about an axis perpendicular to the earth's spin axis. (The earth's dense core, because the liquid outer core is only weakly coupled to the mantle, would not have participated in this auxiliary rotation.) The earth's rotation is described by the same equations that describe the motions of a gyroscope--the so-called Euler equations.

There are two reasons that this possible rotational behavior is important to understanding the Genesis Flood. First, it results in large-amplitude tsunami-like waves that sweep over the continents, which could explain the extensive sediment layers in the portion of the geologic record associated with the Flood. Second, such rotations potentially explain the record of magnetic polarity reversals observed in lava flows on the flanks of continental volcanoes, in the alternating directions of magnetization in basaltic rocks on either side of spreading ridges on the world's seafloors, and also in the orientations of grains of magnetic minerals in sediments extracted from drill cores into the ocean bottom. If such auxiliary rotation occurred during the Flood, the alternating directions of rock magnetization would be a result of the mantle and crust rotating with respect to a magnetic field with a fixed polarity and orientation. This is in contrast to the standard understanding that the alternating directions of magnetization are a consequence of changes in polarity of the field itself via complex dynamo processes within the core. Up to now, creationist scientists have had difficulty understanding how polarity reversals in the core could take place rapidly enough to fit within the time scale of the Flood.

Dr. Baumgardner's research on this issue included writing a computer program to solve the Euler equations for a rotating body like the earth. Using plausible parameter values, this program shows that many dozens of cycles of auxiliary rotation can occur within the time span of a year, and that the temporal pattern of these cycles resembles the observed temporal changes in rock magnetization in a striking way. The computer model also provides an obvious explanation for the observation that during individual polarity reversals, the magnetic poles seemed to have moved along fixed paths, from one geographic pole to the other. These just happen to lie above a ring of cold dense rock in the upper mantle surrounding the pre-Flood supercontinent--the same ring that plays a leading role in the runaway subduction that makes catastrophic plate tectonics possible. In other words, there seems to be a consistent connection with this new phenomenon of rotational instability and previous research on the mechanism behind the Flood catastrophe.

Another computer program was applied to explore the effect that the auxiliary rotation behavior had on the ocean water during the Flood. Preliminary results show tsunami-like waves that repeatedly swept over continents at velocities of several tens of meters per second. Added features such as bottom friction and topography on top of the continents will hopefully yield new insights in the future concerning sediment and erosional patterns on the continents during the cataclysm. With your help, ICR will continue its work to provide the Christian community with a much stronger understanding of and evidence for the Genesis Flood.

Mantle Rotation and the Flood | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1516975 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




Mantle Rotation and the Flood

In August 2005, ICR installed a highspeed research computer and gave it the name Epiphany (to reveal or show forth) to reflect its purpose in using computer modeling to explore the natural processes of our world. Since then Dr. John Baumgardner, head of the ICR computer center, has conducted research on a range of topics.

One recent Epiphany project has explored the possibility that during the year of the Genesis Flood, the mantle and crust of the earth became rotationally unstable and rotated a few dozen times about an axis perpendicular to the earth's spin axis. (The earth's dense core, because the liquid outer core is only weakly coupled to the mantle, would not have participated in this auxiliary rotation.) The earth's rotation is described by the same equations that describe the motions of a gyroscope--the so-called Euler equations.

There are two reasons that this possible rotational behavior is important to understanding the Genesis Flood. First, it results in large-amplitude tsunami-like waves that sweep over the continents, which could explain the extensive sediment layers in the portion of the geologic record associated with the Flood. Second, such rotations potentially explain the record of magnetic polarity reversals observed in lava flows on the flanks of continental volcanoes, in the alternating directions of magnetization in basaltic rocks on either side of spreading ridges on the world's seafloors, and also in the orientations of grains of magnetic minerals in sediments extracted from drill cores into the ocean bottom. If such auxiliary rotation occurred during the Flood, the alternating directions of rock magnetization would be a result of the mantle and crust rotating with respect to a magnetic field with a fixed polarity and orientation. This is in contrast to the standard understanding that the alternating directions of magnetization are a consequence of changes in polarity of the field itself via complex dynamo processes within the core. Up to now, creationist scientists have had difficulty understanding how polarity reversals in the core could take place rapidly enough to fit within the time scale of the Flood.

Dr. Baumgardner's research on this issue included writing a computer program to solve the Euler equations for a rotating body like the earth. Using plausible parameter values, this program shows that many dozens of cycles of auxiliary rotation can occur within the time span of a year, and that the temporal pattern of these cycles resembles the observed temporal changes in rock magnetization in a striking way. The computer model also provides an obvious explanation for the observation that during individual polarity reversals, the magnetic poles seemed to have moved along fixed paths, from one geographic pole to the other. These just happen to lie above a ring of cold dense rock in the upper mantle surrounding the pre-Flood supercontinent--the same ring that plays a leading role in the runaway subduction that makes catastrophic plate tectonics possible. In other words, there seems to be a consistent connection with this new phenomenon of rotational instability and previous research on the mechanism behind the Flood catastrophe.

Another computer program was applied to explore the effect that the auxiliary rotation behavior had on the ocean water during the Flood. Preliminary results show tsunami-like waves that repeatedly swept over continents at velocities of several tens of meters per second. Added features such as bottom friction and topography on top of the continents will hopefully yield new insights in the future concerning sediment and erosional patterns on the continents during the cataclysm. With your help, ICR will continue its work to provide the Christian community with a much stronger understanding of and evidence for the Genesis Flood.

Mantle Rotation and the Flood | The Institute for Creation Research


You keep mentioning "disciplines of Science" yet you exhibit none of it.

LarsMac;1516978 wrote: You keep mentioning "disciplines of Science" yet you exhibit none of it.


Yes I do. Here is more. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




Mudcracks and the Flood

Some people have an intellectual problem with the Flood because of mud cracks. We have all seen cracks that form in a dried (or "desiccated") mud puddle. But did you know mud cracks are also found in sedimentary rocks that are interpreted as Flood strata? Were there "droughts" during the Flood?

Mud is the familiar wet and sloppy stuff that children love to play in. Geologists give it a more formal definition: a mixture of water, silt, and clay that may be either semi-fluid or soft and plastic. The conversion of mud to mudstone involves, primarily, a loss of water. Loss of water, in turn, results in shrinkage cracks. Water expulsion from mud is actually a matter of intense interest to oil explorationists, whose job is to try to track the history of fluid movements in the subsurface (including both water and hydrocarbons). There is much that is not understood about the process. "Shrinkage cracks" that form when muds give up their water can form in at least three kinds of settings:

1. Mud cracks that form under the open atmosphere ("sub-aerial"). These are the common cracks of dried mud puddles: they are called "desiccation cracks." Shrinkage takes place when water is driven into the atmosphere by evaporation. The resulting cracks often form a polygonal pattern (individual polygons may reach 300 meters across) and are typically v-shaped profile (can be 15 meters deep). In some cases, but certainly not all, mud curls (either upward or downward) can form between the cracks; these can be picked up and redeposited if the surface is flooded.

2. Mud cracks that form underwater (sub-aqueous). Syneresis is a term used by chemists to describe the separation of liquid from a gel (as in cheese making). Its importance as a process for dewatering muds has been known by geologists for over 70 years. "Syneresis cracks" are known to form in the muddy bottoms of some lakes, settling ponds, and even in lime muds beneath shallow marine waters in the Bahamas. Water loss is driven by osmosis, and so it is especially known to occur in saline lakes (immerse your hands long enough in a salty brine and you will get cracks of the same kind). Unless mud curls are present, these are extremely difficult to distinguish from desiccation cracks.

3. Mud cracks that form while buried (sub-stratal). This kind of crack is generated when a mud loses its water while in a buried state. Water can be pressed from the mud layer gradually by compaction from above, or released suddenly by earthquake shock. The resulting cracks tend to form a polygonal pattern (when exposed from above), they may be either lens-shaped or straight-sided in profile view, and they may penetrate upward, downward, or both. Syneresis can also play an important role in some sub-stratal cracks when one layer differs from another in the salinity of its inter-particulate water. Sub-stratal cracks have been positively identified in multiple levels in the Hermit Shale and Hakatai Shale in Grand Canyon.

Mud cracks can certainly form in a variety of environments and distinguishing them in the field is rarely easy. It is a gross error to assume by default that mudcracks in ancient strata formed by desiccation when we know they can form both sub-stratally and sub-aqueously. Mud cracks provide no evidence of "droughts" during the Flood.

Mudcracks and the Flood | The Institute for Creation Research

Checked some of the list of names. Yes some are scientists but evolution is not their field of study. Some came from middle 1800 before Darwin.

Ted;1517057 wrote: Checked some of the list of names. Yes some are scientists but evolution is not their field of study. Some came from middle 1800 before Darwin.


Are you assuming they would have believed in evolution if they had read Darwin? Evolution may not be their field of study, but does that mean they are unable to think? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



New Population Found of Damselfly 'Living Fossil'


The tiny Ancient Greenling Damselfly is an endangered insect, with only a few hundred known to be in existence. A new population of them was recently discovered in southwestern Australia, and researchers hope that studying them will aid in their conservation.

But this particular insect is part of another tale, for the same species has been found fossilized from Brazil to Siberia. Thus, according to standard dating, this “living fossil has not changed in nearly 300 million years.

[continue]

New Population Found of Damselfly 'Living Fossil'


[continued]

Di Crowther, senior scientist at the Arthur Rylah Institute in Victoria, Australia, told The Age, “It’s not every day that you find a living fossil pretty much in your backyard.1 Cockroaches would be an exception to this, of course—living fossils are probably more common than most people are aware of.

Australia was also where live Wollemi Pine trees were discovered in 1994. The trees had only previously been known from fossils associated with dinosaur remains, so finding this still-living population was “like finding a live dinosaur.2 And the lack of change in the trees over the supposed millions of intervening years suggested that either evolution was wrong in its assumptions about biological change, or it was wrong in the vast ages it had assigned to the tree’s fossils. Or perhaps, wrong about both.

[continue]

New Population Found of Damselfly 'Living Fossil'


Due to a glitch in the website, I cannot share the rest of the article, so go here to read it all:

New Population Found of Damselfly 'Living Fossil' | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1517061 wrote: New Population Found of Damselfly 'Living Fossil'


Due to a glitch in the website, I cannot share the rest of the article, so go here to read it all:

New Population Found of Damselfly 'Living Fossil' | The Institute for Creation Research


I have to thank you for all of your re-posting of the ICR website. I would never go there and read all of that junk, so I would never know how utterly ludicrous it really is.

LarsMac;1517075 wrote: I have to thank you for all of your re-posting of the ICR website. I would never go there and read all of that junk, so I would never know how utterly ludicrous it really is.


If don't go there and read the information, how do you know it is junk and ludicrous?

Pahu;1517104 wrote: If don't go there and read the information, how do you know it is junk and ludicrous?


Because I was there, and recognized it as junk. Therefore, I shall not return for more junk. Besides, I've seen all of the stuff you have posted from there, and recognized that as junk, as well.

LarsMac;1517105 wrote: Because I was there, and recognized it as junk. Therefore, I shall not return for more junk. Besides, I've seen all of the stuff you have posted from there, and recognized that as junk, as well.


And yet you said earlier that you were not there. Precisely what is junk about it? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Do Ice Cores Disprove Recent Creation?

Glaciologists drill and extract cylindrical cores from high-latitude ice sheets and use different techniques to estimate the cores’ age at certain depths. Bible skeptics, like recent debater Bill Nye,1 claim these ice cores contain hundreds of thousands of annual layers, far too many for the Bible’s short timescale. However, two “dating details negate this challenge.

The first dating detail exposes circular reasoning, which occurs when one assumes a particular outcome in arguing for that same outcome. In the Greenland ice sheet, clear seasonal layers are found only in the upper parts of the cores, but in central Antarctica less snowfall and blowing snow prevent clear seasonal layering. Because ice layers become less distinct at greater depths, simply discerning deeper layers becomes more difficult. Thus, researchers usually “date ice cores with theoretical models called “glacial flow models—and these models assume evolutionary time.2,3 Not surprisingly, they yield vast ages.4

Counting layers sounds straightforward, but circular reasoning even shows up here. For example, secular scientists dated the Greenland GISP2 ice core by counting what they presumed were annual patterns of, among other features, dust, volcanics, isotopes, and ions in the ice. They assigned an “age of about 85,000 years to the 2,800-meter depth back in 1994. However, other scientists produced a “SPECMAP timescale based on the idea that seafloor sediments were deposited slowly and gradually for many thousands of years. Their SPECMAP predicted that the GISP2 ice should have been 25,000 years older at that 2,800-meter depth. Workers then re-counted dust layers and conveniently found the “missing 25,000 supposed years.5 Secular expectations guided their age-dating procedures in a tight circle that excluded the biblical record.

The second dating detail questions whether or not each layer represents a year. A single large storm can deposit multiple layers that might look like annual layers, and multiple dust layers may also be deposited within a single year.6 No modern scientist watched the ice sheets form, so it’s possible that storms or phases within a storm, not whole winters, deposited many of them. This would have been especially true during the post-Flood Ice Age, a time of numerous storms and volcanic eruptions.7

Ironically, the hundreds of thousands of supposedly annual layers are far too few for old-earth expectations. For instance, secular scientists expected the bottom of the GISP2 core to be more than 200,000 years old.8 Yet, even after their convenient re-count of the bottom part of the core, they could only find about 110,000 supposed “annual layers. Thus, even after forcing the data into old-earth assumptions, they still didn’t find enough layers to fit their expectation of many hundreds of thousands of years.9

These two important details derail the ice-core argument for an old earth: layers are not necessarily annual, and researchers employ circular reasoning to adjust counts to fit the vast ages they expect. The volcanism during the Flood year would have warmed ocean water enough for increased evaporation and precipitation to rapidly build the ice sheets.7 A post-Flood ice age best explains the origin of today’s ice sheets.

Do Ice Cores Disprove Recent Creation? | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1517106 wrote: And yet you said earlier that you were not there.
No, I said I never go there. I didn't say I was never there.



Pahu;1517106 wrote: Precisely what is junk about it? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.

For example: ...


Well, you answer your own question

Pahu I look for credentials. The understanding is much better if they are specialists in the field. Creationism is junk. It is far from being scientific.

LarsMac;1517075 wrote: I have to thank you for all of your re-posting of the ICR website. I would never go there and read all of that junk, so I would never know how utterly ludicrous it really is.Pahu runs that site.

Ahso!;1517130 wrote: Pahu runs that site.


How can you know that?

LarsMac;1517132 wrote: How can you know that?Because it gets updated whenever Pahu gets stumped and thinks up new answers.

Ask him!

Ted;1517111 wrote: Pahu I look for credentials. The understanding is much better if they are specialists in the field. Creationism is junk. It is far from being scientific.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Was There an Ice Age?

Secular scientists believe there have been at least five major ice ages during Earth's history, and the most recent is thought to have begun about 2.6 million years ago. Within this Pleistocene ice age, ice sheets are thought to have advanced and receded over many tens of thousands of years, growing in size during shorter ice ages called glacials and shrinking during the warmer interglacial periods.

Because secular discussions of ice ages involve millions of years, Bible-believing Christians may wonder: Was there really an ice age?

Yes, there is strong geological evidence of an ice age. Today, receding glaciers often leave behind recognizable geological features such as drumlins (elongated ridges) and moraines (rock debris carved and then deposited either along the side or at the end of a melting, moving glacier). Since these features are also found in lower latitudes than today’s ice sheets and glaciers, it is clear that both the northern and southern hemisphere ice sheets extended to lower latitudes than they do today and have since melted.

Secular scientists have dozens of theories to explain ice ages, but they all have serious problems. Even the most popular one, the astronomical or Milankovitch theory, offers far too weak a cause.1

The Bible, on the other hand, suggests a plausible mechanism for explaining a relatively recent ice age that began shortly after the Flood about 4,300 years ago and may have only lasted for several centuries. Surprisingly, the Ice Age actually required large amounts of heat, which this mechanism provides. One can use the acrostic HEAT to remember its key points.

Hot Oceans. During the Genesis Flood, hot, molten material from Earth’s interior, possibly including much warmer waters from the “fountains of the great deep (Genesis 7:11), volcanism, and friction from plate tectonics, would have significantly warmed the world’s oceans, perhaps by tens of degrees Celsius.

Evaporation. Warmer oceans would have resulted in greatly elevated evaporation. This would have increased the amount of moisture in the atmosphere, ultimately resulting in much greater snowfall over the relatively cool continents in the mid- and high-latitude regions.

Aerosols. The enormous amounts of volcanic activity that occurred toward the end of the Flood and afterward would have ejected an enormous volume of tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. These aerosols would have reflected significant amounts of sunlight away from Earth’s surface, resulting in cooler summers over the continents. Thus, winter snow and ice would not completely melt, even during the warmest months. Ice sheets would grow as more snow and ice accumulated during subsequent winters.

Time. Explosive volcanic eruptions can result in noticeable cooling over the continents, and both creation and evolution scientists agree that many enormous volcanic eruptions have occurred in the past. Creation scientists believe many of these eruptions occurred toward the end of the Flood and for many years afterward as Earth slowly returned to equilibrium after the Flood cataclysm. As noted above, aerosols from explosive volcanic eruptions are a potent cooling mechanism for keeping developing ice sheets from melting. However, because secular scientists hold that millions of years separated each volcanic eruption from the next, they cannot use this mechanism to account for an ice age. Thus, the Bible’s short timescale is critical in explaining the Ice Age!

Yes, extensive geological evidence demands that high-latitude ice sheets did once extend to much lower latitudes than they do today. The secular view holds that there were multiple ice ages, each lasting for millions of years. In truth, there was only one relatively short ice age, perhaps with several “surges, and it was a result of the Genesis Flood.2,3

Was There an Ice Age? | The Institute for Creation Research

Ahso!;1517135 wrote: Because it gets updated whenever Pahu gets stumped and thinks up new answers.

Ask him!


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




A Mountain of Snow after the Genesis Flood

Nor’easters enhanced by a warm Atlantic Ocean following the Genesis Flood would have dumped large quantities of snow in eastern Canada.1 This could explain why the Laurentide Ice Sheet was thicker farther to the east in North America during the Ice Age.

A nor’easter is a type of synoptic scale storm that occurs along the east coast of the United States and the Atlantic coast of Canada. It is so named because the storm travels up the coast, and the winds spiral around the storm from the northeast in coastal areas. The storms sometimes have characteristics similar to a hurricane. They feature a low-pressure area with the center of the rotation just off the east coast and with leading winds in the left front quadrant rotating onto land.



Figure 1 shows the North American blizzard of February 5-6, 2010, approaching the east coast of the United States. The precipitation pattern is similar to that of an extratropical storm. Nor’easters can cause severe coastal flooding, coastal erosion, hurricane-force winds, and heavy snow or rain. Nor’easters occur at any time of the year, but mostly in the winter.

A blizzard is a severe snowstorm characterized by strong winds. By definition, the difference between a blizzard and a snowstorm is the strength of the wind. To be defined as a blizzard, a snowstorm must have winds in excess of 35 miles per hour with blowing or drifting snow that reduces visibility to one-fourth of a mile or less and must last for a prolonged period of time—typically three hours or more. Blizzards can bring near-whiteout conditions and can paralyze regions for days at a time, particularly where snowfall is rare. The blizzard of February 5-6, 2010, closed down most transportation in the nation’s capital for almost a week.

Nor’easters can be devastating, especially in winter months when most damage and deaths are cold-related. The storms are known for bringing extremely cold air southward from the Arctic. They thrive on the temperature contrast between converging polar air masses and warm ocean water off the North American coast.

Researchers Michael Oard, Steve Austin, and others have argued that heat released from catastrophic processes of the Genesis Flood would have heated the oceans.2, 3 Drilling of ocean sediments led researchers to conclude that the oceans were at least 36°F hotter in the past. Also, oceanographic cartographers Bruce Heezen and Marie Tharp published images of the ocean floor obtained in the 1960s that show mid-ocean ridges and undersea volcanoes that likely released large quantities of heat during past earth upheavals.4 Higher sea-surface temperatures would have evaporated large quantities of water vapor from the oceans, energized mid-latitude storms and hurricanes, and precipitated large quantities of rain and snow on the continents.

My study with computational engineer Wesley Brewer hypothesized that warmer than normal oceans would have energized nor’easters, generated larger and more intense circulations, and produced heavier precipitation farther inland over large regions of the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada for several hundred years following the Genesis Flood.1 The greater frequency and more intense nor’easters that probably developed during the Ice Age would have likely contributed significant quantities of snow to the Laurentide Ice Sheet in eastern Canada and the eastern United States. The study analyzed the wind and precipitation fields for three simulated nor’easters to determine how much they would have been enhanced by a warmer Atlantic Ocean. The three storms were different meteorologically and typified nor’easters that commonly occur on the east coast of the United States.

We compared the three actual nor’easters and the simulated storms to ensure that the numerical model used faithfully replicated them. The sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic were then artificially warmed by 18°F, and the storms were re-analyzed for any changes.

The North American Blizzard of February 5-6, 2010

One of the three storms—Snowmaggedon, the blizzard that became a nor’easter once it reached the east coast—will be discussed briefly here to illustrate some of the effects of a warm Atlantic Ocean. Snowmaggedon was a severe weather event that tracked from California to Arizona through northern Mexico, the American Southwest, the Midwest, Southeast, and mid-Atlantic regions. The storm caused extensive flooding and landslides in Mexico, as well as historic snowfall totals in the mid-Atlantic states. The storm stretched from Mexico and New Mexico to New Jersey before moving out to sea, and then turned north to impact the Maritime Provinces of Canada. The storm caused deaths in Mexico, New Mexico, Maryland, and Virginia.



Blizzard conditions were reported in a relatively small area of Maryland, but near-blizzard conditions occurred throughout a large part of the mid-Atlantic region. Additionally, some places across eastern West Virginia, Maryland, northern Virginia, Delaware, southwestern Pennsylvania, south central Pennsylvania, southeastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., received between 20 to 40 inches of snow, bringing air travel and interstate highway traffic to a halt. Rail service was impacted as well—it was suspended south and west of Washington, D.C., and only limited service was available between Washington, D. C., and Boston.

The pressure-height contours, isotherms, and winds at about 5,000 feet above sea level over the United States were studied, as well the 24-hour accumulated precipitation ending at 0700 EST on Saturday, February 6, 2010. The heaviest precipitation occurred in the mid-Atlantic region (see Figure 2).

The Enhanced Storm



When the sea-surface temperature was artificially warmed to 104°F, the winds throughout the storm greatly increased, the circulation pattern shifted eastward and northward, and the precipitation rate was much higher. Figure 3 shows the contours of wind speed at 5,000 feet above sea level at 0700 EST on Saturday, February 6, 2010, for a sea-surface temperature of 104°F over the eastern United States. Wind speeds exceeded 120 knots (~137 mph) in the Atlantic Ocean east of Maine—faster speeds than the winds in a Category 2 hurricane. Notice that a strong northeasterly flow occurred along the entire east coast. The wind speeds were over twice that of the actual storm, and the center of circulation was farther east and to the north. Over land, the enhanced storm winds exceeded 40 knots (~46 mph) along most of the coast. But in Maine, Quebec, and Newfoundland, winds exceeded 100 knots (~114 mph). Severe blizzard conditions would occur under these conditions if the temperature were cold enough to produce snow.



Figure 4 shows the 12-hour accumulated precipitation ending at 0700 EST on Saturday, February 6, for the enhanced February 5-6, 2010, North American blizzard. Most of the heaviest precipitation occurred far off the east coast in the Atlantic, where the storm dynamics were the strongest. The accumulated precipitation exceeded 40 inches of water equivalent per 12 hours over several locations of the ocean and about two inches over most of the domain, except in the southern states and the northern part of the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, precipitation exceeded about four inches around Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and in the ocean just south of Maine. The counterclockwise circulation around this enhanced storm also extended to long distances and produced snow streaks southward from Hudson Bay and the Great Lakes. The model calculations showed that over 20 inches of snow would have fallen during 24 hours in Canada and the northeastern United States. Two other typical nor’easters were successfully simulated in this study and produced similar results to the February 5-6, 2010, blizzard described previously.

Conclusions

When the surface temperature of the Atlantic Ocean was theoretically warmed to 104°F, all three nor’easters were invigorated, wind speeds were increased, new circulation patterns emerged, and precipitation was increased and redistributed. In one of the enhanced cases, the winds exceeded a Category 5 hurricane.

Even with the heaviest precipitation falling over the Atlantic Ocean in these simulations, precipitation of about eight inches per 24 hours would have built a mountain of snow and ice over southeastern Canada. Brewer and I suggested that a storm would have formed and moved across the United States every three days all year round. This would have produced an uncompressed snow pack of about 200 feet per year. Upon compression to solid ice, an ice layer would have grown to about 4,000 feet in 100 years. If bands of additional precipitation were swept around the centers of circulation of enhanced nor’easters off the coast of New England, the accumulation would have been even greater. The additional snow from enhanced nor’easters would explain a thicker Laurentide Ice Sheet in eastern Canada during a recent ice age.

Ape-Men? 6



For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets (v). Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today (w). Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men, especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence (x).

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable. [See pages 36-42]

v. Francis Ivanhoe, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal? Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577–578.

William L. Straus Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, “Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32, December, 1957, pp. 348–363.

Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, “Oldest Bone Disease, Nature, Vol. 349, 24 January 1991, p. 288.

w. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).

Jack Cuozzo, “Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory, The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33–40.

x. Boyce Rensberger, “Facing the Past, Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Constantly pointing out the times that some scientist was wrong does not show how "Science disproves ..." anything.

That is hilarious..

I wonder if Pahu realises that everyone simply fast scrolls past his continuous pastes.

Simple challenge to Pahu. IN YOUR OWN WORDS (NO PASTES).

1. Define the Disciplines of Science that you keep relating to, as you don't seem to have any comprehension of what these disciplines are.

2. Demonstrate exactly how this can be applied to even put a question as to the validity of Evolution, let alone disprove it.

To give you a start. The Disciplines of Science require...

1. Evidence.

2. Observation

3. Experimentation

4. Prediction

5. Theorisation

6. Peer Reviewal / Self Challenge

Evolution completes all of these criteria. Creationism provides none.

Demonstrate how each of these criteria have been met in order to confirm your claim. You must remember that under the Disciplines of Science the onus is on the challenger to prove their claim, so this is what must do.

1. Provide Evidence to show that Evolution does not exist.

2. Show that the Observations made over the centuries & being made now have not, nor are being made.

3. Demonstrate the the ongoing & past Experiments are not happening or have never happened.

4. Demonstrate how the Predictions made have not been met.

5. Show that no Theories of Evolution have been made.

6. Show that no papers on Evolution have ever been Peer Reviewed or that the writers who put these papers forward for reviewal never did so.

These are the 6 Disciplines of Science. Now, show how they have disproved anything.

Incidentally, cherry picking one or another of them does not count. Under the Disciplines of Science, ALL conditions must apply.

LarsMac;1517198 wrote: Constantly pointing out the times that some scientist was wrong does not show how "Science disproves ..." anything.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



The Ice Age: Causes and Consequences
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

The Ice Age has been a longstanding problem for uniformitarian thinking, with many unsolved mysteries. No mere tweaking of today's climate conditions would cause such a catastrophe. A creationist model based on the revealed events of Scripture, however, offers a possible answer.

The great Flood of Noah's day accomplished a complete reworking of earth's surface and an alteration of all its hydrologic and meteorlogic systems. The Ice Age likely occurred soon after the Flood, perhaps in the days of Job, for references to ice and snow abound in his book (see, for example, Job 38:29). Job didn't live in a glaciated area, but he evidently knew about icy conditions farther north.

The key to the Ice Age was temperature--not cold, but warm. Ice comes from snow, and snow from moisture in the air, which in turn comes through evaporation, which comes from warm water. The Flood oceans were quite warm due to the introduction of huge volumes of superheated water from the "fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) and frictional heating by shifting continents, etc.

Warmer water evaporates much more rapidly than cold. The immediate post-Flood time was marked by frequent major storms fed by excessive evaporation. Polar ice caps built up as water vapor condensed and fell as snow. Pressure packed it into ice, which spread as glaciers. The earth was not completely frozen, but the polar ice caps were much larger then. Large-scale volcanism in the Flood's latter stages clouded the atmosphere with volcanic dust, reflecting solar radiation back into space. This prohibited snow and ice from melting.

The Ice Age commenced and continued until the oceans gave up their excess heat and the atmosphere cleared. Water trapped as ice on the continents lowered the sea level by an estimated four to six hundred feet, no doubt exposing the continental shelves. During the Ice Age, all the continents were probably connected by land bridges.

What happened when the Ice Age ended? The volume of ice returned to liquid form and reentered the ocean, raising sea level and drowning all areas near the ocean. Today, we find numerous remains of civilizations that evidently had been built in coastal areas soon after the Flood.

In recent years such ruins were found in the Black Sea, leading many to speculate that Noah's Flood was responsible. But this could not be. Ignored were waterborne sediments thousands of feet thick underneath the Black Sea that are the legacy of Noah's Flood. The ruins were built after Noah, but were inundated by major flooding as the rising Ice Age meltwater overtopped the natural dam near today’s Istanbul. A similar scenario explains the Mediterranean Sea. The rising waters breeched the "dam" at Gibraltar and flooded a low-lying floodplain with inland lakes. Great Britain was part of Europe. The Hudson Bay was dry. Large islands in the Pacific were connected with the mainland.

Genesis 10:25 states that in Peleg's day "was the earth divided." This certainly could not imply that in Peleg's day the Atlantic Ocean was opened up, for this would have caused another flood to rival Noah's. Perhaps what Scripture is saying is that in Peleg's day the Ice Age ended, increasing the volume of water in the oceans, raising sea level, drowning land bridges, and "dividing" the continents.

As the great Flood of Noah's day ended, God instructed the animals and man to multiply and occupy the entire planet. Man's refusal was overcome at Babel as God enforced migration, graciously working through nature, for at this time the Ice Age connected all the land, facilitating travel. As the globe filled with occupants, the ice melted, dividing the continents and trapping the migrants in place. God made it possible for both animals and man to obey His command.

The Ice Age: Causes and Consequences | The Institute for Creation Research

FourPart;1517204 wrote: I wonder if Pahu realises that everyone simply fast scrolls past his continuous pastes.

Simple challenge to Pahu. IN YOUR OWN WORDS (NO PASTES).

1. Define the Disciplines of Science that you keep relating to, as you don't seem to have any comprehension of what these disciplines are.

2. Demonstrate exactly how this can be applied to even put a question as to the validity of Evolution, let alone disprove it.

To give you a start. The Disciplines of Science require...

1. Evidence.

2. Observation

3. Experimentation

4. Prediction

5. Theorisation

6. Peer Reviewal / Self Challenge

Evolution completes all of these criteria. Creationism provides none.


Actually, evolution does not meet those criteria.

Demonstrate how each of these criteria have been met in order to confirm your claim. You must remember that under the Disciplines of Science the onus is on the challenger to prove their claim, so this is what must do.

1. Provide Evidence to show that Evolution does not exist.

2. Show that the Observations made over the centuries & being made now have not, nor are being made.

3. Demonstrate the the ongoing & past Experiments are not happening or have never happened.

4. Demonstrate how the Predictions made have not been met.

5. Show that no Theories of Evolution have been made.

6. Show that no papers on Evolution have ever been Peer Reviewed or that the writers who put these papers forward for reviewal never did so.

These are the 6 Disciplines of Science. Now, show how they have disproved anything.

Incidentally, cherry picking one or another of them does not count. Under the Disciplines of Science, ALL conditions must apply.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION



Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

Scientists Speak About Evolution

Ahso!;1517135 wrote: Because it gets updated whenever Pahu gets stumped and thinks up new answers.

Ask him!See, he quoted me and avoided answering. Ask him what his relationship is to the site.

Pahu;1517210 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



The Ice Age: Causes and Consequences
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

The Ice Age has been a longstanding problem for uniformitarian thinking, with many unsolved mysteries. No mere tweaking of today's climate conditions would cause such a catastrophe. A creationist model based on the revealed events of Scripture, however, offers a possible answer.

The great Flood of Noah's day accomplished a complete reworking of earth's surface and an alteration of all its hydrologic and meteorlogic systems. The Ice Age likely occurred soon after the Flood, perhaps in the days of Job, for references to ice and snow abound in his book (see, for example, Job 38:29). Job didn't live in a glaciated area, but he evidently knew about icy conditions farther north.

The key to the Ice Age was temperature--not cold, but warm. Ice comes from snow, and snow from moisture in the air, which in turn comes through evaporation, which comes from warm water. The Flood oceans were quite warm due to the introduction of huge volumes of superheated water from the "fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) and frictional heating by shifting continents, etc.

Warmer water evaporates much more rapidly than cold. The immediate post-Flood time was marked by frequent major storms fed by excessive evaporation. Polar ice caps built up as water vapor condensed and fell as snow. Pressure packed it into ice, which spread as glaciers. The earth was not completely frozen, but the polar ice caps were much larger then. Large-scale volcanism in the Flood's latter stages clouded the atmosphere with volcanic dust, reflecting solar radiation back into space. This prohibited snow and ice from melting.

The Ice Age commenced and continued until the oceans gave up their excess heat and the atmosphere cleared. Water trapped as ice on the continents lowered the sea level by an estimated four to six hundred feet, no doubt exposing the continental shelves. During the Ice Age, all the continents were probably connected by land bridges.

What happened when the Ice Age ended? The volume of ice returned to liquid form and reentered the ocean, raising sea level and drowning all areas near the ocean. Today, we find numerous remains of civilizations that evidently had been built in coastal areas soon after the Flood.

In recent years such ruins were found in the Black Sea, leading many to speculate that Noah's Flood was responsible. But this could not be. Ignored were waterborne sediments thousands of feet thick underneath the Black Sea that are the legacy of Noah's Flood. The ruins were built after Noah, but were inundated by major flooding as the rising Ice Age meltwater overtopped the natural dam near today’s Istanbul. A similar scenario explains the Mediterranean Sea. The rising waters breeched the "dam" at Gibraltar and flooded a low-lying floodplain with inland lakes. Great Britain was part of Europe. The Hudson Bay was dry. Large islands in the Pacific were connected with the mainland.

Genesis 10:25 states that in Peleg's day "was the earth divided." This certainly could not imply that in Peleg's day the Atlantic Ocean was opened up, for this would have caused another flood to rival Noah's. Perhaps what Scripture is saying is that in Peleg's day the Ice Age ended, increasing the volume of water in the oceans, raising sea level, drowning land bridges, and "dividing" the continents.

As the great Flood of Noah's day ended, God instructed the animals and man to multiply and occupy the entire planet. Man's refusal was overcome at Babel as God enforced migration, graciously working through nature, for at this time the Ice Age connected all the land, facilitating travel. As the globe filled with occupants, the ice melted, dividing the continents and trapping the migrants in place. God made it possible for both animals and man to obey His command.

The Ice Age: Causes and Consequences | The Institute for Creation Research


So, how, exactly, are you related to The Institute for Creation Research, Pahu?

Ahso!;1517215 wrote: See, he quoted me and avoided answering. Ask him what his relationship is to the site.


One day, he may actually come across some "Science"

He's a troll. I don't understand why you guys continue feeding him.

Ahso!;1517218 wrote: He's a troll. I don't understand why you guys continue feeding him.


Entertainment?

LarsMac;1517216 wrote: So, how, exactly, are you related to The Institute for Creation Research, Pahu?


I could be wrong, but I don't think he is related to it. It's just one of his sources. I would be interested to know how much of his articles those here actually read before dismissing it.

Just as I predicted. 2 entire posts consisting of 99% paste, with absolutely NO mention of the simple challenge I set him. I asked that he define exactly what Disciplines of Science have proven anything and in what way. Science can support a positive claim. It can never disprove a negative one. For instance, Science cannot disprove a God. It can't disprove the Tooth Fairy. They don't meet any of the criteria so it is impossible to do so.

1. Evidence. There is masses of evidence charting historical records of Evolution through the ages.

2. Prediction. Predictions have been made of exactly what previously unknown fossils would be found & where, and have been found in those places. They also fit the geological timeline predicted.

3. Observation. Changes in species have been observed of animals adapting to suit their environment, even Creationists accept this, although they invent the term "micro-evolution", as they can't bring themselves to accept that Evolution has been shown to exist. All Evolution is "Micro-Evolution", as lots of "Micro-Evolutions make a "Macro-Evolution", in the same way that lots of millimetres make a Light Year. It is merely a matter of scale.

4. Theorise. In order to be officially accepted as a Theory, it must meet all the other criteria. Creationists tend to come up with the phrase "But it's only a Theory". That is because they don't understand the concept of a Scientific Theory. For example - Gravity is only a Theory. Do they deny the existence of Gravity.

5. Experiment. Nearly all Medical Research is based on the acceptance of Evolution. Evolution is an essential part of Bacteriology.

6. Peer Review. Thousands upon Thousands of papers have been published & Peer Reviewed on various matters of Evolution. Some of them have been dismissed outright. Most have been accepted. When evidence is put forward that challenges the accepted view of things, the accepted Theory is amended accordingly. The primary concept of Science is that it never accepts that it has everything right & wants to challenge itself so that there is always something to strive for. Creationism takes the opposite view. It has a single reference book that is Thousands of years out of date. It has been handed down by word of mouth, through countless interpretations (and continues to do so), yet the followers of each & every one of these sects insist that theors is the only 'true' one, and that everything else is literally 'fact'. The Bible even specifically states, on multiple occasions that the earth is flat, yet even with that, not many accept that to be the case. In this respect, it has been shown that the Bible is NOT the absolute truth. It has multiple contradictions, yet Creationists refuse to challenge this & believe that either ALL the contradictions are true or deny that there are any contradictions at all.

Now, I have given definitions of how each & every Discipline of Science supports Evolution. You say it meets none, yet you fail to demonstrate a single one that you claim to Disprove it. This is because Science does not Disprove anything. It merely serves to support evidence or not. You say that God created everything. Science asks "What is the evidence for this?". You answer that it's written in the Bible. Straight away that argument has collapsed. At best you could claim that the Bible is a paper being put forward for Peer Review. However, without defining how it meets all the other criteria it would immediately be dismissed. Evolution, on the other hand, meets ALL the criteria, as I have demonstrated.

Ahso!;1517215 wrote: See, he quoted me and avoided answering. Ask him what his relationship is to the site.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




Neanderthal Men Were Modern Men

A set of fossilized human remains has been discovered in Iberia that shows partial Neanderthal characteristics, proving again that Neanderthals interbred with anatomically modern men.1 This adds to a growing list of evidence, consistent with biblical history, that demonstrates Neanderthal to have been fully human, rather than an evolutionary transition.2

Though evolution models once held that Neanderthal man was one of the “missing links between an ape-like ancestor and modern man, the repeated discoveries of Neanderthal remains right next to those of modern humans—instead of in separate, lower, older strata—have forced him out of the pool of “pre-human evolutionary ancestor candidates. In contrast to ever-evolving naturalistic interpretations, the biblical creation model has consistently maintained that Neanderthal man was just that—man.

Neanderthal did have distinct characteristics that are apparently now either extinct or diffused, but his family line was fully human for several hundred years after Noah’s Flood, when humans repopulated the earth about 4,300 years ago.

The mounting evidence for Neanderthal and modern man’s coexistence calls into question whether the Neanderthal and other human varieties even lived in separate times, as the evolutionary story still maintains. Both the Bible and science indicate that this was not the case. Biblical history has no place for such a separate, distant time of evolutionary development, but it does allow for variations within the human kind in its 6,000-year history.

Anthropologist Marvin L. Lubenow has shown that Neanderthal, other than having a larger cranial capacity, was anatomically the same as Homo erectus.3 Their fossils do not fit into the depiction of a linear evolutionary ape-to-man transition that is iconic today, but were simply comingling variations of humankind. Furthermore, a fossil elbow (KP 271) and the Laetoli footprints are indistinguishable from modern man, and both have been dated by evolutionary scientists at 4 million years or older—predating the earliest Neanderthals!4 Thus, within the published evolutionary dates, “anatomically modern Homo sapiens, Neandertal, archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo erectus [as well as Lucy-like Australopithecinces] all lived as contemporaries.3

As seen in the fossil remains from Iberia, the more that is discovered about Neanderthal, the more evolutionary models morph to accommodate the data. In contrast to this ambiguity, both the Bible and science confirm that man and apes—though many small differences can be discerned within each kind—nevertheless remain totally separate, untransitioned created kinds.

Neanderthal Men Were Modern Men | The Institute for Creation Research

FourPart;1517224 wrote: Just as I predicted. 2 entire posts consisting of 99% paste, with absolutely NO mention of the simple challenge I set him. I asked that he define exactly what Disciplines of Science have proven anything and in what way. Science can support a positive claim. It can never disprove a negative one. For instance, Science cannot disprove a God. It can't disprove the Tooth Fairy. They don't meet any of the criteria so it is impossible to do so.

1. Evidence. There is masses of evidence charting historical records of Evolution through the ages.

2. Prediction. Predictions have been made of exactly what previously unknown fossils would be found & where, and have been found in those places. They also fit the geological timeline predicted.

3. Observation. Changes in species have been observed of animals adapting to suit their environment, even Creationists accept this, although they invent the term "micro-evolution", as they can't bring themselves to accept that Evolution has been shown to exist. All Evolution is "Micro-Evolution", as lots of "Micro-Evolutions make a "Macro-Evolution", in the same way that lots of millimetres make a Light Year. It is merely a matter of scale.

4. Theorise. In order to be officially accepted as a Theory, it must meet all the other criteria. Creationists tend to come up with the phrase "But it's only a Theory". That is because they don't understand the concept of a Scientific Theory. For example - Gravity is only a Theory. Do they deny the existence of Gravity.

5. Experiment. Nearly all Medical Research is based on the acceptance of Evolution. Evolution is an essential part of Bacteriology.

6. Peer Review. Thousands upon Thousands of papers have been published & Peer Reviewed on various matters of Evolution. Some of them have been dismissed outright. Most have been accepted. When evidence is put forward that challenges the accepted view of things, the accepted Theory is amended accordingly. The primary concept of Science is that it never accepts that it has everything right & wants to challenge itself so that there is always something to strive for. Creationism takes the opposite view. It has a single reference book that is Thousands of years out of date. It has been handed down by word of mouth, through countless interpretations (and continues to do so), yet the followers of each & every one of these sects insist that theors is the only 'true' one, and that everything else is literally 'fact'. The Bible even specifically states, on multiple occasions that the earth is flat, yet even with that, not many accept that to be the case. In this respect, it has been shown that the Bible is NOT the absolute truth. It has multiple contradictions, yet Creationists refuse to challenge this & believe that either ALL the contradictions are true or deny that there are any contradictions at all.

Now, I have given definitions of how each & every Discipline of Science supports Evolution. You say it meets none, yet you fail to demonstrate a single one that you claim to Disprove it. This is because Science does not Disprove anything. It merely serves to support evidence or not. You say that God created everything. Science asks "What is the evidence for this?". You answer that it's written in the Bible. Straight away that argument has collapsed. At best you could claim that the Bible is a paper being put forward for Peer Review. However, without defining how it meets all the other criteria it would immediately be dismissed. Evolution, on the other hand, meets ALL the criteria, as I have demonstrated.


Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record



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



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



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

100prophecies.org

About Bible Prophecy

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm

404 Error

http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

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

xfrodobagginsx;1517221 wrote: I could be wrong, but I don't think he is related to it. It's just one of his sources. I would be interested to know how much of his articles those here actually read before dismissing it.


Enough to know that nearly every post about "Evolution" is false, and misleading information from someone who knows little about the subject

LarsMac;1517230 wrote: Enough to know that nearly every post about "Evolution" is false, and misleading information from someone who knows little about the subject


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




Ice Age Glaciers at Yosemite National Park

Glaciers once filled Yosemite Valley almost to the top of Half Dome, stretching over Tuolumne Meadows and to Tioga Pass near the top of the Sierra Nevada. Large fields of granite that are now exposed were planed down by the movement of the glaciers as they ground downhill, leaving behind evidence of their presence and direction of travel. But if glaciers occurred after the Genesis Flood, how did they form and why have they disappeared?

One scenario is that the Genesis Flood--which ended about 4,500 years ago--left the oceans as warm as 120°F in places, causing a large amount of evaporation. This moisture would have been gathered by winds and blown across the continents, producing heavy precipitation. In California, the Sierra Nevada mountains form a long north-south barrier perpendicular to the flow of air off the Pacific Ocean. Here, the warm, moist air would have been lifted to higher, colder elevations, resulting in large quantities of snow. Precipitation would have been enhanced by a strong jet stream that is believed to have tracked across the southwestern United States during the Ice Age, below its current position along the northern tier of states. These strong winds moving moist air over the area of Yosemite National Park would have produced glaciers. When the oceans cooled two to three thousand years ago, the precipitation would have decreased, permitting the glaciers to melt.

Today, Yosemite National Park generally sees snow only in winter, which then completely melts during summer. Because the sea-surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California dropped after the Flood from an estimated 120°F to a current average winter temperature of about 60°F, the Ice Age ended. Occasionally the sea-surface temperature along the California coast will warm by 1-3°F during what is called an El Niño event. Although these warmer temperatures lead to an increase in storminess and precipitation, the unsettled weather during these periods typically lasts only a year or two and doesn't produce enough snow to form permanent glaciers.

To facilitate the study of the Flood's meteorological impact, a weather and climate model called MM5 has been installed on ICR's Epiphany research computer. Numerical simulations will be conducted of conditions that would lead to more precipitation and glaciers in Yosemite National Park. Variations of the sea-surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean off California will be introduced to see what effects they have on the magnitude and distribution of snow, with a particular focus on short-term cold periods during generally warm sea-surface conditions.

One goal is to find an explanation for some of the short-period fluctuations in the distribution of glaciers at the end of the Ice Age. As the glaciers melted, cold water likely flowed into the ocean and chilled the surface water. This cold sea-surface temperature would have reduced the evaporation and may explain fluctuations in glacial coverage in Yosemite, like those of the Younger Dryas event on the east coast of the United States and Europe. The results of this research effort are scheduled to be presented at the upcoming International Conference on Creationism in August 2008, with a completion of the study over the next few years. Through science, we continue to learn of the works of our Creator, who "casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold? He sendeth out his word, and melteth them: he causeth his wind to blow, and the waters flow" (Psalm 147:17-18).

Ice Age Glaciers at Yosemite National Park | The Institute for Creation Research

More BS.

Ted;1517241 wrote: More BS.


Evidence free assertion! The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Out of Whose Womb Came the Ice?

Introduction

Recent reports of ice-core drilling in Greenland have raised anew the question for young-earth creationists—How could so much ice accumulate in polar regions in only a few thousand years? Corings through the ice in central Greenland have reached depths of almost two miles, and ice at the bottom has been estimated to be as old as 250 thousand years.[1][2]

In a previous Impact article, [3] I suggested that thick ice sheets could be explained if high precipitation rates occurred immediately following the Flood. The "annual" layers of ice near the bottom of the ice sheet should be thicker than that expected by the uniformitarian model and contain unusual excursions of ð18O, acidity, and particulates. I further suggested that the "annual" layers deep in the Greenland ice sheet may be related to individual storms rather than seasonal accumulation.

Since my earlier article, two major advances in creationist research have led to greater confidence in the young-earth model of ice-sheet formation. First, the suggestion by Oard[4] that the oceans may have been warmer at the end of the Flood seems to have been strengthened by an analysis of sea-floor sediment data. Second, numerical modeling studies at the Institute for Creation Research show that warmer oceans would produce very high precipitation rates in polar regions in patterns required for the formation of ice sheets.

Warm Oceans After the Flood

Evidence for warm oceans in the past, cooling to the temperatures observed today, has been found in the chemical analysis of sea-floor sediments. Corings of sea-floor sediments have been made at almost 1000 sites on the bottom of the oceans, from the equator to the poles. Analysis of the ratio of the concentration of 18O to 16O in the skeletal remains of various ocean organisms in sea-floor sediments has allowed estimates to be made of the temperature of the ocean in the past. If a particular organism lived near the upper surface of the ocean, the measurement of its ratio allows an estimate to be made of the surface temperature during its lifetime. If a particular organism lived on the bottom, the ratio estimates the bottom temperature.



Figure 1 shows estimated temperature as a function of time for polar-bottom water, derived from the 18O/16O ratio of benthic foraminifera. Benthic foraminifera are marine microorganisms which live on the ocean bottom and deposit calcium shells on the ocean floor when they die. The time scale is shown according to the Ussher Chronology, in which the Flood is calculated to have occurred about 4,500 years ago. A major assumption in constructing this plot from the original data[5][6] was the location of the appropriate level in the sea-floor sediment for the end of the Genesis Flood. It has been assumed that the Flood ended at the interface between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods. According to the long-age, evolutionary time model, this so-called K/T boundary occurred about 65 million years ago.

The standard long-age view holds that the oceans were warmer than 20° C some 65 million years ago and have cooled slowly since then to the temperatures we observe today. According to this view the dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures lived in a much warmer climate. As the oceans cooled, a series of "Ice Ages" occurred, modulated by the orbital cycles of the earth's orbit around the sun. We are currently in an interglacial period, according to this model.

The young-earth, creationist view suggested by Figure 1 is that the oceans were warmer at the end of the Flood and cooled over the past 4,500 years to the temperature we observe today. Only one "Ice Age" has occurred and was, in fact, caused by the residual heat in the oceans left over from the Flood. The compression of the data from some 65 million years to only 4,500 years results in a plot which has the appearance of a standard Kelvin cooling curve, i.e., rapid cooling at first when the temperature gradient is the greatest, to slower cooling later when the gradient is less.

High Precipitation Rates in Polar Regions

In an attempt to show that warm ocean temperatures will result in heavy precipitation rates in polar regions a numerical simulation of the atmosphere was conducted on the Community Climate Model developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The model, which had previously only been run on a mainframe computer like the CRAY-YMP, was adapted to a 486 personal computer and validated with a standard simulation run for a perpetual January condition in today's atmosphere. The standard simulation run was found to match today's atmospheric conditions well.

Uniform 30° C sea-surface temperatures were then entered into the model, oceanic ice shelves removed, and the model started again with all other initial conditions the same. A short simulation run was completed. The conditions seem to force the model so strongly that equilibrium appears to have been achieved rapidly. However, the model will continue to be run in order to be certain. The model behaved significantly differently for the warm ocean than for today's conditions.



Figure 2 shows the precipitation rates over the entire globe for 100 days of simulated time, assuming seasoned conditions remain uniform. The precipitation rates are extreme in the polar regions and along the continental boundaries of the northern hemisphere. Rates exceed 8 inches/hr over Greenland, Antarctica, southeastern Asia, northeastern North America, northwestern Europe, and western Africa. The center of Asia and North America appear relatively dry. Of special interest is the relatively dry region from the eastern end of the Mediterranean eastward across the continent of Asia. This pattern may have been of particular value to Noah and his descendants as they left the Ark on Mt. Ararat and emigrated south and east.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The estimates of paleotemperatures from benthic foraminifera seem to strengthen the suggestion by Oard[4] that the oceans were originally warm at the end of the Flood and gradually cooled to the temperature observed today. Although this result is encouraging, more indicators of oceanic temperature change should be explored.

The numerical simulation of a global climate with warm oceans produces high precipitation rates in polar regions and along continental boundaries. High precipitation rates in these locations would probably have produced the necessary conditions for the rapid formation of ice sheets in Greenland, Antarctica, and North America. Numerous additional computer simulations and comparisons with historic data should be conducted to ensure that these findings are valid.

These two results, if confirmed, will go a long way toward bolstering the creationist model of the "Ice Age." The ice in the polar regions can then be considered a residual effect of the Flood, which was a judgment by God on the earth for the sins of man. Out of whose womb came the ice? It can be attributed to God, not to some impersonal natural process which occurred by chance over millions of years.

Acknowledgments

The Climate and Global Dynamics Division of the National Center for Atmospheric Research is gratefully acknowledged for providing a copy of the Community Climate Model used in this study. Mr. Steve Low and his colleagues at Hewlett- Packard donated the personal computer. Mr. Herman Daily donated his time and expertise to modify the model, designed to run on a CRAY.

Out of Whose Womb Came the Ice? | The Institute for Creation Research

Fossil Man



Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Castenedolo skeletons (a), Reck’s skeleton (b), and possibly others (c). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (d). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

a. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Imsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50–52, 82, 83.

W. H. B., “Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California, American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.

Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, “The Case for the Calaveras Skull, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248–256.

For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks the hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava that evolutionists would date at 25 million years old—too old to be human. See, for example:

Whitney, pp. 262–264, 266, 274–276.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294–301.

George F. Becker, “Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189–200.

b. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

Cousins and Whitney state that the Calaveras was fossilized. This does not mean that it was pre-flood. Fossilization depends on chemistry much more than time. Cousins, pp. 48-50, 81.

Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons:

“As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the ‘Castenedolo’ find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs. Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.

However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the unfossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Again, fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.

c. Bowden, pp. 183–193.

d. Ibid., pp. 79–88.

e. Fix, pp. 98–105.

J.*B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp.*316–318.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1517290 wrote:

Fossil Man



Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Castenedolo skeletons (a), Reck’s skeleton (b), and possibly others (c). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (d). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

a. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Imsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50–52, 82, 83.

W. H. B., “Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California, American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.

Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, “The Case for the Calaveras Skull, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248–256.

For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks the hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava that evolutionists would date at 25 million years old—too old to be human. See, for example:

Whitney, pp. 262–264, 266, 274–276.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294–301.

George F. Becker, “Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189–200.

b. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

Cousins and Whitney state that the Calaveras was fossilized. This does not mean that it was pre-flood. Fossilization depends on chemistry much more than time. Cousins, pp. 48-50, 81.

Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons:

“As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the ‘Castenedolo’ find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs. Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.

However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the unfossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Again, fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.

c. Bowden, pp. 183–193.

d. Ibid., pp. 79–88.

e. Fix, pp. 98–105.

J.�*B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp.�*316–318.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


Well, actually real science long ago proved that the Castenedolo skeletons were in fact, modern humans buried far more recently, by quite normal means into a clay and gravel bed far later than the dating of the clay and gravel.

just another straw dog creationists propped up to shoot down.

LarsMac;1517293 wrote: Well, actually real science long ago proved that the Castenedolo skeletons were in fact, modern humans buried far more recently, by quite normal means into a clay and gravel bed far later than the dating of the clay and gravel.

just another straw dog creationists propped up to shoot down.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

The Castenedolo skull

In the late summer of 1860, Professor Giuseppe Ragazzoni (1824-1898), a prominent geologist from the Istituto Techniche di Brescia (Brescia Technical Institute), was collecting fossil shells from Pliocene deposits at the base of a low hill called Colle di Vento at Castenedolo, about 10 km south-east of Brescia. There, he found an anatomically modern human skull, supposedly in a formation dating from the Astian stage of the Middle Pliocene, about three to four million years old. It had coral cemented onto it with blue clay. Nearby, he found bones belonging to the thorax and limbs.



The Castenedolo skull

Like so many of these nineteenth-century discoveries, the exact circumstances of the find are unclear; the most likely explanation is that the skull belonged to a relatively recent (and probably post-glacial) burial cut through this deposit. The archaeological applications of stratigraphy were not understood at this time, so a geologist working on Pliocene deposits would naturally assume that all bones and fossils from this stratum were contemporary with its formation. Although the anatomist Giuseppe Sergi (1841-1936) visited the site in 1883 and was unable to identify a grave cut, a skeleton was found at the site in 1889, when Sergi was able to confirm that it did indeed lie in a grave. A radiocarbon date obtained on the ribs in 1969 confirmed the recent date of the skull, with a determination of 958±116 bp (847-1271 Cal AD; BM-496); the presence of a second skeleton in a grave makes it likely that Ragazzoni had unknowingly stumbled upon a forgotten medieval cemetery.

The Castenedolo skull - Bad Archaeology

LarsMac;1517293 wrote: Well, actually real science long ago proved that the Castenedolo skeletons were in fact, modern humans buried far more recently, by quite normal means into a clay and gravel bed far later than the dating of the clay and gravel.

just another straw dog creationists propped up to shoot down.


Pahu;1517308 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

The Castenedolo skull

In the late summer of 1860, Professor Giuseppe Ragazzoni (1824-1898), a prominent geologist from the Istituto Techniche di Brescia (Brescia Technical Institute), was collecting fossil shells from Pliocene deposits at the base of a low hill called Colle di Vento at Castenedolo, about 10 km south-east of Brescia. There, he found an anatomically modern human skull, supposedly in a formation dating from the Astian stage of the Middle Pliocene, about three to four million years old. It had coral cemented onto it with blue clay. Nearby, he found bones belonging to the thorax and limbs.



The Castenedolo skull

Like so many of these nineteenth-century discoveries, the exact circumstances of the find are unclear; the most likely explanation is that the skull belonged to a relatively recent (and probably post-glacial) burial cut through this deposit. The archaeological applications of stratigraphy were not understood at this time, so a geologist working on Pliocene deposits would naturally assume that all bones and fossils from this stratum were contemporary with its formation. Although the anatomist Giuseppe Sergi (1841-1936) visited the site in 1883 and was unable to identify a grave cut, a skeleton was found at the site in 1889, when Sergi was able to confirm that it did indeed lie in a grave. A radiocarbon date obtained on the ribs in 1969 confirmed the recent date of the skull, with a determination of 958±116 bp (847-1271 Cal AD; BM-496); the presence of a second skeleton in a grave makes it likely that Ragazzoni had unknowingly stumbled upon a forgotten medieval cemetery.

The Castenedolo skull - Bad Archaeology


So how is this anything to do with "discipline of science", and how does it "prove creation and disprove evolution" ?

Science is involved with the research and the fact that the modern skeletons are found in strata dated by evolutionists as 3 to 4 million years old disproves evolution.

Pahu;1517310 wrote: Science is involved with the research and the fact that the modern skeletons are found in strata dated by evolutionists as 3 to 4 million years old disproves evolution.


Or of course the more logical explanation that it was a simple graveyard, dug by modern humans into clay and sand deposit that dated back to the pliocene.

LarsMac;1517311 wrote: Or of course the more logical explanation that it was a simple graveyard, dug by modern humans into clay and sand deposit that dated back to the pliocene.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Cold Comfort for Long-Agers



The well known proponent of “progressive creation and “millions of years, Hugh Ross, claims that the “old age of the earth derived from ice cores is a scientific argument that “¦may be simple enough for everyone to understand, regardless of science background—as simple as counting tree rings.1 He goes on to state:

The ice cores reveal hundreds of thousands of ice layers laid down on top of one another year by year, just as a tree adds one new growth ring per year.1

He lists the three new deep ice cores from on top of the Greenland Ice Sheet—the NorthGRIP, GISP2 and GRIP cores—and the three deep ice cores from the top of the Antarctic Ice Sheet—Dome Fuji, Vostok, and Dome C. The Dome C core is said to have reached 740,000 years (740 kyr), but just recently it has been drilled down to the 900 kyr age level. You can read more about the issue of ice cores in the new book The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.2

Ross makes it seem that annual layers were counted to many hundreds of thousands of years in these ice cores. It is actually the GISP2 core, only, where annual layers have been “counted, and they were counted to only “110,000 years, near the bottom of the core. It is very important to understand that most of these alleged annual layers are concentrated in the bottom several hundred meters of the core, and that their interpretation as “annual is very questionable. Glaciologists expected to see several glacial/interglacial 100,000-year cycles in the Greenland core, but the evidence points to one ice age. (Antarctic ice cores are a different situation, as explained below.)

Ross goes on to point out that glaciologists “know that the layers are annual because of volcanic ash signatures, climatic cycles, radiometric dating of minerals embedded in the ice, and a 3.9 million year deep-sea core off New Zealand’s Southern Alps. He emphasizes that the Milankovitch climatic cycles, as well as the deep-sea core off New Zealand, “match perfectly with the dates from the ice cores. Ross summarizes with what he thinks is irrefutable, simple evidence that anyone can understand:

Such a calibration builds confidence that these cores yield a continuous climatic, geological, and astronomical record for the past few million years at least.1

Problems





There are a host of problems with Ross’s simplistic understanding of ice cores. First, volcanic ash signatures beyond about 200 years are equivocal for a number of reasons, especially because the historical record older than 200 years becomes more sketchy the older the eruption. 2,000 years seems to be the maximum for which any volcanic ash signal and the historical record can be correlated.3 Hammer, who was the first scientist to use volcanic signatures, states:

The use of volcanic reference horizons in ice cores, however, has not been widely used. The reason is twofold: First, before volcanic horizons could be used for dating purposes it was necessary to establish a time scale independent of any subjective interpretations of the volcanic signals (by seasonal variables). Second, the information on past volcanic eruptions is limited and the dating of the eruptions is not very precise, apart from certain well-documented historical eruptions.4

Second, the use of climatic cycles from the astronomical or Milankovitch theory of the ice age (Ross’s second and fourth indicator above) is an exercise in circular reasoning.5 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores are tuned to the deep-sea cores, which are dated assuming the astronomical or Milankovitch theory of the ice age:

Taking advantage of the fact that the Vostok deuterium (δD) record now covers almost two entire climate cycles, we have applied the orbital tuning approach to derive an age-depth relation for the Vostok ice core, which is consistent with the SPECMAP marine time scale [from deep-sea cores]¦The deep-sea core chronology developed using the concept of “orbital tuning or SPECMAP chronology¦is now generally accepted in the ocean sediment scientific community.6

“Orbital tuning refers to the cycles in the astronomical theory. This quote is referring to the first two cycles in the Vostok core, but since then, glaciologists have drilled deeper at Vostok and added more cycles from Dome Fuji and Dome C—clear to the ninth cycle in Dome C. This is how the Antarctic ice cores are dated—simply by curve matching with deep-sea cores! Annual layers cannot be derived from ice cores drilled on top of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, as implied by Ross, since the snowfall rate (less than 5 cm of water equivalent per year) is too light for annual layer dating. As far as the strong oscillations in δD, presumably correlated to temperature, in these Antarctic cores are concerned, Oard suggests that they are similar to the large oscillations in the Greenland Ice Age portion of the cores but with higher amplitude.7

Further evidence of circular reasoning, via tuning the ice core chronology to the astronomical theory of the ice age, is shown in the Greenland ice cores. This was demonstrated when Deborah Meese and colleagues first dated the GISP2 core by “annual layers down to the 2,800 meter level at 85,000 years BP (before present).8 However, the date at this level disagreed with the deep-sea cores and the astronomical theory, so the layer between 2,300 and 2,800 meters was ‘remeasured’ to a finer resolution. They found 25,000 more annual layers in that 500-meter interval to arrive at 110,000 years at 2,800 meters, just as expected from the chronology from deep-sea cores!9

Glaciologists do measure annual layers near the top of the Greenland ice cores, but deeper down the cores, they are picking up subannual layers (storm layers and other variations). The uniformitarian scientists are simply assuming the ice sheets are old, and so “old age is what they find. Creationists have an alternative interpretation in which the post-Flood rapid Ice Age causes very thick annual layers during the Ice Age followed by a decrease to the current annual snowfall of today.2,10-14

The third indicator according to Ross is radiometric dating of minerals embedded in the ice. Ross does not provide a reference, and we do not know to what he is referring. Since Ross mentions that the dating is on radioactive minerals in the ice, in situ carbon-14 measurements on gas bubbles in the ice and beryllium-10 measurements on ice are eliminated. The minerals in the ice are likely from dust blown onto the ice sheet after erosion from some other area. There is no theoretical reason why the dates of the dust particles should agree with the age of the ice determined by other uniformitarian methods. But Ross, always exaggerating, says that in each case when they compare dates, the dates “agree!

He goes on to chastise young-earth creationists who have written on the subject by citing only a sample of the creationist literature,15-17 claiming that we have done an incomplete analysis on the ice cores. He claims that Vardiman and Oard have shown problems at the top and bottom of the cores that we claim invalidate the whole dating analysis. Vardiman presented another variable, besides temperature change, to account for the general trend of the oxygen isotope ratios in the ice age portion of the Greenland cores. This work was based on the well-known continental effect applied to gradually increasing sea ice.18 Oard presented problems of simply assuming that uniformitarian scientists have counted 110,000 annual layer down the GISP2 ice core. These two studies relate to more than the top and bottom of the Greenland ice cores. Ross never analyzed the merits of the two studies nor refuted any of the conclusion or suggestions. Furthermore, he has not included several of Oard’s latest challenges to the conventional ice core interpretation.19-21 Ross’s challenge is a very incomplete analysis of the literature available before he wrote his article. Furthermore, he misinterprets the little he has read.

Ross also mentions the possible disturbance at the bottom of the GISP2 core, which was not even mentioned by Vardiman or myself. The disturbance in the bottom 200 meters of the GISP2 cores was used to invalidate an interpretation from the nearby GRIP core of huge abrupt climate changes during the last supposed interglacial. This disturbance does not look too significant to me, and previous conclusions of wild fluctuations at the bottom of the GRIP core seem more correct.22

Ross then claims that Wieland’s analysis of the lost squadron of planes buried below 250 feet of ice in 50 years was offered as proof against the uniformitarian dating of the Greenland ice cores.23 Wieland was using this example to show that it does not take a vast amount of time to lay down thick layers of ice.24 Ross correctly points out that the southeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet is a relatively warm area with very high snowfall. However, this situation shows that with a different climate regime during the Ice Age with no sea ice and a warm ocean, the rapid development of the Greenland Ice Sheet can occur.25 Of course, the snowfall rate is much less at the top of the high ice sheet today. However, even at the current average snowfall for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, it still would take only 5,000 years to deposit all the ice.26

Such superficial research and interpretation seems to be typical of Ross’s style: just go to the journals and believe all the uniformitarians say—hook, line, and sinker. Based on his demonstrated total reliance on uniformitarian interpretations and speculations (his so-called 67th book of the Bible), he shows that he has read little of both the uniformitarian and creationist literature on the subject of ice cores.

Ross makes a case at the end that God also speaks to us from nature and that both special and general revelation should agree. We do believe that God indeed does speak to us through general revelation, but nature is subservient to God’s Word; the Bible comes first. And besides, Ross believes more in the speculations of sinful men that were not there and who are antagonistic towards God’s Word (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003

/0529charisma.asp#book67). He also downgrades God’s clear word in Genesis 1 when he says such things as:

The ice and sediment cores provide compelling extrabiblical evidence that the earth is indeed ancient. This evidence supports the literal interpretation of creation days in Genesis 1 as six long epochs [emphasis mine].27

We believe that the raw data of nature agrees with the Bible and young earth creationism—i.e. with a straightforward reading of Genesis as history, just as the Lord Jesus Christ took it to be (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation

/v23/i1/howold.asp#jesus_age; http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004

/1101ankerberg_response.asp). Furthermore, both the Bible and the data of science refute Ross’s ideas.28-31

Cold Comfort for Long-Agers | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1517312 wrote: The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Cold Comfort for Long-Agers



The well known proponent of “progressive creation and “millions of years, Hugh Ross, claims that the “old age of the earth derived from ice cores is a scientific argument that “¦may be simple enough for everyone to understand, regardless of science background—as simple as counting tree rings.1 He goes on to state:

The ice cores reveal hundreds of thousands of ice layers laid down on top of one another year by year, just as a tree adds one new growth ring per year.1

He lists the three new deep ice cores from on top of the Greenland Ice Sheet—the NorthGRIP, GISP2 and GRIP cores—and the three deep ice cores from the top of the Antarctic Ice Sheet—Dome Fuji, Vostok, and Dome C. The Dome C core is said to have reached 740,000 years (740 kyr), but just recently it has been drilled down to the 900 kyr age level. You can read more about the issue of ice cores in the new book The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.2

Ross makes it seem that annual layers were counted to many hundreds of thousands of years in these ice cores. It is actually the GISP2 core, only, where annual layers have been “counted, and they were counted to only “110,000 years, near the bottom of the core. It is very important to understand that most of these alleged annual layers are concentrated in the bottom several hundred meters of the core, and that their interpretation as “annual is very questionable. Glaciologists expected to see several glacial/interglacial 100,000-year cycles in the Greenland core, but the evidence points to one ice age. (Antarctic ice cores are a different situation, as explained below.)

Ross goes on to point out that glaciologists “know that the layers are annual because of volcanic ash signatures, climatic cycles, radiometric dating of minerals embedded in the ice, and a 3.9 million year deep-sea core off New Zealand’s Southern Alps. He emphasizes that the Milankovitch climatic cycles, as well as the deep-sea core off New Zealand, “match perfectly with the dates from the ice cores. Ross summarizes with what he thinks is irrefutable, simple evidence that anyone can understand:

Such a calibration builds confidence that these cores yield a continuous climatic, geological, and astronomical record for the past few million years at least.1

Problems





There are a host of problems with Ross’s simplistic understanding of ice cores. First, volcanic ash signatures beyond about 200 years are equivocal for a number of reasons, especially because the historical record older than 200 years becomes more sketchy the older the eruption. 2,000 years seems to be the maximum for which any volcanic ash signal and the historical record can be correlated.3 Hammer, who was the first scientist to use volcanic signatures, states:

The use of volcanic reference horizons in ice cores, however, has not been widely used. The reason is twofold: First, before volcanic horizons could be used for dating purposes it was necessary to establish a time scale independent of any subjective interpretations of the volcanic signals (by seasonal variables). Second, the information on past volcanic eruptions is limited and the dating of the eruptions is not very precise, apart from certain well-documented historical eruptions.4

Second, the use of climatic cycles from the astronomical or Milankovitch theory of the ice age (Ross’s second and fourth indicator above) is an exercise in circular reasoning.5 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores are tuned to the deep-sea cores, which are dated assuming the astronomical or Milankovitch theory of the ice age:

Taking advantage of the fact that the Vostok deuterium (δD) record now covers almost two entire climate cycles, we have applied the orbital tuning approach to derive an age-depth relation for the Vostok ice core, which is consistent with the SPECMAP marine time scale [from deep-sea cores]¦The deep-sea core chronology developed using the concept of “orbital tuning or SPECMAP chronology¦is now generally accepted in the ocean sediment scientific community.6

“Orbital tuning refers to the cycles in the astronomical theory. This quote is referring to the first two cycles in the Vostok core, but since then, glaciologists have drilled deeper at Vostok and added more cycles from Dome Fuji and Dome C—clear to the ninth cycle in Dome C. This is how the Antarctic ice cores are dated—simply by curve matching with deep-sea cores! Annual layers cannot be derived from ice cores drilled on top of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, as implied by Ross, since the snowfall rate (less than 5 cm of water equivalent per year) is too light for annual layer dating. As far as the strong oscillations in δD, presumably correlated to temperature, in these Antarctic cores are concerned, Oard suggests that they are similar to the large oscillations in the Greenland Ice Age portion of the cores but with higher amplitude.7

Further evidence of circular reasoning, via tuning the ice core chronology to the astronomical theory of the ice age, is shown in the Greenland ice cores. This was demonstrated when Deborah Meese and colleagues first dated the GISP2 core by “annual layers down to the 2,800 meter level at 85,000 years BP (before present).8 However, the date at this level disagreed with the deep-sea cores and the astronomical theory, so the layer between 2,300 and 2,800 meters was ‘remeasured’ to a finer resolution. They found 25,000 more annual layers in that 500-meter interval to arrive at 110,000 years at 2,800 meters, just as expected from the chronology from deep-sea cores!9

Glaciologists do measure annual layers near the top of the Greenland ice cores, but deeper down the cores, they are picking up subannual layers (storm layers and other variations). The uniformitarian scientists are simply assuming the ice sheets are old, and so “old age is what they find. Creationists have an alternative interpretation in which the post-Flood rapid Ice Age causes very thick annual layers during the Ice Age followed by a decrease to the current annual snowfall of today.2,10-14

The third indicator according to Ross is radiometric dating of minerals embedded in the ice. Ross does not provide a reference, and we do not know to what he is referring. Since Ross mentions that the dating is on radioactive minerals in the ice, in situ carbon-14 measurements on gas bubbles in the ice and beryllium-10 measurements on ice are eliminated. The minerals in the ice are likely from dust blown onto the ice sheet after erosion from some other area. There is no theoretical reason why the dates of the dust particles should agree with the age of the ice determined by other uniformitarian methods. But Ross, always exaggerating, says that in each case when they compare dates, the dates “agree!

He goes on to chastise young-earth creationists who have written on the subject by citing only a sample of the creationist literature,15-17 claiming that we have done an incomplete analysis on the ice cores. He claims that Vardiman and Oard have shown problems at the top and bottom of the cores that we claim invalidate the whole dating analysis. Vardiman presented another variable, besides temperature change, to account for the general trend of the oxygen isotope ratios in the ice age portion of the Greenland cores. This work was based on the well-known continental effect applied to gradually increasing sea ice.18 Oard presented problems of simply assuming that uniformitarian scientists have counted 110,000 annual layer down the GISP2 ice core. These two studies relate to more than the top and bottom of the Greenland ice cores. Ross never analyzed the merits of the two studies nor refuted any of the conclusion or suggestions. Furthermore, he has not included several of Oard’s latest challenges to the conventional ice core interpretation.19-21 Ross’s challenge is a very incomplete analysis of the literature available before he wrote his article. Furthermore, he misinterprets the little he has read.

Ross also mentions the possible disturbance at the bottom of the GISP2 core, which was not even mentioned by Vardiman or myself. The disturbance in the bottom 200 meters of the GISP2 cores was used to invalidate an interpretation from the nearby GRIP core of huge abrupt climate changes during the last supposed interglacial. This disturbance does not look too significant to me, and previous conclusions of wild fluctuations at the bottom of the GRIP core seem more correct.22

Ross then claims that Wieland’s analysis of the lost squadron of planes buried below 250 feet of ice in 50 years was offered as proof against the uniformitarian dating of the Greenland ice cores.23 Wieland was using this example to show that it does not take a vast amount of time to lay down thick layers of ice.24 Ross correctly points out that the southeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet is a relatively warm area with very high snowfall. However, this situation shows that with a different climate regime during the Ice Age with no sea ice and a warm ocean, the rapid development of the Greenland Ice Sheet can occur.25 Of course, the snowfall rate is much less at the top of the high ice sheet today. However, even at the current average snowfall for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, it still would take only 5,000 years to deposit all the ice.26

Such superficial research and interpretation seems to be typical of Ross’s style: just go to the journals and believe all the uniformitarians say—hook, line, and sinker. Based on his demonstrated total reliance on uniformitarian interpretations and speculations (his so-called 67th book of the Bible), he shows that he has read little of both the uniformitarian and creationist literature on the subject of ice cores.

Ross makes a case at the end that God also speaks to us from nature and that both special and general revelation should agree. We do believe that God indeed does speak to us through general revelation, but nature is subservient to God’s Word; the Bible comes first. And besides, Ross believes more in the speculations of sinful men that were not there and who are antagonistic towards God’s Word (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003

/0529charisma.asp#book67). He also downgrades God’s clear word in Genesis 1 when he says such things as:

The ice and sediment cores provide compelling extrabiblical evidence that the earth is indeed ancient. This evidence supports the literal interpretation of creation days in Genesis 1 as six long epochs [emphasis mine].27

We believe that the raw data of nature agrees with the Bible and young earth creationism—i.e. with a straightforward reading of Genesis as history, just as the Lord Jesus Christ took it to be (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation

/v23/i1/howold.asp#jesus_age; http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004

/1101ankerberg_response.asp). Furthermore, both the Bible and the data of science refute Ross’s ideas.28-31

Cold Comfort for Long-Agers | The Institute for Creation Research


Well, to his credit, Mr Ross does not buy into the Young Earth stuff you keep coming up with, but that piece is probably one of the most inane collections of jibber-jabber you have ever offered as something that might "disprove Evolution"

LarsMac;1517314 wrote: Well, to his credit, Mr Ross does not buy into the Young Earth stuff you keep coming up with, but that piece is probably one of the most inane collections of jibber-jabber you have ever offered as something that might "disprove Evolution"


And he is refuted. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth


In an attempt to learn about past climates, scientists have drilled and extracted cylindrical cores from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Because of the great thickness of these sheets, the cores can have combined lengths of thousands of meters.

Permanent ice sheets probably did not exist in the pre-Flood world, but if they had, they almost certainly would have been destroyed during the great Flood. Hence, today’s high-latitude ice sheets have only had about 4,500 years—the time since the Flood—to grow to their present sizes.

Yet secular scientists assign very old ages to the ice deep within these cores. For instance, ice near the bottom of two Antarctic cores, the Vostok and EPICA Dome C cores, is said to be 400,000 and 800,000 years old, respectively. Clearly, these vast ages are incompatible with the Bible’s short timescale. Do ice cores present an unanswerable argument for an old earth?

“Deep Time Not Needed for Thick Ice Sheets

It should first be noted that vast amounts of time are not needed for the formation of thick ice sheets. Even if one grants the assumption that average high-latitude snowfall rates have been roughly constant throughout time, the Greenland ice sheet would need (in the absence of melting) only about 5,000 years to form, and the Antarctic ice sheets would require only about 10,200 years.1 Although these numbers are greater than the roughly 4,500 years since the Flood, they are easily compatible with the biblical model that predicts much higher snowfall rates during the post-Flood Ice Age.2

So the issue is not whether vast amounts of time are necessary for thick ice sheets to form—they clearly are not needed. Informed secular scientists know this but would still argue, based upon their models of Earth history, that the ice sheets have nevertheless existed for millions of years. So the key question is, “Have secular scientists really identified hundreds of thousands of annual layers within these ice sheets?

Visible Layers in Ice Cores

Snow and ice in the high latitudes generally do not melt even during the summer months—they accumulate over time. Layers of snow fall and are covered by subsequent layers. As layers of snow accrue, their vertical thickness increases, and the snow transforms into ice as the air is squeezed out.

This ice contains layers that are distinct from one another. For instance, depth hoar complexes can be identified and are used to assist in the dating of ice within a core. Depth hoar is essentially low-density snow characterized by large ice crystals (often cup-shaped) and can form in clear, calm weather when the temperature above the snow changes rapidly with increasing height. If this clear weather is followed by a large storm, then a crisp, firm surface called a wind crust or wind slab can form above the depth hoar. Such conditions can occur repeatedly, usually during the late summer/autumn months, resulting in a depth hoar complex.3

Glacial-Flow Models

Can scientists determine the elapsed time since a given ice layer was deposited by visually inspecting and counting presumed annual layers within the ice core? It may appear straightforward, but in actual practice there are a number of complicating factors.



Layering becomes more indistinct at greater depths within the core. Hence, scientists cannot simply visually examine and count the deeper layers if they want to extend the chronology into the more distant past. Nor can they simply guess the locations and number these deeper layers based on corresponding layer thicknesses higher in the core. This is because the weight of the overlying ice causes the layers to be forced downward and become progressively thinner at greater and greater core depths (Figure 1).

Hence a theoretical flow model is needed to convert a measured distance down the length of the core into a calculated time. In fact, flow models are actually the most common method of dating ice cores.4 In constructing their flow models, secular scientists assume that the ice sheets have been in existence for millions of years, and that they have maintained more or less the same heights for all that time. In other words, they base their models on the belief that the ice sheets have been in a nearly “steady state of equilibrium for millions of years.5 These assumptions naturally yield vast age assignments and an assumed extreme thinning of the deeper layers.

Creation scientists Larry Vardiman and Michael Oard have constructed their own flow models—models that assume the ice sheets began forming shortly after the Flood about 4,500 years ago.6,7 In a creation-Flood glacial-flow model, one would expect that such drastic thinning with depth would be absent. In fact, in creation-Flood ice flow models, these lower layers might actually be quite thick.

The Astronomical Theory

Although uniformitarian scientists would acknowledge that their flow models implicitly assume an old earth, they would argue that this assumption is justified, partly because the ages assigned to the ice cores agree with the expectations of a popular theory for ice ages called the astronomical or Milankovitch theory. According to this theory, ice ages are “paced by subtle increases and decreases in northern high-latitude summer sunlight. These variations are caused by subtle changes in the earth’s motions as it orbits the sun, changes that are thought to take tens of thousands of years. Because secular scientists assume the solar system is billions of years old, they believe they are free to extrapolate these motions backward hundreds of thousands of years into the supposed “prehistoric past.

Although the astronomical theory is currently popular, it is actually a theory from the 1800s, has a number of serious problems, and was previously rejected by meteorologists long ago.8

To better understand the link between the astronomical theory and the long ages assigned to the ice cores, it is necessary to discuss a topic that on the surface appears to have no connection whatsoever to the dating of ice cores: the chemistry of seafloor sediments.

The Oxygen Isotope Ratio

Much like the technique used in ice core research, scientists drill and extract cores from the ocean floor in an attempt to discern information about past climates. These sedimentary layers contain subtle variations in chemistry, including variations in something called the oxygen isotope ratio, indicated by the shorthand symbol δ18O.

There are two common varieties, or isotopes, of the oxygen atom. One of these, oxygen-18, is a little heavier than the other, oxygen-16. The oxygen isotope ratio simply measures the amount of oxygen-18 compared to oxygen-16 in a given sample, compared to a standard. Higher and more positive values of δ18O indicate an increased amount of oxygen-18 compared to oxygen-16, while more negative values indicate decreased amounts of oxygen-18.



Tiny marine organisms called Foraminifera (forams for short) build shells made of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), a molecule that contains oxygen. These forams use both oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 to construct their shells. When these organisms die, their shells drift downward to the ocean bottom and become part of the ocean sediments. From the remains of these shells, researchers can determine values of the oxygen isotope ratio at different depths within the sediment cores. Secular scientists believe that variations in the δ18O values indicate past changes in climate. When these δ18O values are plotted on a graph, they “wiggle, increasing and decreasing at various depths within the sediment core (Figure 2). Secular scientists view these oxygen isotope ratios as climate indicators—higher values of δ18O within the sediments are thought to indicate ice ages.

However, serious difficulties arise when attempting to infer past climates from the chemistry of seafloor sediments. The δ18O value of the foram shell depends upon both the seawater temperature at the time the foram shell was being formed and the past δ18O value of the surrounding seawater (also at the time of shell formation). Because δ18O values within the high-latitude ice sheets are much lower than oceanic δ18O values, the growth or melting of these large ice sheets can noticeably affect oceanic δ18O values. Furthermore, seawater temperature at the time of the shell’s formation depends upon not just long-term average temperatures, but also upon local short-term temperature variations in time and space, so it is not obvious how much of the variation in foram δ18O values is due to global average temperatures, how much is due to local temperature fluctuations, and how much is due to variations in global ice volume. For this reason, the secular interpretation of these foram δ18O changes has changed over the years: secular scientists used to believe that variations in foraminiferal δ18O values were mainly indicators of changes in temperature, but now they see them more as indicators of changes in global ice volume. These ambiguities, as well as other complications, make inferring information about past climates from the chemistry of seafloor sediments extremely problematic.9

Simply Counting Layers?

But skeptics might counter that the old-earth assumptions are still justified because hundreds of thousands of annual layers have supposedly been counted, seemingly independent of any questionable model assumptions. The GISP2 core from Greenland is frequently mentioned, since the ice at a depth of 2,800 meters in this core is said to be 110,000 years old. One critic goes so far as to claim that the GISP2 core is the “ultimate proof that a global, worldwide flood could not have occurred.12

But the critics are mistaken. Even the deep GISP2 core does not demand long ages, and this topic is the subject of a future article.

Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth, Part 1 | The Institute for Creation Research Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth, Part 1 | The Institute for Creation Research]