Atheistforums.com

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

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

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

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138&Itemid=71
http://www.apologeticspress.ws/articles/1762
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137
http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html
http://www.existence-of-god.com/existence-of-god.html
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PM
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared

Prove it.

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PMwhich is impossible by any natural cause.

prove that too.

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PMTherefor the cause of the universe was supernatural

Also prove that, after which you can prove to us exactly how it means the following:

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PMproving the existence of God.

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PMUnless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You are the one asserting something. Its not up to us to disprove it but up to you to prove it. Just so we are clear, a link to an article on apologesticspress.com is not going to cut it.

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PMThe fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause

Such a thing has never been verified in science.

You entire post is nothing but your own assertions and wishful thinking masquerading as "facts" and the cherry on top of the bullshit sundae is that you shift the burden of proof off of yourself at the end of it.

Get proof or get lost.

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PM
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

While it's true there's a lot we don't understand in the moments immediately after the Big Bang or what might have prompted the Big Bang to occur in the first place, that doesn't mean evolution is bunk. It's an even bigger logical fallacy to then state, because it can't be evolution, the only explanation is God. If there truly was nothing before God created it, where was God when this was happening? His vacation home in the Maldives?

Let me guess, it just so also happens to be the Christian God? I'm going to guess you also don't think it's strange that billions of years of cosmic existence, and it all boils down to a a few people a few thousand years ago in the tiny space that is the Middle East, which exists on an imperfect planet in the boondocks of an unremarkable galaxy, which is only a tiny fraction of the universe... Sure, that's an explanation. But clowns farting us into existence is an equally likely one.

Can we not just be honest and say that it's more likely that we created God in our image than he created us in his?

Can't prove a negative.
You have no way of proving to me the Easter bunny does NOT exist. That's the reason the burden of proof always lies with the person who claimed the positive. It's just common sense.

No one knows what occurred 14.6 Billion years ago. Mankind has been around for such a minute amount of time compared to the universe. We can check on stuff millions of years ago up to even the 4.5 billion years here on earth because we are here and evidence was left.
TO be able to know absolutely everything from the beginning is just wishful thinking. We can't even reliably leave the planet and travel anywhere where there would likely be more clues.
We still discover new creatures here on this planet. Just think about that, we still don't know everything that's going on here, yet you expect we should know everything about the universe.

Any theory right now is just speculation at this point. Still not proven, nor dis-proven.

Regarding evolution, how do you account for the millions of pieces of evidence which is blatantly available at your local museum, your text books, your science class? We aren't talking about theories and ideas which are not tangible, you can literally hold a fossil, date it, and match it to similar creatures living today.

I am certainly positive you have no background in biology, by which I mean a degree, in order to assert these things.
I don't either, but I have read from the experts and I understand them, therefore there is no burden on me to prove anything.
There are no organizations from reputable biologists anywhere which have the consensus that evolution is false. Not one. There are groups of people, but none of them are of the scientific community with specializations in biology. You know why? Because scientists in groups like this all agree that evolution is fact.

Quote from: TomFoolery on April 16, 2016, 02:36:51 PM
While it's true there's a lot we don't understand in the moments immediately after the Big Bang or what might have prompted the Big Bang to occur in the first place, that doesn't mean evolution is bunk. It's an even bigger logical fallacy to then state, because it can't be evolution, the only explanation is God. If there truly was nothing before God created it, where was God when this was happening? His vacation home in the Maldives?

Let me guess, it just so also happens to be the Christian God? I'm going to guess you also don't think it's strange that billions of years of cosmic existence, and it all boils down to a a few people a few thousand years ago in the tiny space that is the Middle East, which exists on an imperfect planet in the boondocks of an unremarkable galaxy, which is only a tiny fraction of the universe... Sure, that's an explanation. But clowns farting us into existence is an equally likely one.

Can we not just be honest and say that it's more likely that we created God in our image than he created us in his?

Best part about the middle east at the time which 'god' chose to reveal himself to, China was centuries ahead of these people in terms of culture and science, yet 'god' chose these backward people to start the rest of mankind from.

I think I'm having an anxiety attack.

The title of this thread alone is an Oxymoron. Science can't disprove evolution because to disprove evolution you'd have to disprove all of science itself. Simply put for your primate mind your title basically translates as Science disproves Science.

Hell years ago human beings couldn't drink milk after a certain time after babyhood. We literally evolved to drink milk no matter how old we are. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/12/27/168144785/an-evolutionary-whodunit-how-did-humans-develop-lactose-tolerance

Pahu - no intro?

Yes, scientists sometimes claim, for research money, more than their investigations can show ;-).  But the Old Earth (4.5 billion years) and Biological Evolution (1.0 billion years) theories are pretty well demonstrated.  Early Universe (older than 13 billion years) and Early Earth Life (older than 1 billion years) are less well demonstrated.  There is no evidence of supernatural phenomena for anything in the last 1 billion years.  At best, current science would only support Deism.

No.

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PM
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared,

And you know this for a fact how exactly? And before you answer, you're gonna wanna click the link below and study up on that concept a little bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof)

Oh goody--another drive-by.  But if you do stick around, Pahu, you will be beaten like the drum you claim to be.  And we will be dancing the hula to the beat.

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PM
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared,

oh yeah…the old….we don't know thus we make shit up ploy…..how very…er….original…









LOLOLOL

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 16, 2016, 05:37:51 PM
Oh goody--another drive-by.  But if you do stick around, Pahu, you will be beaten like the drum you claim to be.  And we will be dancing the hula to the beat.

Some of us prefer to shake maracas, just to mix it up a little.

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PMevolutionists/atheists

I love how these two groups get lumped together by creationists.  (apparently theists who believe in evolution don't fit in their worldview, much like a significant portion of science)  It'd be like saying magneticists/atheists or atomists/atheists.  It's actually quite a compliment to be regarded so closely with a field of science.  Next, they really ought to say astronomers/atheists.  :P

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PM
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

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

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

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138&Itemid=71
http://www.apologeticspress.ws/articles/1762
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137
http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html
http://www.existence-of-god.com/existence-of-god.html
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Yeah..... and you knew that all along. What is or is not scientific in these fields doesn't depend on fancy and willful deductive rationalisations. It depends on observations (facts) that stay in line with theories that successfully integrate observations. "Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared" isn't actually an observation. It's an opinion.

Gerard

(http://i.imgur.com/gWmR1q1.png)

Hmmmm..... probably a one time wonder here...

Gerard

Quote from: Pahu on April 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PM
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

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

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

You confuse me.
Your ill-found blatant, unsupported assertions and shifting of the burden of proof aside, why the hell do you call your thread "Science Disproves Evolution" and then continue to not only not say anything at all about evolution in your opening statement, but also leave out any science whatsoever?

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 16, 2016, 07:24:36 PM
You confuse me.
Your ill-found blatant, unsupported assertions and shifting of the burden of proof aside, why the hell do you call your thread "Science Disproves Evolution" and then continue to not only not say anything at all about evolution in your opening statement, but also leave out any science whatsoever?

Mr. Obvious, you have to understand that some people don't think that way and also equate biological evolution with just about anything else they can lay their hands on. Mainly to satisfy some religious or political stances they hold. The quote "Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God" as the conclusion derived from "Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared", basically says it all. For them, biological evolution must apply to the same unproven rules. Which they just made up....

Gerard

Quote from: TomFoolery on April 16, 2016, 06:06:18 PM
Some of us prefer to shake maracas, just to mix it up a little.

A pahu is a type of traditional Hawaiian drum used typically for a hula.  Can't use maracas in Hawaii--can you????

Quote from: Gerard on April 16, 2016, 07:47:06 PM
The quote "Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God"

Yet somehow no one ever seems to want to accept that if the cause of the universe is indeed supernatural, it could be something supernatural other than the Christian god. Even if I were the accept all the bullshit that leads up to the idea that the universe couldn't just exist without supernatural intervention for one reason or another (too complex, too improbable, too 'perfect'), I have never yet once heard someone explain why the Christian god is the answer. It's always just... therefore God (of the Christian Bible). No one has ever attempted to defend why it couldn't be equally probable that the Norse myths involving frost giants or the Iroquois giant turtle are the real source of all life on the planet.

Well, of course we've gone into space and determined that our planet isn't a giant turtle, but we've also been around long enough to know that virtually every step of the Genesis story trips over itself, such as having a planet with light, plants, and liquid water but no sun or other stars until the 4th day.

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 16, 2016, 08:19:07 PM
A pahu is a type of traditional Hawaiian drum used typically for a hula.  Can't use maracas in Hawaii--can you????

Don't they have those coconut things?

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 16, 2016, 07:24:36 PMYou confuse me.
Your ill-found blatant, unsupported assertions and shifting of the burden of proof aside, why the hell do you call your thread "Science Disproves Evolution" and then continue to not only not say anything at all about evolution in your opening statement, but also leave out any science whatsoever?

Because creationists aren't actually interested in science.  They're interested in combating atheism.  They falsely/flatteringly identify evolution as an atheistic creed and "refute" it just like they'd refute any other competing religious belief.  It's like stabbing the ocean so that it bleeds to death.  A century and change later, and they're still at it, wondering why they're laughed at.

I don't get the point of these one shot people. I mean what is the point? Do you think people would be converted if you state your flawed world view on an Atheist Forum? No this is the internet, where everything is analyzed and debated, no holds bar.

And obviously this is what goes on in that person's head: "my world view is right so I'm gonna post it in an Atheist forum to try and convert some atheist, and you know while I'm at it let me try and see if i can convert some evolutionists as well, after all there the same, but I'm not gonna bother to come back because I'm afraid to have my world view challenged....I mean ummm I'm right and they're wrong MEH!!!"  And then he goes and fuck his cousin and drinks a beer under the confederate flag while wearing a Donald Trump button and then masturbates to Gods Not Dead I and 2.

I mean this level of stupidity shouldn't exist anymore.

The universe was always there it just expanded from a hot dense state approximately 13.8 billion years ago, God is unnecessary and requires too many assumptions thus by Ockham's razor the non-existence of God is more logical.

Darwinism is a scientifically tenable theory whereas creationism is not.

@Baruch

Even deism is scientifically unsubstantiated.

Quote from: TomFoolery on April 16, 2016, 08:23:24 PM
Yet somehow no one ever seems to want to accept that if the cause of the universe is indeed supernatural, it could be something supernatural other than the Christian god. Even if I were the accept all the bullshit that leads up to the idea that the universe couldn't just exist without supernatural intervention for one reason or another (too complex, too improbable, too 'perfect'), I have never yet once heard someone explain why the Christian god is the answer. It's always just... therefore God (of the Christian Bible). No one has ever attempted to defend why it couldn't be equally probable that the Norse myths involving frost giants or the Iroquois giant turtle are the real source of all life on the planet.

Well, of course we've gone into space and determined that our planet isn't a giant turtle, but we've also been around long enough to know that virtually every step of the Genesis story trips over itself, such as having a planet with light, plants, and liquid water but no sun or other stars until the 4th day.
Don't they have those coconut things?

Well basically the universe exists. Existence exists. We can't second guess that. Whatever we might think (or believe) about that. The necessity of existence having a beginning or a creation from nothing.... How can we even contemplate that? We don't know sh&* about that! The idea that existence must have suddenly sprong from nothing (what is that anyway even) is, as I have said before, just an opinion. To make that into some story is just....... Culturally valuable no doubt but apart from that not particularly useful.


Gerard

I always wonder about theists arguing that the universe came from a situation where nothing was before and how that has to be explained by an eternal deity. An eternal deity being decidedly not nothing..... Which somehow defeats the very idea that something came from nothing.... needing something (god)

Gerard

Quote from: Gerard on April 16, 2016, 07:11:23 PM
Hmmmm..... probably a one time wonder here...

Gerard

So far all we've disproved is the original poster.

One post = One troll

Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on April 16, 2016, 09:01:04 PM
The universe was always there it just expanded from a hot dense state approximately 13.8 billion years ago, God is unnecessary and requires too many assumptions thus by Ockham's razor the non-existence of God is more logical.

Darwinism is a scientifically tenable theory whereas creationism is not.

@Baruch

Even deism is scientifically unsubstantiated.

I was responding to the OP ... who is a theist.  I was keeping it engaged yet simple, not dismissive.

"At best, current science would only support Deism." ... support not prove nor demonstrate.  And IMHO ... other theisms are supported as well, just not childish theisms ;-)  Science only proves that scientists are geeks ... the followers of dead Greeks.  When they watch the shapes of clouds, they don't see dragons, they see Newton or Einstein ;-)

Quote from: Nonsensei on April 16, 2016, 02:24:28 PM
Prove it.

It is a self evident fact that something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause. Are you able to show where something has come from nothing by a natural cause?

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 10:43:45 AM
It is a self evident fact that something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause. Are you able to show where something has come from nothing by a natural cause?

The grammar hurts... Can you rephrase that so we can understand it?

QuoteThe vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[24] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[25][26]

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[27] pseudoscience,[28][29] or junk science.[30][31] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[32] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[33] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[34]

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[3] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[23]

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[35][36][37][38] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[22] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.[39][40]

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time â€" 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists â€" that living things have evolved due to natural processes â€" is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

End of discussion. carry on.

Quote from: TomFoolery on April 16, 2016, 02:36:51 PM
While it's true there's a lot we don't understand in the moments immediately after the Big Bang or what might have prompted the Big Bang to occur in the first place, that doesn't mean evolution is bunk.

I am referring to the time before matter existed.

QuoteIt's an even bigger logical fallacy to then state, because it can't be evolution, the only explanation is God.

It is quite logical. Since the universe had a beginning, before which there was nothing from which is appeared. Since it could not create itself when it did not exist, then the only logical alternative is it had to have been created. That demands a Creator.

QuoteIf there truly was nothing before God created it, where was God when this was happening?

God resides in eternity.

QuoteLet me guess, it just so also happens to be the Christian God?

That's a good guess.

QuoteI'm going to guess you also don't think it's strange that billions of years of cosmic existence, and it all boils down to a a few people a few thousand years ago in the tiny space that is the Middle East, which exists on an imperfect planet in the boondocks of an unremarkable galaxy, which is only a tiny fraction of the universe... Sure, that's an explanation.

Billions of years of cosmic existence is evidence free speculation.

QuoteCan we not just be honest and say that it's more likely that we created God in our image than he created us in his?

What is honest about that? All gods have been created by man except the one and only true, living, creator God of the Bible. Here are the facts:



1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bible-and-archaeology-how-archaeology-confirms-the-biblical-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm

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

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

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

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101lastdays.cfm
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

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

The bible is fiction

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-bible-is-fiction-a-collection-of-evidence/

Understand? By continually going to apologist sources and not looking at any other, you merely perpetrate a belief, neither prove nor disprove it.

Apply scientific method to your apologists. Set out to disprove it. Surprise- you can. I know because I did.

Evidence that casts doubt on any part casts doubt on the whole. Truth is either all true or not at all. I am here because I STUDIED the evidence objectively. Try that and see what happens, ere you are booted off of here.

Quote from: RCnal on April 16, 2016, 02:43:18 PM
Regarding evolution, how do you account for the millions of pieces of evidence which is blatantly available at your local museum, your text books, your science class? We aren't talking about theories and ideas which are not tangible, you can literally hold a fossil, date it, and match it to similar creatures living today.

The fossil record has no transitional fossils. They all appear suddenly and perfectly able to survive in their different environments.

Quote
There are no organizations from reputable biologists anywhere which have the consensus that evolution is false. Not one.

Actually there are. Here are a couple:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm

QuoteThere are groups of people, but none of them are of the scientific community with specializations in biology. You know why? Because scientists in groups like this all agree that evolution is fact.

Not all, see above. Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

The only thing this proves is you are stuck into religion the same way an Ostrich head is stuck into the ground. You cannot win any debate here because you are johnny come lately in that department. Since you are not willing to address or look at opposing evidence it merely means you are a narrow minded, one note Samba just like every other creationist that comes here. Carry on.

Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface (a). (Unsuccessful searches have been made for these deepâ€"and very valuableâ€"meteorites, including in the Grand Canyon and along conveyor belts in coal processing plants.) Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers (b). If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found directly above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, those basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.

Similar conclusions can be made about rock slides, which are usually found at the Earth’s surface (c).

a. “In older geologic formations, no signs whatsoever of the presence of meteorites have been found ... If we consider, moreover, that since the onset of modern coal mining, some fifty to fifty-five billion tons of coal have been mined, all of which have passed through the hands of people with a professional familiarity with stones, it is certainly remarkable that ancient meteorite material has never been found or described up to now.”Fritz Heide, Meteorites (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 119.

Peter A. Steveson, “Meteoritic Evidence for a Young Earth,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, June 1975, pp. 23â€"25.

“... neither tektites nor other meteorites have been found in any of the ancient geologic formations ...”Ralph Stair, “Tektites and the Lost Planet,” The Scientific Monthly, July 1956, p. 11.

“No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column.”William Henry Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 144.

“... the astronomer Olbers had noticed: that there are no ‘fossil’ meteorites known, from any period older than the middle of the Quaternary. The quantity of coal mined during the last century amounted to many billions of tons, and with it about a thousand meteorites should have been dug out, if during the time the coal deposits were formed the meteorite frequency had been the same as it is today. Equally complete is the absence of meteorites in any other geologically old material that has been excavated in the course of technical operations.”F. A. Paneth, “The Frequency of Meteorite Falls throughout the Ages,” Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 2, editor Arthur Beer (New York: Pergamon Press, 1956), p. 1681.

“I have interviewed the late Dr. G. P. Merrill, of the U.S. National Museum, and Dr. G. T. Prior, of the British Natural History Museum, both well-known students of meteorites, and neither man knew of a single occurrence of a meteorite in sedimentary rocks.”W. A. Tarr, “Meteorites in Sedimentary Rocks?” Science, Vol. 75, 1 January 1932, pp. 17â€"18.

“No meteorites have been found in the geological column.”Stansfield, p. 81.

“In view of the connection of comets, meteors, and meteorites, the absence of meteorites in old deposits in the crust of the earth is very significant. It has been estimated that at least 500 meteorites should have been found in already worked coal seams, whereas none has been identified in strata older than the Quaternary epoch (about 1 million years ago). This suggests a very recent origin of meteorites and, by inference, of comets.”N. T. Bobrovnikoff, “Comets,” Astrophysics, editor J. A. Hynek (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), p. 352.

b. Hans Pettersson, “Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust,” Scientific American, Vol. 202, February 1960, pp. 123â€"129.

c.“Examples of ancient rock slides have been identified from the geologic column in few instances.”William Henry Twenhofel, Treatise on Sedimentation, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1961), p. 102.

From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences42.html#wp1260654)

More apologetic sources. Seriously, be objective and look at other evidence.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 11:02:24 AM
I am referring to the time before matter existed.

You mean before between 10^âˆ'6 second and 1 second after the Big Bang?   That's when Baryogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis) happened.

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 11:02:24 AM
God resides in eternity.

Where? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternia)

Palu:God resides in eternity.

Quote from: Jason78 on April 20, 2016, 01:13:31 PM
Where? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternia)

Eternity is the measure of time that goes on forever into both the future and the past.  But it only started 6000 years ago. :eyes:

(https://m.popkey.co/e5ef9b/ygqVx.gif)

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AMThe fossil record has no transitional fossils.

(http://www.transitional-fossil.com/images/tiktaalik-transitional-fossil.png)

QuoteThey all appear suddenly

So...nothing and then bam!  Flowering plants.  Bam!  Rabbits.  Is that really how you think it went down?

Quoteand perfectly able to survive in their different environment.

Living species tend to do that.  The ones that can't survive in their environments have a tendency to go extinct.

Calling it now Pahu is a Troll.

It's interesting when theists say "science is wrong" and then proceed to try to use science to prove it! :bigyawn:

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 10:43:45 AM

Quote from: Nonsensei on April 16, 2016, 02:24:28 PM
Prove it.

It is a self evident fact that something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause. Are you able to show where something has come from nothing by a natural cause?

Very well, but what has this to do with biological evolution exactly?

Gerard

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 11:02:24 AM
I am referring to the time before matter existed.

Oh? Then why call it evolution?

QuoteIt is quite logical. Since the universe had a beginning, before which there was nothing from which is appeared. Since it could not create itself when it did not exist, then the only logical alternative is it had to have been created. That demands a Creator.

Who ever said there was nothing before there was something. And how is a Creator nothing?

QuoteGod resides in eternity.

Which still makes him something......

Gerard

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
The fossil record has no transitional fossils. They all appear suddenly and perfectly able to survive in their different environments.

Delusional much?

QuoteNot all, see above. Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Yes.... We'll take your word for that....

Gerard

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 11:02:24 AM
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bible-and-archaeology-how-archaeology-confirms-the-biblical-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101lastdays.cfm
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

Hmmmm, let's see which link I should click on for a completely unbiased account of science and the Bible. Which should I try first? allaboutbibleprophecy.com or christiananswers.net? It's such a toss up.

Come on, if I linked to sites called TheBibleisaLie.org or directed you to seek the "truth" at ChristiansAreDumb.net, wouldn't you be a little bit skeptical of the information they had to provide?

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
The fossil record has no transitional fossils. They all appear suddenly and perfectly able to survive in their different environments.

Your inability to understand the evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

The thing about science is, you start with a question and you find an answer. Your answer might be inconclusive, incomplete, or continually evolving, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Religion instead pretends to have all the answers and looks for the right questions to back up those "answers."

Quote from: TomFoolery on April 20, 2016, 05:39:31 PM
Hmmmm, let's see which link I should click on for a completely unbiased account of science and the Bible. Which should I try first? allaboutbibleprophecy.com or christiananswers.net? It's such a toss up.

Come on, if I linked to sites called TheBibleisaLie.org or directed you to seek the "truth" at ChristiansAreDumb.net, wouldn't you be a little bit skeptical of the information they had to provide?

Quite... Also, for someone who invokes science in his original assertion, it's a bit lame to come with just sermons.

Quote from: PahuNot all, see above. Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

As opposed to sermons masquerading as science....

Gerard

Quote from: TomFoolery on April 20, 2016, 05:45:27 PM
Your inability to understand the evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

The thing about science is, you start with a question and you find an answer. Your answer might be inconclusive, incomplete, or continually evolving, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Religion instead pretends to have all the answers and looks for the right questions to back up those "answers."

This is the Christian method of investigation.  You've heard of the scientific method.  It's kind of the same thing.   :biggrin:

Quote from: TomFoolery on April 20, 2016, 05:45:27 PM
Your inability to understand the evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

The thing about science is, you start with a question and you find an answer. Your answer might be inconclusive, incomplete, or continually evolving, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Religion instead pretends to have all the answers and looks for the right questions to back up those "answers."

Yeah, as has been said, science is questions that may never be answered, religion is answers that may never be questioned.

Quote from: stromboli on April 20, 2016, 11:21:14 AM
The only thing this proves is you are stuck into religion the same way an Ostrich head is stuck into the ground.

Now now... I'm pretty sure ostriches can understand the simple concept of evolution...

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
The fossil record has no transitional fossils. They all appear suddenly and perfectly able to survive in their different environments.

Not true.

Of course it's not true, it's "argument by assertion."

Seriously, the knowledge of how the universe started does not affect the understanding and fact of evolution. Evolution started well after the universe was already underway. Even with an intelligent universe creator, the means of life getting to the point it is now is through evolution.

Quote from: kilodelta on April 20, 2016, 08:17:35 PM
Seriously, the knowledge of how the universe started does not affect the understanding and fact of evolution. Evolution started well after the universe was already underway. Even with an intelligent universe creator, the means of life getting to the point it is now is through evolution.

Exactly.  The OP is basically trying to refute coastal erosion by disputing how the oceans formed.  It's sort of besides the point.

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 11:02:24 AMI am referring to the time before matter existed.

Literally impossible.

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 11:02:24 AM2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible

You, uh... you don't proof-read the links you pull up on Google, do you? :lol:

Quote from: Baruch on April 16, 2016, 04:23:37 PM
Pahu - no intro?

Yes, scientists sometimes claim, for research money, more than their investigations can show ;-).  But the Old Earth (4.5 billion years) and Biological Evolution (1.0 billion years) theories are pretty well demonstrated.  Early Universe (older than 13 billion years) and Early Earth Life (older than 1 billion years) are less well demonstrated.  There is no evidence of supernatural phenomena for anything in the last 1 billion years.  At best, current science would only support Deism.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

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

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

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are youngâ€"possibly less than 10,000 years old.  Here are some of these points of evidence:


One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium then enters the atmosphereâ€"at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.)  Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years.  Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young (a).

a. “What Happened to the Earth’s Helium?” New Scientist, Vol. 24, 3 December 1964, pp. 631â€"632.

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models  (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10â€"14.

Melvin A. Cook, “Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium?” Nature,   Vol. 179, 26 January 1957, p. 213.

Joseph W. Chamberlain, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres (New York: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 371â€"372.




Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found (a).

Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals (b). Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old (c). Furthermore, the radioactive decay that produced all that helium must have happened quite rapidly, because the helium is trapped in young zircons.

a. “Taken together, these results strongly suggest that there has been little or no differential Pb loss which can be attributed to the higher temperatures existing at greater depths.” Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Science, 16 April 1982, p. 296.

Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, October 1982, pp. 13â€"14.

b. Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, April 1983, p. 13.

c. “In fact, considering the Precambrian age of the granite cores, our results show an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained at higher temperatures, and the reason for this certainly needs further investigation ...” Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 9, No. 10, October 1982, p. 1130.

Robert V. Gentry, personal communication, 24 February 1984.

D. Russell Humphreys et al., “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 2003), pp. 175â€"195.




Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock (a). If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently (b).

a. “It is certain that at the present time large areas of the Gulf Coast are underlain by zones containing water under pressure almost high enough to float the overlying rocks.” Parke A. Dickey, Calcutta R. Shriram, and William R. Paine, “Abnormal Pressures in Deep Wells of Southwestern Louisiana,” Science, Vol. 160, No. 3828, 10 May 1968, p. 614.

b. “Some geologists find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years. Creationists also use this currently puzzling situation as evidence that oil was formed less than 10,000 years ago.” Stansfield, p. 82. [Stansfield had no alternative explanation.]

Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, p. 341.




Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average.  At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.5 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Therefore, Earth’s sediments seem to be much younger than 4.5 billion years (a).

a. Ariel A. Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, pp. 75â€"76.

“It has been estimated that just four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutín [a Mexican volcano that erupted in 1943] and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts.” Stansfield,  p. 81.




More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport is diminishing as looser topsoil is removed and as erosion smooths out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year.  So, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old   (a).

a.   Stuart E. Nevins, “Evolution: The Ocean Says No!” Symposium on Creation V (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), pp. 77â€"83.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 69â€"71.




The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years (a). However, evolutionists believe that fossils of animals and plants at high elevations have somehow avoided this erosion for more than 300 million years.  Something is wrong.

a. Nevins, pp. 80â€"81.

George C. Kennedy, “The Origin of Continents, Mountain Ranges, and Ocean Basins,” American Scientist, Vol. 47, December 1959, pp. 491â€"504.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 65â€"67.

“North America is now being eroded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years ...” Dott and Batten, p. 133.




Rivers carry dissolved elements such as copper, gold, lead, mercury, nickel, silicon, sodium, tin, and uranium into the oceans at very rapid rates when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans.  In other words, far fewer than a million years’ worth of metals are dissolved in the oceans (a). There is no known means by which large amounts of these elements can come out of solution. Therefore, the oceans must be much younger than a million years.

a. “... most metals are markedly undersaturated with respect to their least soluble compounds, and the supply of metals during geological time has been more than sufficient to attain saturation.”  Peter G. Brewer, “Minor Elements in Sea Water,” Chemical Oceanography, editors J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 427.




Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface (a). (Unsuccessful searches have been made for these deepâ€"and very valuableâ€"meteorites, including in the Grand Canyon and along conveyor belts in coal processing plants.) Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers (b).

If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found immediately above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.

Similar conclusions can be made about ancient rock slides which are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock (c).

a. Fritz Heide, Meteorites (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 119.

Peter A. Steveson, “Meteoritic Evidence for a Young Earth,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, June 1975, pp. 23â€"25.

“...neither tektites nor other meteorites have been found in any of the ancient geologic formations...” Ralph Stair, “Tektites and the Lost Planet,” The Scientific Monthly, July 1956, p. 11.

“No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column.” William Henry Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 144.

“...the astronomer Olbers had noticed: that there are no ‘fossil’ meteorites known, from any period older than the middle of the Quaternary. The quantity of coal mined during the last century amounted to many billions of tons, and with it about a thousand meteorites should have been dug out, if during the time the coal deposits were formed the meteorite frequency had been the same as it is today. Equally complete is the absence of meteorites in any other geologically old material that has been excavated in the course of technical operations.” F. A. Paneth, “The Frequency of Meteorite Falls throughout the Ages,” Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 2, editor Arthur Beer (New York: Pergamon Press, 1956), p. 1681.

“I have interviewed the late Dr. G. P. Merrill, of the U.S. National Museum, and Dr. G. T. Prior, of the British Natural History Museum, both well-known students of meteorites, and neither man knew of a single occurrence of a meteorite in sedimentary rocks.” W. A. Tarr, “Meteorites in Sedimentary Rocks?” Science, Vol. 75, 1 January 1932, pp. 17â€"18.

“No meteorites have been found in the geological column.” Stansfield, p. 81.

“In view of the connection of comets, meteors, and meteorites, the absence of meteorites in old deposits in the crust of the earth is very significant. It has been estimated that at least 500 meteorites should have been found in already worked coal seams, whereas none has been identified in strata older than the Quaternary epoch (about 1 million years ago). This suggests a very recent origin of meteorites and, by inference, of comets.” N. T. Bobrovnikoff, “Comets,” Astrophysics, editor J. A. Hynek (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), p. 352.

b. Hans Pettersson, “Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust,” Scientific American, Vol. 202, February 1960, pp. 123â€"129.

c. “Examples of ancient rock slides have been identified from the geologic column in few instances.” William Henry Twenhofel, Treatise on Sedimentation, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1961), p. 102.




Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated.  Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans.  Therefore, Earth appears to be young (a).

a. Steveson, pp. 23â€"25.




If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions about the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth (a). The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.

a. Harold S. Slusher and Thomas P. Gamwell, Age of the Earth, ICR Technical Monograph No. 7 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).

Leonard R. Ingersoll et al., Heat Conduction: With Engineering, Geological and Other Applications, revised edition (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), pp. 99â€"107.




As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first observed this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.6-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume. [For details see pages: 501-504 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html#wp1030385)]

[continue]

[continued]




If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dustâ€"possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67th of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon. [For details see pages: 506-509 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes6.html#wp6353450)]

(http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/astrophysicalsciences-moon_dust.jpg)
Figure 31: Moon Dust and Debris. Concern that astronauts and equipment would sink into a sea of dust was so great that two missions (Ranger and Surveyor) were sent to the Moon for a closer look. The anticipated problem, which turned out not to exist, arose from the belief that the Moon is billions of years old.

a. Before instruments were sent to the Moon, Isaac Asimov made some interesting, but false, predictions. After estimating the great depths of dust that should be on the Moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by stating:

“I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight.” Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, January 1959, p. 36.

Lyttleton felt that the dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.” Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72.

Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [See Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585â€"604.]

Fears about the dust thickness were reduced when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern still remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [See transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p. 1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.]




A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure, “creeps” in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.

Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should occur to their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years (a). Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where gravity is greater, and temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of “creep,” these bodies seem to be relatively young.

(http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/astrophysicalsciences-steep_walled_moon_craters.jpg)
Figure 32: Young Craters. Large craters on the Moon have high, steep walls that should be slowly slumping and deep floors that should be bulging upward. Little deformation exists, so these craters appear relatively young. Similar conclusions can be drawn for Venus and Mercury.

a. Glenn R. Morton, Harold S. Slusher, and Richard E. Mandock, “The Age of Lunar Craters,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, September 1983, pp. 105â€"108.

The above study drew upon the work of Z. F. Danes, which was described as follows:
“The history of a circular crater in a highly viscous medium is derived from the hydrodynamic equations of motion by Z. F. Danes. The variation in shape of the crater in the course of time is expressed as a function of a time constant, T, that involves viscosity and density of the medium, acceleration of gravity, and radius of the crater lip. Correspondence between theoretical crater shapes and the observed ones is good. However the time constant, T, is surprisingly short if commonly accepted viscosity values are used.” Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-A (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. A 127.

  Since Danes work was published, rocks from the Moon have been returned to Earth and their viscosity has been measured. Their values fall in the range of 10^21 to 10^22 poises. According to the Geological Survey paper just quoted, “If viscosities of lunar rocks were around 10^21 to 10^22 poises, the ages of large craters would have to be only 10^4 to 10^7 years.”






A surprising amount of heat is flowing out of the Moon from just below its surface, and yet the Moon’s interior is relatively cold (a). Because it has not yet cooled off, the Moon is much younger than most people had guessed, or relatively recent events have altered the Moon’s heat flow (b)â€" or both.

a. “ [The following is] a somewhat surprising outcome considering the size of the Moon and the assumption that most of its heat energy had been lost....These unexpectedly high lunar [heat flow] values seem to indicate the Moon’s interior is much hotter than most thermal models had anticipated. If the temperature gradient in the lower regolith is extrapolated to great depths, the lunar interior would appear to be at least partly moltenâ€"a condition contradicted by other evidence.” Nicholas M. Short, Planetary Geology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975), p. 184.

b. The unexpectedly large heat flow may be a consequence of large impacts occurring on the lunar surface at the time of Earth’s global flood. [ See Figure 153 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html#wp20037033)]




As comets pass near the Sun, some of their mass vaporizes, producing a long tail and other debris (a). Comets also fragment frequently or crash into the Sun (b) or planets. Typical comets should disintegrate after several hundred orbits. For many comets this is less than 10,000 years. There is no evidence for a distant shell of cometary material surrounding the solar system, and there is no known way to add comets to the solar system at rates that even remotely balance their destruction. Actually, the gravity of planets tends to expel comets from the solar system rather than capture them (c). So, comets and the solar system appear to be less than 10,000 years old.  [For more on comets, see: “The Origin of Comets” (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html#wp1069425)]

a. Ron Cowen, “Comets: Mudballs of the Solar System,” Science News, Vol. 141, 14 March 1992, pp. 170â€"171.

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

Each comet adds 20â€"40 tons of water to the Earth’s atmosphere. If this influx began when evolutionists say the Earth started to evolve, all our oceans would have come from small comets. Actually, impact rates were undoubtedly greater in the past, because the planets have swept many of these comets from the solar system. Therefore, small comets would have placed much more water on Earth than is here today. Obviously, this did not happen, so oceans look young. [See also pages 287 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets6.html#wp1105567) and 295 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets10.html#wp15495607)

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

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

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

Jonathan Eberhart, “A Bunch of Little Cometsâ€"But Just a Little Bunch,” Science News, Vol. 132, 29 August 1987, p. 132.

Richard A. Kerr, “In Search of Elusive Little Comets,” Science, Vol. 240, 10 June 1988, pp. 1403â€"1404.

Richard A. Kerr, “Double Exposures Reveal Mini-Comets?” Science, Vol. 243, 13 January 1989, pp. 170â€"171.

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




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

a. H. H. Aumann and C. M. Gillespie Jr., “The Internal Powers and Effective Temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, July 1969, pp. L69â€"L72.

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

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

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

b. Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

[continue]

[continued]





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

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

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

Large lunar impacts are continually churning up and overturning the lunar surface. Therefore, for these micrometeorite impacts to blanket the surface so completely, they must have been recent. [For more details see: Figure 155 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets3.html#wp13549779)]




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

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

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

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

a. “For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea [Hawaii] , above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill. ... In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring, [Donald N. B.] Hall [Director of the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy] was able to report within days that ‘the data were really superb.’ They don’t tell an entirely welcome story, though. ‘Unfortunately, they don’t seem to show any dust rings at all.’ ”   Charles Petit, “A Mountain Cliffhanger of an Eclipse,” Science, Vol. 253, 26 July 1991, pp. 386â€"387.
To understand the origin of zodiacal light, see page 319 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html#wp3635737).

b. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 60â€"61.

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

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

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

d. David A. Weintraub, “Comets in Collision,” Nature, Vol. 351, 6 June 1991, pp. 440â€"441.



In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b).  So, the Milky Way looks young.
(http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/astrophysicalsciences-crab_nebula.jpg)
Figure 34: The Crab Nebula. In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians in New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and briefly was as bright as a full moon. Today, the remnants from that explosion comprise the Crab Nebula.

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

• A more recent technique that surveyed thousands of galaxies, including smaller galaxies, concluded that
... the time between [supernova] explosions is 100 years or more.” Michael S. Turner, “Yes, Things Really Are Going Faster,” Science, Vol. 299, 31 January 2003, p. 663.

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

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




Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts. This happens too often for all examples to be coincidences (a). If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), these galaxies and quasars haven’t been moving apart for very long. If redshifts do not always imply velocities, many astronomical conclusions are in error.

a. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.

Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar, “On the Nature of Mass,” Nature, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 41â€"44.

William Kaufmann III, “The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth,” Science Digest, July 1981, pp. 76â€"81, 117.

Geoffrey Burbidge, “Redshift Rift,” Science 81, December 1981, p. 18.




Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universe’s assumed evolutionary age (a). The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.

a. David Fleischer, “The Galaxy Maker,” Science Digest, October 1981, Vol. 89, pp. 12, 116.




Hundreds of rapidly moving galaxies often cluster tightly together. Their relative velocities, as inferred by the redshifts of their light, are so high that these clusters should be flying apart, because each cluster’s visible mass is much too small to hold its galaxies together gravitationally (a). Because galaxies within clusters are so close together, they have not been flying apart for very long.

A similar statement can be made concerning many stars in spiral galaxies and gas clouds that surround some galaxies (b). These stars and gas clouds have such high relative velocities that they should have broken their “gravitational bonds” long ago if they were billions of years old. If the redshifted starlight always indicates a star’s velocity, then a billion-year-old universe is completely inconsistent with what is observed.

These observations have led some to conclude, not that the universe is young, but that unseen, undetected massâ€"called dark matterâ€"is holding these stars and galaxies together. For this to work, about 80% of the mass in the universe must be invisibleâ€"and hidden in the right places. However, many experiments have shown that the needed “missing mass” does not exist (c). Some researchers are still searching, because the alternative is a young universe. See Missing Mass (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences18.html#wp1011854).

a.    “In 1933 the late Fritz Zwicky pointed out that the galaxies of the Coma cluster are moving too fast: there is not enough visible mass in the galaxies to bind the cluster together by gravity. Subsequent observations verified this ‘missing’ mass in other clusters.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe,” Science, Vol. 219, 4 March 1983, p. 1050.

b.   Faye Flam, “NASA PR: Hype or Public Education?” Science, Vol. 260, 4 June 1993, pp. 1417â€"1418.

“It turns out that in almost every case the velocities of the individual galaxies are high enough to allow them to escape from the cluster. In effect, the clusters are ‘boiling.’ This statement is certainly true if we assume that the only gravitational force present is that exerted by visible matter, but it is true even if we assume that every galaxy in the cluster, like the Milky Way, is surrounded by a halo of dark matter that contains 90 percent of the mass of the galaxy.” Trefil, p. 93.

Gerardus D. Bouw, “Galaxy Clusters and the Mass Anomaly,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 14, September 1977, pp. 108â€"112.

Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 179â€"185.

Silk, The Big Bang, pp. 188â€"191.

Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.

Halton M. Arp, “NGC-1199,” Astronomy, Vol. 6, September 1978, p. 15.

Halton M. Arp, “Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts,” Astrophysical Journal, 15 July 1980, pp. 469â€"474.

c.   A huge dust ring has been observed orbiting two galaxies. The measured orbital velocity of this ring allows the calculation of the mass of the two galaxies and any hidden mass. There was little hidden mass. Statistical analyses of 155 other small galactic groups also suggest that there is not enough hidden mass to hold them together. [See Stephen E. Schneider, “Neutral Hydrogen in the M96 Group: The Galaxies and the Intergalactic Ring,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 343, 1 August 1989, pp. 94â€"106.]

Conclusion

All dating techniques, especially the few that suggest vast ages, presume that a process observed today has proceeded at a known, but not necessarily constant, rate. This assumption may be grossly inaccurate. Projecting present processes and rates far back in time is more likely to produce errors than extrapolation over a much shorter time. Furthermore, a much better understanding usually exists for dating “clocks” that show a young Earth and a young universe.

This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences33.html#wp1260517]

The thing about science is, you start with a question and you find an answer. Your answer might be inconclusive, incomplete, or continually evolving, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Religion instead pretends to have all the answers and looks for the right questions to back up those "answers."

Quote from: SGOS on April 20, 2016, 06:17:12 PM
This is the Christian method of investigation.  You've heard of the scientific method.  It's kind of the same thing.   :biggrin:

The modern scientific method was developed by Christians:




What five things do these names have in common?

Agassiz
Babbage
Boyle
Faraday
Kelvin
Kepler
Lister
Maxwell
Mendel
Newton
Pascal
Pasteur   
Ramsay
Seno
Simpson

The Answer:

1.   All human.
2.   All men.
3.   All scientists.
4.   All founded modern science.
5.    All creationists.

Agassizâ€"Ichthyology
Babbageâ€"Computers
Boyleâ€"Chemistry
Faradayâ€"Magnetic theory
Kelvinâ€"Thermodynamics
Keplerâ€"Astronomy
Listerâ€"Antiseptic surgery
Maxwellâ€"Electrodynamics
Mendelâ€"Genetics
Newtonâ€"Physics
Pascalâ€"Hydrostatics
Pasteurâ€"Bacteriology
Ramsayâ€"Isotopic chemistry
Senoâ€"Stratigraphy
Simpsonâ€"Gynecology

Quote from: Pahu on April 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
The fossil record has no transitional fossils. They all appear suddenly and perfectly able to survive in their different environments.

Quote from: Johan on April 20, 2016, 07:29:31 PM
Not true.

Introduction

One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion.” Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail.  This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.”  It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory.  Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge.  Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.

Cambrian Explosion
 
“Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column.  The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old.  What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it.  The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man.  Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer.  No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

Layers Above and Below
 
Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens.  The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms.  So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything.  But wait, it gets even more interesting.  To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer.  Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct.  Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct?  This is where that saying came fromâ€"hard scientific fact.  A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory.  It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientist’s own interpretation of geologic evidence.  In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief.  Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists worldwide.

Darwin Knew
 
Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some 150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that time.  Their “belief” was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory.  They were wrong!  Exactly the opposite happened.  After a century and half of excavating fossils from the strata we have found the problem to be worse, not better.  Contrary to the tree of life depicted in the school books, the fossil record depicts exactly the opposite story.  The tree of life is an inverted cone, and not a tree at all. 

No Correlation
 
Remember, evolutionary theory states that everything evolved from a common ancestor that climbed out of the primordial soup.  This ancient ancestor gradually evolved.  Its evolutionary progress branched out into different paths and these different paths led to the creation of increasingly complex and divergent organic forms.  The paths continued to branch out resulting in the great diversity of life we have today.  Now, if this is true, what would you expect to see in the fossil record?  Of course you would expect to see simple organisms in the lowest layers and a gradual increase in diversity and complexity of life as you progress to more recent layers in the geologic time scale.  But what do we really find in the fossil record?  We find the exact opposite.   Not something ambiguous like everything found in each layer.  No, you find the exact opposite of what is predicted by evolution.  From a correlation perspective you do not find a factor of 1, meaning perfect correlation, or a 0, meaning no correlation, you find a -1, meaning perfectly uncorrelated to the prediction.  Now I don’t know about you, but I find this compelling proof that evolution did not happen.  This begs the question, how much proof do evolutionary scientists need anyway?

Belief In Spite of Evidence
 
You must be saying to yourself at this point, “How could that be?  How could they speak about this theory with such surety with such strong evidence to the contrary?”  The answer is simple.  They believe the theory in spite of the evidence.  That is why many leading creation scientists keep referring to evolution as a philosophy of science or even a religion.  This belief is so strong in academic circles that scientists are chided if they even question evolution publicly.  Why are they ridiculed?   They are ridiculed because the only alternative to evolution is creation.  Some like to pretend there are a variety of options in explaining origins.  This is simply not so.  The options often presented are merely shades of the two primary options, and scientists know this. 
 
Conclusion
 
If evolution did not take place, if the natural forces at work today did not create the diversity of life we see on our little blue world, then something supernatural must be responsible.  True science seeks to understand, no matter what the philosophical or metaphysical ramifications may be.  That is why evolution is not science, but rather a philosophy, for it seeks to explain things within only one possible framework, whether or not this framework is true.  The facts are that the scientists' own interpretation of the fossil record clearly demonstrates that every species appeared at once suddenly and then gradually died off with the passage of time.  The significance of this great body of evidence against evolutionary theory in the fossil record cannot be stressed enough.  It is utterly devastating to evolutionary theory completely by itself.  But in the final analysis, it is but one of a plethora of scientific facts that refute the 19th century fable that is evolution. 
 
In closing I would like to share with you some of my favorite quotes on the subject by leading evolutionary scientists, and even Darwin himself.  By their own words they admit this very important piece of the evolutionary puzzle does not fit, and never will.  Enjoy.

“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” (Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348),

“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologistsâ€"for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwickâ€"as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” (Ibid. p. 344),

“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (Ibid. p. 350),

“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Ibid. p. 351),

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” (Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65),

“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229),

“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.” (I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7),

“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” (Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84),

“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.” (T. Neville George Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5).

http://www.learnthebible.org/creation_science_cambrian_explosion_disproves_evolution.htm

still not true. Cut and paste walls of text don't change that. Intermediate fossil records are numerous and well-documented.

About the theory concerning Robert Gentry’s polonium halo’s I can be short. The halo produced by Gentry’s Polonium 10 is “overwritten” as it were by Radon, later in the cycle which produces a halo of the same size. The argument is therefore spurious. The full decay series of 238U which produces natural radon is as follows (with half-lives):

238U (4.5 x 109 yr), 234Th (24.1 days), 234Pa (1.18 min), 234U (250,000 yr), 230Th (75,000 yr), 226Ra (1,600 yr), 222Rn (3.82 days), 218Po (3.1 min), 214Pb (26.8 min), 214Bi (19.7 min), 214Po (164 µs), 210Pb (22.3 yr), 210Bi (5.01 days), 210Po (138 days), 206Pb (stable).

I'll look at the other matters but since this is mostly copy paste, we can refer you to

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

this site that has a handy index about most creationist claims. It is not for nothing that creationist claims are not taken seriously by scientists. They're mainly lame excuses that go against inductive reasoning and the facts used by inductive reasoning.



Gerard

Quote from: Pahu on April 23, 2016, 11:55:05 AM
The thing about science is, you start with a question and you find an answer. Your answer might be inconclusive, incomplete, or continually evolving, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Religion instead pretends to have all the answers and looks for the right questions to back up those "answers."


The modern scientific method was developed by Christians:

MODERN SCIENCE FOUNDERS

What five things do these names have in common?

Agassiz
Babbage
Boyle
Faraday
Kelvin
Kepler
Lister
Maxwell
Mendel
Newton
Pascal
Pasteur   
Ramsay
Seno
Simpson

The Answer:

1.   All human.
2.   All men.
3.   All scientists.
4.   All founded modern science.
5.    All creationists.

Agassizâ€"Ichthyology
Babbageâ€"Computers
Boyleâ€"Chemistry
Faradayâ€"Magnetic theory
Kelvinâ€"Thermodynamics
Keplerâ€"Astronomy
Listerâ€"Antiseptic surgery
Maxwellâ€"Electrodynamics
Mendelâ€"Genetics
Newtonâ€"Physics
Pascalâ€"Hydrostatics
Pasteurâ€"Bacteriology
Ramsayâ€"Isotopic chemistry
Senoâ€"Stratigraphy
Simpsonâ€"Gynecology

Sure. And that disproves evolution..... How exactly?

Gerard

Your copy+paste antics bore me.

Have you ever had an original thought in your life?

Quote from: Pahu on April 23, 2016, 11:42:06 AM

Earth/Universe Age

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

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

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

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are youngâ€"possibly less than 10,000 years old.  Here are some of these points of evidence:

Helium

One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium then enters the atmosphereâ€"at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.)  Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years.  Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young (a).

a. “What Happened to the Earth’s Helium?” New Scientist, Vol. 24, 3 December 1964, pp. 631â€"632.

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models  (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10â€"14.

Melvin A. Cook, “Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium?” Nature,   Vol. 179, 26 January 1957, p. 213.

Joseph W. Chamberlain, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres (New York: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 371â€"372.

Lead and Helium Diffusion

Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found (a).

Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals (b). Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old (c). Furthermore, the radioactive decay that produced all that helium must have happened quite rapidly, because the helium is trapped in young zircons.

a. “Taken together, these results strongly suggest that there has been little or no differential Pb loss which can be attributed to the higher temperatures existing at greater depths.” Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Science, 16 April 1982, p. 296.

Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, October 1982, pp. 13â€"14.

b. Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, April 1983, p. 13.

c. “In fact, considering the Precambrian age of the granite cores, our results show an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained at higher temperatures, and the reason for this certainly needs further investigation ...” Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 9, No. 10, October 1982, p. 1130.

Robert V. Gentry, personal communication, 24 February 1984.

D. Russell Humphreys et al., “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 2003), pp. 175â€"195.

Excess Fluid Pressure

Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock (a). If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently (b).

a. “It is certain that at the present time large areas of the Gulf Coast are underlain by zones containing water under pressure almost high enough to float the overlying rocks.” Parke A. Dickey, Calcutta R. Shriram, and William R. Paine, “Abnormal Pressures in Deep Wells of Southwestern Louisiana,” Science, Vol. 160, No. 3828, 10 May 1968, p. 614.

b. “Some geologists find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years. Creationists also use this currently puzzling situation as evidence that oil was formed less than 10,000 years ago.” Stansfield, p. 82. [Stansfield had no alternative explanation.]

Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, p. 341.

Volcanic Debris

Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average.  At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.5 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Therefore, Earth’s sediments seem to be much younger than 4.5 billion years (a).

a. Ariel A. Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, pp. 75â€"76.

“It has been estimated that just four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutín [a Mexican volcano that erupted in 1943] and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts.” Stansfield,  p. 81.

River Sediments

More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport is diminishing as looser topsoil is removed and as erosion smooths out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year.  So, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old   (a).

a.   Stuart E. Nevins, “Evolution: The Ocean Says No!” Symposium on Creation V (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), pp. 77â€"83.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 69â€"71.

Continental Erosion

The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years (a). However, evolutionists believe that fossils of animals and plants at high elevations have somehow avoided this erosion for more than 300 million years.  Something is wrong.

a. Nevins, pp. 80â€"81.

George C. Kennedy, “The Origin of Continents, Mountain Ranges, and Ocean Basins,” American Scientist, Vol. 47, December 1959, pp. 491â€"504.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 65â€"67.

“North America is now being eroded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years ...” Dott and Batten, p. 133.

Dissolved Metals

Rivers carry dissolved elements such as copper, gold, lead, mercury, nickel, silicon, sodium, tin, and uranium into the oceans at very rapid rates when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans.  In other words, far fewer than a million years’ worth of metals are dissolved in the oceans (a). There is no known means by which large amounts of these elements can come out of solution. Therefore, the oceans must be much younger than a million years.

a. “... most metals are markedly undersaturated with respect to their least soluble compounds, and the supply of metals during geological time has been more than sufficient to attain saturation.”  Peter G. Brewer, “Minor Elements in Sea Water,” Chemical Oceanography, editors J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 427.

Shallow Meteorites

Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface (a). (Unsuccessful searches have been made for these deepâ€"and very valuableâ€"meteorites, including in the Grand Canyon and along conveyor belts in coal processing plants.) Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers (b).

If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found immediately above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.

Similar conclusions can be made about ancient rock slides which are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock (c).

a. Fritz Heide, Meteorites (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 119.

Peter A. Steveson, “Meteoritic Evidence for a Young Earth,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, June 1975, pp. 23â€"25.

“...neither tektites nor other meteorites have been found in any of the ancient geologic formations...” Ralph Stair, “Tektites and the Lost Planet,” The Scientific Monthly, July 1956, p. 11.

“No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column.” William Henry Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 144.

“...the astronomer Olbers had noticed: that there are no ‘fossil’ meteorites known, from any period older than the middle of the Quaternary. The quantity of coal mined during the last century amounted to many billions of tons, and with it about a thousand meteorites should have been dug out, if during the time the coal deposits were formed the meteorite frequency had been the same as it is today. Equally complete is the absence of meteorites in any other geologically old material that has been excavated in the course of technical operations.” F. A. Paneth, “The Frequency of Meteorite Falls throughout the Ages,” Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 2, editor Arthur Beer (New York: Pergamon Press, 1956), p. 1681.

“I have interviewed the late Dr. G. P. Merrill, of the U.S. National Museum, and Dr. G. T. Prior, of the British Natural History Museum, both well-known students of meteorites, and neither man knew of a single occurrence of a meteorite in sedimentary rocks.” W. A. Tarr, “Meteorites in Sedimentary Rocks?” Science, Vol. 75, 1 January 1932, pp. 17â€"18.

“No meteorites have been found in the geological column.” Stansfield, p. 81.

“In view of the connection of comets, meteors, and meteorites, the absence of meteorites in old deposits in the crust of the earth is very significant. It has been estimated that at least 500 meteorites should have been found in already worked coal seams, whereas none has been identified in strata older than the Quaternary epoch (about 1 million years ago). This suggests a very recent origin of meteorites and, by inference, of comets.” N. T. Bobrovnikoff, “Comets,” Astrophysics, editor J. A. Hynek (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), p. 352.

b. Hans Pettersson, “Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust,” Scientific American, Vol. 202, February 1960, pp. 123â€"129.

c. “Examples of ancient rock slides have been identified from the geologic column in few instances.” William Henry Twenhofel, Treatise on Sedimentation, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1961), p. 102.

Meteoritic Dust

Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated.  Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans.  Therefore, Earth appears to be young (a).

a. Steveson, pp. 23â€"25.

Rapid Cooling

If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions about the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth (a). The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.

a. Harold S. Slusher and Thomas P. Gamwell, Age of the Earth, ICR Technical Monograph No. 7 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).

Leonard R. Ingersoll et al., Heat Conduction: With Engineering, Geological and Other Applications, revised edition (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), pp. 99â€"107.

Moon Recession

As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first observed this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.6-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume. [For details see pages: 501-504 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html#wp1030385)]

[continue]

Helium
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
Exess  fluid pressure
Say so story about leakage
Volcanic debris
Uhhh… erosion? This is just stupid…..
River sediments
Extrapolation does not always lead to sensible results. Other things are at work as well.
Continental erosion
Funny that erosion is there when you need it for your argument but not when you don’t. Other forces than erosion are at play here. This is just stupid.
Dissolved metals
Ever heard of Wegener theory of continental drift or the mere fact that the Earth is geologically active? This is just stupid.
Shallow meteorites
Where do you suppose people are looking….. Exactly! This is just stupid.
Meteoric dust
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE020.html
Poynting Robertson
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE281.html
Moon recession
I refer to my earlier remarks about extrapolation. Things didn’t always go the same speed they do today. Kent Hovind made another great one. He told us that extrapolating the moons distancing from earth back into the past would have meant that they were only inches away from eachother at some point.
Rapid cooling
Say so story.

I’m done for now. I’ll be back though!

Gerard

Quote from: kilodelta on April 20, 2016, 08:17:35 PM
Seriously, the knowledge of how the universe started does not affect the understanding and fact of evolution. Evolution started well after the universe was already underway. Even with an intelligent universe creator, the means of life getting to the point it is now is through 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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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.' "â€"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."â€"*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."â€"*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.' "â€"*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] 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."â€"*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."â€"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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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?"â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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 [theories] 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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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 researchâ€"paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biologyâ€"has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."â€"*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 deityâ€"omnipotent chance."â€"*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."â€"*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 obstructsâ€"as has been repeatedly shownâ€"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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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.' "â€"*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."â€"*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm

oh my god. Can you post something that you actually wrote?

Quote from: Mermaid on April 23, 2016, 01:13:45 PM
oh my god. Can you post something that you actually wrote?

I think there's a "the" up there somewhere that he actually typed manually....

Quote from: TomFoolery on April 16, 2016, 02:36:51 PM


Can we not just be honest and say that it's more likely that we created God in our image than he created us in his?

Bertrand Russell got a good chuckle from me on this: "If cows could fashion an image of their idea of a deity, God would have udders".

Quote from: Mermaid on April 23, 2016, 12:14:03 PM
still not true. Cut and paste walls of text don't change that. Intermediate fossil records are numerous and well-documented.

If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record  (a). Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, among insects, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly it is safe to conclude these gaps are real; they will never be filled.

a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].”  Ibid., p. 323.

Darwin then explained that he thought these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as exploration for fossils continued. Most paleontologists now agree this expectation has not been fulfilled.

The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to summarize the situation regarding transitions that should be observed in the fossil record.

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed informationâ€"what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book entitled Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? ... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the lineâ€"there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that.” Hitching, p. 19.

“There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today.” Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.

“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.” George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.

“...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.”   Ibid., p. 23.

Some incorrectly claim that almost all scientists believe in evolution. The only survey of scientists of which I am aware, involved chemists. Fewer than half (48.3%) said, “it was possible that humans evolved in a continuous chain of development from simple elements in a primordial soup.” A slight majority (51.7%) said, “supernatural intervention played a role.” [Murray Saffran, “Why Scientists Shouldn’t Cast Stones,” The Scientist, 5 September 1988, p. 11.]

Most professors in the basic sciences favor evolution, in part, because that is what they were taught and those who openly reject evolution are not hired or are fired. In the applied sciences (medicine, engineering, etc.) and among scientists in industry, those accepting and rejecting evolution may be nearly balanced. Gallup polls have shown that more Americans reject evolution than accept it.

Of course, scientific conclusions are based on evidence, not a vote, with the apparent exception of those who want to continue to believe in the evolution fable despite (not because of) the facts of science. The founders of modern science (Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Galileo, Hooke, and Newtonâ€"who, by the way, were creationists and opposed the evolutionary views of their day) based decisions on evidence. In contrast, the science of previous ages was based on philosophical deductions or authoritative opinions. Those who try to establish scientific truth by “counting noses” regress into dark-age thinking. By that criterion, you would believe in a flat earth, because once most scientists believed in a flat earth.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019]

Ah, quote mining. Always good for a laugh.
Plus, quoting from things with copyrights of  1944, 1966, 1988.... to bad absolutely no new discoveries have been made since those dates, right?

Quote from: Mermaid on April 23, 2016, 01:13:45 PM
oh my god. Can you post something that you actually wrote?

Okay, let me explain. Trying to answer all the objections in my own words would just by my word against theirs. I do not know everything. In fact, I know practically nothing compared to what there is to know. So when I answer a specific objection I prefer to rely on those who know more about the subject than I. In that way I can give the best answer, which I assume is desired.

Quote from: Pahu on April 23, 2016, 01:13:06 PM

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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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.' "â€"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."â€"*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."â€"*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.' "â€"*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] 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."â€"*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."â€"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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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?"â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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 [theories] 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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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 researchâ€"paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biologyâ€"has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."â€"*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 deityâ€"omnipotent chance."â€"*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."â€"*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 obstructsâ€"as has been repeatedly shownâ€"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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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."â€"*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.' "â€"*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."â€"*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm

Darwin might have been wrong. So, what? Doesn't change the fact that someone finally took a bold step to come up w/something other than an invisible, silent Nobodaddy who waved his wand and made it all. Until you can produce God, live and in person - and it does not matter if he/she/it is no bigger than a flea - I prefer Darwin's possible errors - and science is willing to work w/errors, mind you - than to kowtow to a pile of moldy, worm-eaten parchment, scribbled on by ignorant ancestors who knew nothing about the World 100 miles from the hovels in which they lived. At least someone is trying to do better than throw up his hands and say, "Well, the invisible spook in the sky must have done it!" Anything is better than that. Anything.

[mod]Pahu. For shameless copy/pasting, which does not contribute to discussion... at all... and is spammy as fuck.... . You are now banned.

Buh bye.[/mod]

(http://i.imgur.com/oVbgju4.gif)

Quote from: Pahu on April 23, 2016, 01:34:31 PM
Okay, let me explain. Trying to answer all the objections in my own words would just by my word against theirs. I do not know everything. In fact, I know practically nothing compared to what there is to know. So when I answer a specific objection I prefer to rely on those who know more about the subject than I. In that way I can give the best answer, which I assume is desired.

Now that I can understand. But when refering to others who know more than you do.... Wouldn't it be more sensible to quote people that actually know what they're talking about instead of the people confirming the biases you yourself already had in the first place? Follow people who actually know stuff instead of people who just make up apologies? You are nitpicking at this point. And you're not doing it very well....

Gerard

Quote from: marom1963 on April 23, 2016, 01:41:00 PM
Darwin might have been wrong. So, what? Doesn't change the fact that someone finally took a bold step to come up w/something other than an invisible, silent Nobodaddy who waved his wand and made it all. Until you can produce God, live and in person - and it does not matter if he/she/it is no bigger than a flea - I prefer Darwin's possible errors - and science is willing to work w/errors, mind you - than to kowtow to a pile of moldy, worm-eaten parchment, scribbled on by ignorant ancestors who knew nothing about the World 100 miles from the hovels in which they lived. At least someone is trying to do better than throw up his hands and say, "Well, the invisible spook in the sky must have done it!" Anything is better than that. Anything.

Darwin wasn't wrong. He may not have had all the information but he wasn't wrong....

Gerard

Banned.... and it was just getting good. :(

Quote from: Gerard on April 23, 2016, 01:49:27 PM
Darwin wasn't wrong. He may not have had all the information but he wasn't wrong....

Gerard

Oh, believe me, I believe that Darwin was right. I was simply allowing Pahu's point ...

Quote from: LostLocke on April 23, 2016, 01:50:47 PM
Banned.... and it was just getting good. :(

lol no it wasn't. He just copy/pasted. Didn't even have anything to say.

That guy had a serious case of "Advanced Stupid."


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).

I've missed my Harley .gifs.... Feels good to bust 'em out once in a while and show them some love.

Harley is the greatest villain sidekick ever. Of all time. She's just so fun!

Because the super natural just MAGICALLY appeared and then.....POOF! It just disappeared once we started looking into it...just to confuse people.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 24, 2016, 07:27:16 PM
Harley is the greatest villain sidekick ever. Of all time. She's just so fun!

(http://i.imgur.com/mj23p4g.jpg?1)

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 25, 2016, 01:20:57 AM
Because the super natural just MAGICALLY appeared and then.....POOF! It just disappeared once we started looking into it...just to confuse people.

God stopped doing the spectacular miracles like parting seas and bringing back the dead about 2000 years ago.  During the Dark Ages, he did a few less impressive miracles.  Today, he occasionally creates vague likenesses of Biblical personages in bread mold and other fungi.  He also brings food to your table by making the agricultural and transportation infrastructures work in harmony.  Unless you live in a poor country.

Quote from: SGOS on April 25, 2016, 06:52:09 AM
God stopped doing the spectacular miracles like parting seas and bringing back the dead about 2000 years ago.  During the Dark Ages, he did a few less impressive miracles.  Today, he occasionally creates vague likenesses of Biblical personages in bread mold and other fungi.  He also brings food to your table by making the agricultural and transportation infrastructures work in harmony.  Unless you live in a poor country.

And touchdowns. Don't forget the touchdowns...