INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24033
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#621 Postby Alan H » October 19th, 2017, 11:41 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Tetenterre wrote:PS: Alan, I'm not intending to make a habit of C&P huge screeds.
That's OK. At least you properly put it in quote tags so it was clear what you were doing...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#622 Postby Pahu » October 19th, 2017, 3:18 pm

Tetenterre wrote:Hey, Pahu, have you considered reading and understanding the stuff here: Answers in Science? Here's a little taster for you, ported from the Talk Origins Archive, in response to your recent drivel:

Claim CC300:
Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 80-81.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 60-62.

Response:

  1. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).

  2. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

  3. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

    Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

    And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.

  4. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

  5. There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:

    • The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
    • Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
    • The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
    • Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
    • Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
    • Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
    • Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).
  6. Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).

  7. Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).

References:

Allwood, A. C. et al. 2006. Stromatolite reef from the Early Archaean era of Australia. Nature 441: 714-718. See also Awramik, Stanley M. 2006. Respect for stromatolites. Nature 441: 700-701.
Brocks, J. J., G. A. Logan, R. Buick and R. E. Summons, 1999. Archean molecular fossils and the early rise of eukaryotes. Science 285: 1033-1036. See also Knoll, A. H., 1999. A new molecular window on early life. Science 285: 1025-1026. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5430/1025
Brown, Kathryn S., 1999. Deep Green rewrites evolutionary history of plants. Science 285: 990-991.
Budd, Graham E. and Sören Jensen. 2000. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla. Biological Reviews 75: 253-295.
Canfield, D. E. and A. Teske, 1996. Late Proterozoic rise in atmospheric oxygen concentration inferred from phylogenetic and sulphur-isotope studies. Nature 382: 127-132. See also: Knoll, A. H., 1996. Breathing room for early animals. Nature 382: 111-112.
Carroll, Robert L., 1997. Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, J.-Y. et al., 2000. Precambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4457-4462. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4457
Chen, J.-Y. et al., 2004. Small bilaterian fossils from 40 to 55 million years before the Cambrian. Science 305: 218-222, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1099213 . See also Stokstad, E., 2004. Controversial fossil could shed light on early animals' blueprint. Science 304: 1425.
Collins, Allen G., 1994. Metazoa: Fossil record. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html
Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford.
Cook, P. J. and J. H. Shergold (eds.), 1986. Phosphate Deposits of the World, Volume 1. Proterozoic and Cambrian Phosphorites. Cambridge University Press.
Furnes, H., N. R. Banerjee, K. Muehlenbachs, H. Staudigel and M. de Wit, 2004. Early life recorded in Archean pillow lavas. Science 304: 578-581.
Hoffman, Paul F. et al., 1998. A Neoproterozoic snowball earth. Science 281: 1342-1346. See also: Kerr, Richard A., 1998. Did an ancient deep freeze nearly doom life? Science 281: 1259,1261.
Kerr, Richard A., 2000. An appealing snowball earth that's still hard to swallow. Science 287: 1734-1736.
Logan, G. A., J. M. Hayes, G. B. Hieshima and R. E. Summons, 1995. Terminal Proterozoic reorganization of biogeochemical cycles. Nature 376: 53-56. See also Walter, M., 1995. Faecal pellets in world events. Nature 376: 16-17.
Lipps, J. H. and P. W. Signor (eds.), 1992. Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa. New York: Plenum Press.
Martin, M. W. et al., 2000. Age of Neoproterozoic bilatarian body and trace fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for metazoan evolution. Science 288: 841-845. See also Kerr, Richard A., 2000. Stretching the reign of early animals. Science 288: 789.
Miller, Arnold I., 1997. Dissecting global diversity patterns: Examples from the Ordovician radiation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 85-104.
Porter, Susannah M. and Andrew H. Knoll, 2000. Testate amoebae in the Neoproterozoic Era: evidence from vase-shaped microfossils in the Chuar Group, Grand Canyon. Paleobiology 26(3): 360-385.
Rasmussen, B., S. Bengtson, I. R. Fletcher and N. J. McNaughton, 2002. Discoidal impressions and trace-like fossils more than 1200 million years old. Science 296: 1112-1115.
Schopf, J. W., 1993. Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New evidence of the antiquity of life. Science 260: 640-646.
Shen, Y., R. Buick and D. E. Canfield, 2001. Isotopic evidence for microbial sulphate reduction in the early Archaean era. Nature 410: 77-81.
Thomas, A. L. R., 1997. The breath of life -- did increased oxygen levels trigger the Cambrian Explosion? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12: 44-45.
Valentine, James W., Allen G. Collins and C. Porter Meyer, 1994. Morphological complexity increase in metazoans. Paleobiology 20(2): 131-142.
Wang, D. Y.-C., S. Kumar and S. B. Hedges, 1999. Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 266: 163-71.


Further Reading:

Conway Morris, Simon. 1998. The Crucible of Creation. Oxford.

Conway Morris, Simon. 2000. The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4426-4429. (technical)

Schopf, J. William. 2000. Solution to Darwin's dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(13): 6947-6953. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/6947


PS: Alan, I'm not intending to make a habit of C&P huge screeds.



Cambrian explosion shows all kinds of life appearing suddenly (Talk.Origins)

Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Cambrian explosion shows all kinds of life appearing suddenly (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims. Index

Claim CC300:
Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils.
Sources:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 80-81.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 60-62.

CreationWiki response:

1. Talk.Origins misses the point. The point is not the Cambrian explosion itself, but the total lack of any fossils between single cell life and complex multi-cellular life.

2. A few complex multi-cellular fossils found below the Cambrian explosion does not change the fact that there are no transitional fossils between single cell life and complex multi-cellular life.

3. Talk.Origins' excuses do not change the fact that there are no fossils between single cell life and complex multi-cellular life.

4. The claim that early multi-cellular life was too small to be found and too soft to fossilize is bogus since fossil bacteria have been found in Precambrian rock despite being soft and smaller.

5. The claim that molecular evidence shows some animal phyla to be Precambrian assumes evolution and as such it can't be used as evidence that it has occurred. It is still a fact that there are no fossils between single cell life and complex multi-cellular life.

http://creationwiki.org/Cambrian_explos ... lk.Origins)
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#623 Postby Tetenterre » October 19th, 2017, 5:44 pm

Pahu, I'll consider engaging you in debate only when you have shown some indication that you have read and understood the parts of http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ relevant to the topic under discussion. Life is too short for me to waste it in an attempt to educate the willfully ignorant.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#624 Postby Pahu » October 19th, 2017, 6:42 pm

Tetenterre wrote:Pahu, I'll consider engaging you in debate only when you have shown some indication that you have read and understood the parts of http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ relevant to the topic under discussion. Life is too short for me to waste it in an attempt to educate the willfully ignorant.


Your link begins with this statement: "That life on Earth during the past 3 billion years has evolved from single-celled organisms to complex and diverse creatures, including humans, is indeed a fact." The article following that assertion does not give any evidence supporting it. Instead it is filled with more evidence free assertions. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

[Please, Pahu, no more silly and unnecessary graphics. And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does. This isn't rocket science. - Admin]

The Evidence of Nothing


Evaluating evidence is a key component in the search for truth, not only in science but in other areas of life. The ability to identify supporting facts and data is vital for proving or disproving a hypothesis, whether it relates to a scientific theory, a legal claim, or some other matter. There are times, however, when the absence of corroborative data counts just as strongly as evidence in its own right.

Rules of Evidence

Over the past centuries, the search for truth in science has been formalized into the process known as the scientific method, whereby theories are developed and tested according to a generally accepted standard. In a similar fashion, the legal profession operates by what is known as the Rules of Evidence.1 Developed over hundreds of years and brought to America via English Common Law, these rules are relied upon to decide disputes over financial transactions, inheritance, land, parental custody of minor children, and criminal matters such as whether a convicted killer should be executed. Circumstantial evidence, analyzed by principles of forensic science, may involve a broken knife at the scene of a burglary, or pistol discharge evidence on the clothes of a suspect.2

For generations now, we Americans have trusted these Evidence Rules with our lives, our liberties, and our properties. Accordingly, in legal controversies, the Rules of Evidence serve as a vital vehicle for seriously searching out and reliably reaching (it is hoped) the truth. Real truth stands up to being tested. And even the absence of evidence can operate as a silent witness, testifying to a circumstance where there is nothing, when there should be something.

But what would happen if we applied the same principles of the Evidence Rules to analyzing other types of disputes, such as the scientific controversies about origins? Before answering that question, let us consider how the evidence of "nothing, when there should be something" was used to sentence a medical doctor to jail time for asserting false claims.

Circumstantial Evidence of "Nothing"

This Medicare fraud case involved years of federal court proceedings, with one of the appeals being decided last year.3 Part of the convicting evidence was nothing--literally nothing, when there should have been something. In the related cases of Okoro and Akpan (see note 3 below), Victor Okoro, M.D., in concert with others, was accused of fraudulent Medicare billing practices, which conflicted with his "medical missionary" trips and a bogus charity called the Sisters of Grace. The appellate court commented on Dr. Okoro's Medicare fraud:

Although some of the patients |in Texas| received physical therapy treatments and some were examined by Okoro, each patient signed blank sign-in sheets and blank patient forms. In addition, Okoro signed most of the forms himself, yet many of the patients testified that he had never examined them....Okoro signed patient documents that stated that he had treated those patients on specific dates and at specific times on which Okoro could not possibly have rendered services. For example, many of the dates on which Okoro alleged that he provided services were dates when he was in Nigeria.4
Of course, the federal prosecutor had no difficulty proving that Okoro was absent from Texas, due to his using airports to exit the United States. Likewise, federal records provided the dates when Dr. Okoro re-entered America, so the official federal government records were relevant (and admissible) for showing the dates of Okoro's travels in and out of the country.

Yet just as important, from a circumstantial evidence standpoint, was the government's proof of "nothing" on other legally important dates. The federal government's trial proof included official government records with absences of entries on the dates in question, showing that Dr. Okoro was not recorded as having re-entered the United States in time for him to have performed the medical services for which he billed Medicare.

This illustrates the power of an argument from silence--the forensic force of such a silent witness can buttress a sentence of felony jail time. So, technically speaking, how can "nothing" become admissible circumstantial evidence at trial? Federal Evidence Rule 803(10) provides one such forensic possibility:

Absence of Public Record or Entry. To prove the absence of a record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, or the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of a matter of which a record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, was regularly made and preserved by a public office or agency, evidence in the form of a certification in accordance with rule 902, if necessary, or testimony, that diligent search failed to disclose the record, report, statement, or data compilation, or entry. |emphasis added|
Evidence Rule 803(7) is similar, but it applies to admitting as trial evidence the fact that regularly recorded "business records" have a relevant "absence" of an entry, as well as where and when a documentary "nothing" is forensically important.5

Origins and the Evidence of Nothing

So how does the evidence of nothing demonstrated by this particular Medicare fraud scheme relate to the question of origins? The comparison can be illustrated by applying the Evidence Rules that govern "nothing, when there should be something" to the problem of "missing links." This evidentiary insight may be unusual, but it is certainly not new.6

When examining the quixotic quest for missing links, it is like déjà vu--literally nothing, when there should have been something. To use the logic of Rule 803(10), a diligent search for these so-called transitional form fossils over a period of 150 years has failed to disclose them. What kind of empirical evidence is that, regarding the origin of earth's life forms? The years of diligent search indicate a glaring absence of molecules-to-man evolutionary phylogeny in the fossil record. In other words, the empirical data of earth's fossils, if analyzed forensically, show that evolutionary phylogeny notions are just empty imaginings, refuted by the evidence of nothing.

Dr. John Morris has recently summarized what the global fossil record contains, and (more importantly) what it does not contain.

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more. If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one.7
This argument from silence is an absence in the evidentiary record--a "nothing, where there should be something" if evolutionary theory were true. But evolutionary theory is not true, so the real world's fossil record has been providing irrefutable evidence, by the absence of missing links, for a long, long time now (see the articles noted below8 for several thorough analyses of the fossil record's evidence).

Conclusion

Some may say that the above analysis is "much ado about nothing." However, there is so much "science falsely so called" involved9 that it is imperative that we use the greatest care and the highest standards in our quest to uncover the true history of our world. And sometimes, "nothing" is itself evidence for the truth.

References

1. The Federal Rules of Evidence have been cloned, with only small modifications, by the 50 states. According to Rule 102, the Federal Rules of Evidence are supposed to be applied "to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined." This article focuses mainly on Evidence Rules 803(7) and 803(10), which respectively govern the admissibility as evidence of an absence of information that could have been (but was not) entered into a regular business record or an official government record.
2. See page 41 of The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence by Simon Greenleaf, originally published in 1874, reprinted in 1995 (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel).
3. Trial in federal district court began in September 2002. One appellate ruling was published as United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2005), and a later appellate ruling appears at United States v. Okoro, 213 Fed. Appx. 348, 2007 WL 98804 (5th Cir. 2007) (non-precedent).
4. Quoting from United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d at 364-365.
5. The same forensic principle can be applied to critiquing historical data. See, e.g., page 146 in Bill Cooper's After the Flood (Chichester, UK: New Wine Press, 1995).
6. Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists, 41.
7. Morris, J. 2006. What's a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
8. Gish, D. 1983. Creating the Missing Link: A Tale about a Whale. Acts & Facts. 12 (9); Morris, H. 2001. Evolution Is Religion--Not Science. Acts & Facts. 30 (2); Sherwin, F. 2007. Follow the Evidence! Acts & Facts. 36 (4); Gish, D. 1984. Evolution: The Changing Scene. Acts & Facts. 13 (10); Parker, G. 1980. Creation, Selection, and Variation. Acts & Facts. 9 (10); Morris, H. 1979. Revolutionary Evolutionism. Acts & Facts. 8 (11); Parker, G. 1981. Origin of Mankind. Acts & Facts. 10 (11); Gish, D. 1981. Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation, Part I & II. Acts & Facts. 10 (5). See also Duane Gish's book Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, available at http://www.icr.org/store.
9. 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV).

http://www.icr.org/article/3763/218/
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24033
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#625 Postby Alan H » October 19th, 2017, 7:10 pm

While you're here, Pahu, please answer my question: How approximate is your number?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#626 Postby animist » October 19th, 2017, 7:50 pm

Pahu wrote:the evidence of nothing
Yes, of course, absence of evidence can in some contexts mean evidence of absence, especially in the case of an individual known to be outside a country at the time in which he claimed to be providing medical services and for which he was charging. But this is pretty remote, I would say, from the distant history of life on this planet. Certainly there are many "missing links" between species, but does this really disprove evolution? In particular, does it negate the cases where there ARE pretty strong links of this kind? I think not. And, in the legal case you adduced, the alternatives were between two scenarios, viz that the medic in question did perform the services for which he billed, and that he did not so. OK, let us transfer the problem to the distant history of life on this planet. The case for evolution of species is not perfect, as it never would be. So Pahu, what's the alternative theory, and what's the evidence for it?

And you've still not pointed to the place in the Bible where the text indicates any information about the age of the Earth or any other part of the universe. Come on, Pahu!!

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#627 Postby Pahu » October 19th, 2017, 9:13 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:the evidence of nothing
Yes, of course, absence of evidence can in some contexts mean evidence of absence, especially in the case of an individual known to be outside a country at the time in which he claimed to be providing medical services and for which he was charging. But this is pretty remote, I would say, from the distant history of life on this planet. Certainly there are many "missing links" between species, but does this really disprove evolution? In particular, does it negate the cases where there ARE pretty strong links of this kind? I think not. And, in the legal case you adduced, the alternatives were between two scenarios, viz that the medic in question did perform the services for which he billed, and that he did not so. OK, let us transfer the problem to the distant history of life on this planet. The case for evolution of species is not perfect, as it never would be. So Pahu, what's the alternative theory, and what's the evidence for it?

And you've still not pointed to the place in the Bible where the text indicates any information about the age of the Earth or any other part of the universe. Come on, Pahu!!


The case for evolution of species is non-existent. The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof. The alternative is creation. The evidence is God's creation: 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 and His creation.

As to the Bible showing the age of the Earth or universe, there are no figures. But if you trace back the chronology from Adam in Genesis 5, you get a pretty close idea.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24033
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#628 Postby Alan H » October 19th, 2017, 10:10 pm

Pahu wrote:As to the Bible showing the age of the Earth or universe, there are no figures. But if you trace back the chronology from Adam in Genesis 5, you get a pretty close idea.
You originally said:
According to the Bible, the universe was created about 6000 BC
So, when you trace back this chronology, you somehow or other get a number ('about 6,000' BCE) that isn't explicitly in the bible. But how accurate is that number? What's the margin of error?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 629
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#629 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » October 19th, 2017, 10:32 pm

Pahu wrote:The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof.


Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

1 Nautiloids to ammonoids
2 Cephalopods
3 Evolution of insects
4 Evolution of spiders
5 Invertebrates to fish
6 Chondrichthyes
7 Bony fish
8 Fish to tetrapods
9 Amphibians to amniotes
10 Turtles
11 From lizards to snakes
12 Lizards
13 Pterosaurs
14 Archosaurs to dinosaurs
15 Dinosauria
16 Dinosaurs to birds
17 Bird evolution
18 Synapsid ("mammal-like reptiles") to mammals
19 Evolution of mammals
20 Early artiodactylans to whales
21 Evolution of sirenians
22 Evolution of pinnipeds
23 Evolution of the horse
24 Human evolution
25 See also
26 References
27 External links



The evidence is God's creation: 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 and His creation.


If there was nothing before the universe existed from which it appeared, there was nothing supernatural from which it appeared. This is, of course, inconsistent with your conclusion.

Now, if you are going to persist with this daft argument, you might at least try to get it into a form that isn't so obviously incoherent.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#630 Postby Tetenterre » October 20th, 2017, 10:24 am

Pahu wrote:The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof.
At the site I gave you (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/), there are three links to evidence of transitional fossils. Why are you pretending that they don't exist? Doesn't your religion require you to be truthful?
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

VINDICATOR
Posts: 593
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#631 Postby VINDICATOR » October 20th, 2017, 11:17 am

Pahu,
Even if you could prove that God created man, you have only taken the first step in a thousand mile trek! Next you have to prove that it was your God who did it and not one of the other thousands of Gods worshipped on Earth, or the nearly infinite number of Gods worshipped in the entire Cosmos! Gird up your loins!

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#632 Postby Pahu » October 20th, 2017, 3:20 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:
Pahu wrote:The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof.


Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

1 Nautiloids to ammonoids
2 Cephalopods
3 Evolution of insects
4 Evolution of spiders
5 Invertebrates to fish
6 Chondrichthyes
7 Bony fish
8 Fish to tetrapods
9 Amphibians to amniotes
10 Turtles
11 From lizards to snakes
12 Lizards
13 Pterosaurs
14 Archosaurs to dinosaurs
15 Dinosauria
16 Dinosaurs to birds
17 Bird evolution
18 Synapsid ("mammal-like reptiles") to mammals
19 Evolution of mammals
20 Early artiodactylans to whales
21 Evolution of sirenians
22 Evolution of pinnipeds
23 Evolution of the horse
24 Human evolution
25 See also
26 References
27 External links


Where is evidence for evolution in that list? Dating methods are unreliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Another pointless graphic and another copy and paste, Pahu? Really? Please try harder to abide by what I said yesterday. - admin

'Living Fossils' Point to Recent Creation


According to Genesis 1:21, “God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind.” The creation of original, distinct creature kinds confronts the evolutionary teaching that animals can endlessly morph from one form to another. Recent news reports reveal two clear illustrations of sea creatures living and reproducing according to their kinds right from the start.

The stunningly beautiful chambered nautilus features its famous coiled and symmetrical shell. Deep-sea shell hunters overharvest the tentacled predators by setting baited traps, sometimes as deep as 2,000 feet below the surface of southwest Pacific Ocean waters. Fishermen apparently suffer no regulations as they supply a growing market for the alluring nautilus shells.

Marine biologists including University of Washington biologist Peter Ward, concerned about the declining nautilus population, study deep oceans to better understand the creatures’ numbers and distribution. Using a submersible camera, Ward reported a nautilus sighting in July 2015 off the coast of Papua New Guinea. The last time anyone reported the creature in that area was back in 1984.1

The sighting renews hope that perhaps the animal may resist overfishing by somehow setting up shop in less-fished waters. Meanwhile, the always-fascinating nautilus shell reminds researchers of the mystery its fossil counterparts present. The New York Times wrote,

The fossil record dates the ancestors of the nautilus to the late Cambrian period, 500 million years ago. Some grew to be true sea monsters, with gargantuan shells and big tentacles. Over eons, the thousands of species have dwindled to a handful.2

By the way, “the fossil record” doesn’t actually date anything—scientists do that. But what are the odds that these creatures could have persisted unchanged for half-a-billion years?

According to this secular story, nautiluses avoided evolving upward—they haven’t gained a single new feature. Their genetic variation actually narrowed as their species variation diminished. It’s a good thing we have not yet fished the chambered nautilus to extinction, since by observing them we can appreciate their fine design and compare them to similar-looking Cambrian fossils that showcase creation according to the nautilus kind.

The same can now be said for the new “earliest” sea turtle fossil. Germany’s Senckenberg Research Institute released news of fossil sea turtles unearthed in 2007 by an amateur paleontologist in Columbia. Senckenberg researcher Edwin Cadena and California State University, Fullerton’s James Parham analyzed the remains. They assigned the fossil turtle to the same superfamily (Chelonioidea) that contains living sea turtles—like loggerheads and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. According to the Senckenberg Research Institute, “The almost completely preserved skeleton from the Cretaceous, with a length of nearly 2 meters, shows all of the characteristic traits of modern marine turtles.”3

They also wrote, “Sea turtles descended from terrestrial and freshwater turtles that arose approximately 230 million years ago.” But just like the nautilus, sea turtles retain all their core characteristics and thus show no evidence of evolution after “at least 120 million” supposed years.4 Shouldn’t this find make the evolutionary story of sea turtle origins even more difficult to believe?

No fossils document turtles’ supposed descent from land to sea, nor any upward change in nautiluses. Instead, these “ancient” fossil creatures look like their modern counterparts—just as if they were created to reproduce according to their kinds.

References

1. Montanari, S. ‘Living Fossil’ Spotted In The South Pacific For The First Time In Three Decades. Forbes Science. Posted on forbes.com August 28, 2015, accessed September 3, 2015.
2. Broad, W. 2011. Loving the Chambered Nautilus to Death. The New York Times. Posted on nytimes.com October 24, 2011, accessed September 8, 2015.
3. Oldest Fossil Sea Turtle Discovered—The fossilized turtle is at least 120 million years old. 4. 5. Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum. AlphaGalileo. Posted on alphagalileo.org September 7, 2015, accessed September 8, 2015.

http://www.icr.org/article/8974/268


The evidence is God's creation: 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 and His creation.


If there was nothing before the universe existed from which it appeared, there was nothing supernatural from which it appeared. This is, of course, inconsistent with your conclusion.

Now, if you are going to persist with this daft argument, you might at least try to get it into a form that isn't so obviously incoherent.


The universe is physical. God is spirit.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 629
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#633 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » October 21st, 2017, 12:55 am

Pahu wrote:The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof.

[...]

Where is evidence for evolution in that list? [/quote]

Whether transitional fossils are evidence for evolution is one matter.Whether transitional fossils exist is another.
Now, I see that tetenterre has put a specific question to you on the latter point. Can you answer it?

Dating methods are unreliable.


Which? Give reasons for your answer.


The universe is physical. God is spirit.


Well, if you say so, I shall accept it. But if there was nothing before the universe existed from which it appeared, there was no spirit from which it appeared. Wouldn't you agree?
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24033
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#634 Postby Alan H » October 21st, 2017, 1:41 am

Pahu

How approximate is your number?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#635 Postby Pahu » October 21st, 2017, 4:09 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:
Pahu wrote:The utter lack of transitional fossils is proof.

[...]

Where is evidence for evolution in that list? 


Whether transitional fossils are evidence for evolution is one matter.Whether transitional fossils exist is another.
Now, I see that tetenterre has put a specific question to you on the latter point. Can you answer it?


Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms


The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

http://www.icr.org/fossils-stasis


Dating methods are unreliable.

Which? Give reasons for your answer.


Radiometric Dating Flaws



For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.

Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:

• First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.”
• Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
• Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.

These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.

http://www.icr.org/article/6246
http://www.icr.org/article/7848
http://www.icr.org/article/4816
http://www.icr.org/article/5656
http://www.icr.org/article/1169



The universe is physical. God is spirit.

Well, if you say so, I shall accept it. But if there was nothing before the universe existed from which it appeared, there was no spirit from which it appeared. Wouldn't you agree?


No. As I explained, the universe is physical. God is spirit. I was speaking about the physical universe when I said nothing existed before the universe existed.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24033
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#636 Postby Alan H » October 21st, 2017, 6:12 pm

Pahu

Which bit of:
And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does.
did you not understand?

Pahu wrote:The universe is physical. God is spirit.
Prove it.

And also say how accurate your number for the age of the universe is.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

VINDICATOR
Posts: 593
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#637 Postby VINDICATOR » October 22nd, 2017, 2:23 am

Pahu,
Astronomy says the Cosmos is 13.8 billion years old. Why do you insist that it is only 8000 years old? If you were right, then any star farther than 8000 light years away would be invisible. The night sky would look much different. Do you understand "light year"?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#638 Postby Pahu » October 22nd, 2017, 8:21 pm

Alan H wrote:Pahu

Which bit of:
And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does.
did you not understand?

Pahu wrote:The universe is physical. God is spirit.
Prove it.


Proven in the post above.

And also say how accurate your number for the age of the universe is.


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 young—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 atmosphere—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. 631–632.

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.

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.

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. 175–195.

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. 75–76.

“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. 77–83.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 69–71.

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. 80–81.

“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 deep—and very valuable—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.

“...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. 17–18.

“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. 123–129.

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. 23–25.

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).

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]

Moon Dust and Debris


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 dust—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]

Image
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. 585–604.]

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.]

Crater Creep


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.

Image
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. 105–108.

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.”

Hot Moon


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)— 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 molten—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]

Young Comets


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small Comets


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

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

Each comet adds 20–40 tons of water to the Earth’s atmosphere. If this influx began when evolutionists say the Earth started to evolve, all our oceans would have come from small comets. Actually, impact rates were undoubtedly greater in the past, because the planets have swept many of these comets from the solar system. Therefore, small comets would have placed much more water on Earth than is here today. Obviously, this did not happen, so oceans look young. [See also pages 287 and 295

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

Hot Planets


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

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

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

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

b. Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

Solar Wind


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

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

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

Large lunar impacts are continually churning up and overturning the lunar surface. Therefore, for these micrometeorite impacts to blanket the surface so completely, they must have been recent. [For more details see: Figure 155]

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/onlinebo ... #wp1260517
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#639 Postby Pahu » October 22nd, 2017, 8:25 pm

Alan H wrote:Pahu

Which bit of:
And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does.
did you not understand?

Pahu wrote:The universe is physical. God is spirit.
Prove it.


Proven in the post above.

And also say how accurate your number for the age of the universe is.


Earth/Universe Age


[4,251 words and three large graphics deleted by admin. Did you not understand what I said previously?]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1260517
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24033
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#640 Postby Alan H » October 22nd, 2017, 8:33 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Pahu

Which bit of:
And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does.
did you not understand?

Pahu wrote:The universe is physical. God is spirit.
Prove it.


Proven in the post above.
No, no you didn't.

And also say how accurate your number for the age of the universe is.


Earth/Universe Age


[4,251 words and three large graphics deleted by admin. Did you not understand what I said previously?]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1260517
Please feel free to provide the conclusion from all that to my question. You can choose whatever form you wish to note the limits of your approximation, but the usual scientific, well-understood, clear and concise method is 8,000 +x, -y years. Please try to specify x and y.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#641 Postby Pahu » October 22nd, 2017, 8:36 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:Pahu

Which bit of:
And if you want to refer to some specific text, reference it, provide a link, quote small sections of text and provide your own comments on it, saying why you believe it substantiates whatever it is you believe it does.
did you not understand?

Pahu wrote:The universe is physical. God is spirit.
Prove it.


Proven in the post above.

And also say how accurate your number for the age of the universe is.


Earth/Universe Age


[4,251 words and three large graphics deleted by admin. Did you not understand what I said previously?]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1260517


You asked a question and I answered it and you erased it because you did not like my answer. Pathetic!
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests