Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:49 am

FourPart;1475880 wrote:

Pahu constantly refers to there having to be the missing links between levels of evolution (which do exist, and there are more being found every day), but he seems to be living proof of the evolutionary mental state between when man still walked on all fours to when they started to walk on 2 feet - although I'm not certain at which end of that scale he comes under, but definitely subhuman - by quite some way. Living Proof.

Where are those missing links that are being found every day? Scientists can't find them. 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.

[continue]

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:54 am

The lack of such fossils does not disprove the probability.

Most fossils are a result of some sort of significant, and usually cataclysmic event in the long, usually very boring progression of life over quite a few million years.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:56 am

FOSSIL GAPS

[continued]

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 information—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.

[continue]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:59 am

FOSSIL GAPS

[continued]

“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 line—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 Newton—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

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:18 am

LarsMac;1476028 wrote: The lack of such fossils does not disprove the probability.

Most fossils are a result of some sort of significant, and usually cataclysmic event in the long, usually very boring progression of life over quite a few million years.

Several million fossils have been found, studied and catalogued. So far not one transitional fossil has been found. Therefor it is reasonable to conclude there are none. Those who are unable to accept this fact are desperately clinging to evolution because they don't want to admit intelligent design.

Most fossils were produced during the Flood a few thousand years ago. Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish, show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations, plus the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years.

Furthermore, almost all sediments that formed today’s rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change or evolution.

Figure 7: Fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. Burial and fossilization must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found.

Figure 8: Fish in Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.

Figure 9: Fish in Curved Fish. The curved back shows that this fish died under stress.

Figure 10: Dragonfly Wing. This delicate, 1 1/2-foot-long wing must have been buried rapidly and evenly to preserve its details. Imagine the size of the entire dragonfly!

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 21.** Rapid Burial

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:34 am

This statement:

Figure 8: Fish in Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.

Made me laugh.

I suspect that the moment the big fish died, digestion stopped. leaving the fossilization process all the time in the world to take place.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 3:41 pm

Fossilisation takes millions of years, not thousands. Most organisms don't even remain intact long enough to be fossilised, as they get eaten by other scavengers. You assume the big fish was eating the little fish. Had it not dawned on you that it might be the other way round. It is not uncommon for smaller fish to enter the bodies of larger fish in order to feed on the softer insides. Many fish even carry their young in their mouths. You see, you are making 3 assumptions. 1. That they died together. 2. The time sequence. 3. Which one was doing the eating (if at all). I'm not saying that these assumptions are not POSSIBILITIES, just that there are always other options.

You try to disprove Evolution by the fact that Darwin himself said he didn't understand it. Of course he didn't. How could anyone expect him to? He had merely observed a phenomenon that went totally against a lifetime of the Religious Dogma that he had been brainwashed with, but it was something that was so obvious it couldn't be denied - unlike the way that the blinkered Religious cretins view things. Fleming discovered Penicillin. He didn't understand how it worked. He just observed the effects that it had. Does the fact that he admitted ignorance of how it worked discount the existence of its antibiotic properties. Does the fact that he didn't understand how it worked mean that modern immunology bears no relation to what he discovered? If it wasn't for the Ancient Chinese & their invention of gunpowder, for the purpose of nothing more than pretty celebratory fireworks, we wouldn't have Space Travel now. Did they have an understanding of the theory of relativity? Just because a concept is new, doesn't mean it isn't true & more to the point it doesn't mean that much more is going to come of it. Primitive Religious Dogmatists, on the other hand, however, were so afraid of Darwin opening everyone's eyes to the truth that they tried (and are still trying) to denounce his findings & burn his books & ban the teaching of Evolution in schools. They don't want it to be true because it disproves what they want to believe, therefore no one should be allowed access to such knowledge. This is the teaching of Religious 'Science'.

Just what does the fact that a fish has the body of another fish inside it prove, apart from that it had just had its dinner when it died, in such circumstances that it got cut off from bacteriological attack, thus stopping the decay. Such things can happen by way of mud slides, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, thus acidifying the water. By your logic, because the fossils of these fish were found to have other fish inside them, ALL fossilised fish must have smaller fish inside them.

Transitions not existing? Think again...

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As always your precondition comes down to some mythical flood. Yes, there was a flood, but it was millions of years before man ever came close to coming into being on this planet. Before the Continent Drift. Yes, all the mountains were once on the ocean floor, by that very same concept. However, mountains, by their nature grow upwards, pushed by seismic pressure, as opposed to shrinking by erosion. This has been monitored & recorded by laser measurements of Everest, among others, is growing by about 2.5cm / year, which may not seem much, but over millions of years, it's a different matter, so consider that before you move onto your next phase (which is always your pattern) of making claims of fossils on top of mountains proving the flood. They don't prove a flood, per se (certainly not a Biblical one), only that the geological structure of the earth was once very different.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 6:43 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 6:43 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 6:44 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 6:45 am

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:49 am

FourPart;1476054 wrote: Fossilisation takes millions of years, not thousands.

Most fossils were buried during the Flood a few thousand years ago. They were fossilized within a year.

You try to disprove Evolution by the fact that Darwin himself said he didn't understand it.

Many scientists since 1859 to the present have concluded that evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science based on the facts of science:

Evolutional Professor George Gaylord Simpson (1964): He was an American paleontologist and an expert on extinct mammals and their intercontinental migrations. Dr. Simpson was one of the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century. He was a Professor of zoology at Columbia University and curator of the Department of Geology and Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, and later at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. He wrote 15 books on evolution, including Tempo and Mode in Evolution, The Meaning of Evolution, and Evolution and Geography.

After all of his years of study and research, Professor Simpson was forced to confess: “Search for the CAUSE of evolution has been ABANDONED. It is now clear that evolution has NO single cause¦. It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated [i.e. not supported or proven by scientific evidence] and has status only as a speculation (The Major Features of Evolution, pp 118-119). Science evolution is not based on true scientific principles it must be then based on religious speculation. Dr. Simpson also declared: “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements [i.e. theories] that CANNOT be checked by OBSERVATION are NOT really saying anything — or at least they are NOT science (Science, 1964, vol 143, pg 770, article: The Nonprevalence of Humanoids).

Evolution - Scientific Deception

Evolutional Professor George Gaylord Simpson (1964): He was an American paleontologist and an expert on extinct mammals and their intercontinental migrations. Dr. Simpson was one of the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century. He was a Professor of zoology at Columbia University and curator of the Department of Geology and Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, and later at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. He wrote 15 books on evolution, including Tempo and Mode in Evolution, The Meaning of Evolution, and Evolution and Geography.

After all of his years of study and research, Professor Simpson was forced to confess: “Search for the CAUSE of evolution has been ABANDONED. It is now clear that evolution has NO single cause¦. It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated [i.e. not supported or proven by scientific evidence] and has status only as a speculation (The Major Features of Evolution, pp 118-119). Science evolution is not based on true scientific principles it must be then based on religious speculation. Dr. Simpson also declared: “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements [i.e. theories] that CANNOT be checked by OBSERVATION are NOT really saying anything — or at least they are NOT science (Science, 1964, vol 143, pg 770, article: The Nonprevalence of Humanoids).

Evolution - Scientific Deception

Just what does the fact that a fish has the body of another fish inside it prove, apart from that it had just had its dinner when it died, in such circumstances that it got cut off from bacteriological attack, thus stopping the decay. Such things can happen by way of mud slides, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, thus acidifying the water. By your logic, because the fossils of these fish were found to have other fish inside them, ALL fossilised fish must have smaller fish inside them.

Your inability to be logical is astounding. Why would you believe that by my logic ALL fossilised fish must have smaller fish inside them? Many did, but not all.

Decay does not stop if all bacteria is cut off during burial, since the fish are filled with bacteria while alive and stays with them after burial.

Transitions not existing? Think again...

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where, in that article, is there any evidence the fish evolved, or any of them are transitional?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:57 am

Pahu;1476095 wrote: Most fossils were buried during the Flood a few thousand years ago. They were fossilized within a year.

Many scientists since 1859 to the present have concluded that evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science based on the facts of science:

Evolutional Professor George Gaylord Simpson (1964): He was an American paleontologist and an expert on extinct mammals and their intercontinental migrations. Dr. Simpson was one of the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century. He was a Professor of zoology at Columbia University and curator of the Department of Geology and Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, and later at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. He wrote 15 books on evolution, including Tempo and Mode in Evolution, The Meaning of Evolution, and Evolution and Geography.

After all of his years of study and research, Professor Simpson was forced to confess: “Search for the CAUSE of evolution has been ABANDONED. It is now clear that evolution has NO single cause¦. It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated [i.e. not supported or proven by scientific evidence] and has status only as a speculation (The Major Features of Evolution, pp 118-119). Science evolution is not based on true scientific principles it must be then based on religious speculation. Dr. Simpson also declared: “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements [i.e. theories] that CANNOT be checked by OBSERVATION are NOT really saying anything — or at least they are NOT science (Science, 1964, vol 143, pg 770, article: The Nonprevalence of Humanoids).

Evolution - Scientific Deception

Evolutional Professor George Gaylord Simpson (1964): He was an American paleontologist and an expert on extinct mammals and their intercontinental migrations. Dr. Simpson was one of the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century. He was a Professor of zoology at Columbia University and curator of the Department of Geology and Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, and later at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. He wrote 15 books on evolution, including Tempo and Mode in Evolution, The Meaning of Evolution, and Evolution and Geography.

After all of his years of study and research, Professor Simpson was forced to confess: “Search for the CAUSE of evolution has been ABANDONED. It is now clear that evolution has NO single cause¦. It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated [i.e. not supported or proven by scientific evidence] and has status only as a speculation (The Major Features of Evolution, pp 118-119). Science evolution is not based on true scientific principles it must be then based on religious speculation. Dr. Simpson also declared: “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements [i.e. theories] that CANNOT be checked by OBSERVATION are NOT really saying anything — or at least they are NOT science (Science, 1964, vol 143, pg 770, article: The Nonprevalence of Humanoids).

Evolution - Scientific Deception

Your inability to be logical is astounding. Why would you believe that by my logic ALL fossilised fish must have smaller fish inside them? Many did, but not all.

Decay does not stop if all bacteria is cut off during burial, since the fish are filled with bacteria while alive and stays with them after burial.

Where, in that article, is there any evidence the fish evolved, or any of them are transitional?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:58 am

FourPart;1476054 wrote:

As always your precondition comes down to some mythical flood. Yes, there was a flood, but it was millions of years before man ever came close to coming into being on this planet.

There is nothing mythical about the worldwide Flood that happened a few thousand years ago after the creation of man. There is plenty of evidence proving it:

The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under earth’s crust. Standard “textbook explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined. Entire chapters are devoted to the italicized topics listed below.

The Grand Canyon (pages 205–238)

Mid-Oceanic Ridge

Earth’s Major Components

Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 151–186)

Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor

Submarine Canyons

Coal and Oil

Methane Hydrates

Ice Age

Major Mountain Ranges

Frozen Mammoths (pages 255–285)

Overthrusts

Volcanoes and Lava

Geothermal Heat

Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 189–201)

Limestone (pages 247–252)

Metamorphic Rock

Plateaus

The Moho and Black Smokers

Salt Domes

Jigsaw Fit of the Continents

Changing Axis Tilt

Comets (pages 289–322)

Asteroids, Meteoroids and TNOs (pages 325–357)

Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 363–411)

Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of trillions of hydrogen bombs.1 The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.

But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water (which will soon be explained) ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain earth’s major features.

Figure 43: World Ocean Floor. Notice the characteristic margins of each continent. Seaward from each ocean beach is a shallow, gradually sloping continental shelf, then a relatively steep drop, called the continental slope. This strange pattern is worldwide. Why? For a better look at the typical shape of this margin, see Figure 46 on page 113. Also notice the different characteristics of (1) continents and ocean basins, and (2) the Atlantic and Pacific Basins. Ninety East Ridge is so named because it lies almost exactly along 90°E longitude. Its straight, 3,000-mile length, and curious north-south orientation aimed at the Himalayas are important clues to past events on earth. (Note: As one moves toward polar regions on this type of map projection, east-west distances are stretched and do not reflect true distances.)

Figure 44: “Unlevel Sea Level. An amazing technological development reveals details on ocean floors. In 1983, the U.S. Navy’s SEASAT satellite measured with a radar altimeter the satellite’s distance above the ocean surface with an accuracy of several inches! “Sea level is far from level. Instead, the ocean surface “humps up over mountains on the ocean floor and is depressed over trenches. The gravitational attraction of the Hawaiian Islands, for example, pulls the surrounding water toward it. This raises sea level there about 80 feet higher than it would be otherwise. The satellite’s data have been color coded to make this spectacular “picture of the ocean surface. Darker areas show depressions in sea level. Notice that the ocean surface is depressed over long scars, called fracture zones, running generally perpendicular to the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Which theory explains this—the plate tectonic theory or the hydroplate theory? Also consider the nearly intersecting fracture zones in the South Pacific. Which theory explains them?

This technique for showing features on the ocean floor has steadily improved since 1983. Today, ridges and fracture zones can be seen in places that are inconsistent with the plate tectonic interpretation. For example a crooked fracture zone can be traced from South America to Africa, and oceanic ridges are found in the Gulf of Mexico. As you will see, both are consistent with the hydroplate theory.3

Plate tectonics, currently the most widely taught theory in the earth sciences, offers unsatisfactory answers to basic questions. According to this theory, earth’s crust is composed of many plates,2 each 30–60 miles thick. They move relative to each other, about an inch per year—at the rate a fingernail grows. Continents and oceans ride on top of these plates. Some continents, such as North America, are on more than one plate. For example, different parts of North America, separated by the San Andreas Fault running up through western California, are sliding past each other. (A fault is a large fracture in the earth along which slippage has occurred.) Supposedly, material deep inside the earth is rising toward the crest of the entire Mid-Oceanic Ridge. From there, the material divides and moves horizontally in opposite directions away from the ridge. This claimed motion, called seafloor spreading, is similar to that of a two conveyor belts rising together from under a floor and then moving along the floor in opposite directions. As you will see, plate tectonics has many little-known problems.

Crisis in Earth Science. The most perplexing question in the earth sciences today is barely mentioned in classrooms and textbooks: What force moves plates over the globe?

The single most difficult question that faces the theory of plate tectonics today is the same question that led to the downfall of Wegener’s theory of continental drift almost three-quarters of a century ago. That is, what is the mechanism that drives the plate tectonic machine?4

The hydroplate theory gives a surprisingly simple answer that will be clear by the end of the next chapter. It involves gravity, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, earth’s core, and water—lots of it. Be patient, and read the next 65 pages carefully.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:58 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:59 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:00 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:01 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:02 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:19 pm

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:46 pm

Once again your "Scientific Evidence" link points not to a scientific source, but to a Creationists ramblings, thus negating any validity it may have come close to.

Your 'evidence' of the mythical flood is based on the inane rambling of the Lord & Master Dolt Brown, thus negating any validity of that notion. Your claim of fossils happening within a year is totally false & unfounded by any notion of scientific evidence. The only method of instantaneous fossilisation is by volcanic precipitation, such as with Pompeii, which is an entirely different kind of fossilisation.

You claim that bacteria continue to live on if sealed from the outside. Not quite so. As with all lifeforms they still require gases to breath. In a closed, sealed environment their waste products end up killing them, just as with yeast. Once it reaches a certain level of fermentation with the waste product of alcohol, the yeast is killed off.

If, as you claim, fossils are formed within a year, then how come all your relics from Biblical characters haven't been fossilised? You have claimed there has been evidence of blood from the cross, etc. By your claims, that blood, would have been fossilised long ago & the wood have turned to coal.

Fossilisation doesn't occur within a year, nor within thousands of years. It happens over MILLIONS of years, and the simple reason you refuse to believe that is that by the calculation of the generations, the earth was first created about 5800 years BC, which would mean that no fossils could possibly exist in that time frame. Therefore, because we have the evidence that they do exist, then the only other explanation is that the Bible is erroneous - Surprise, Surprise. Once again reality triumphs over magic.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:56 pm

FourPart;1476109 wrote: Once again your "Scientific Evidence" link points not to a scientific source, but to a Creationists ramblings, thus negating any validity it may have come close to.

Your 'evidence' of the mythical flood is based on the inane rambling of the Lord & Master Dolt Brown, thus negating any validity of that notion. Your claim of fossils happening within a year is totally false & unfounded by any notion of scientific evidence. The only method of instantaneous fossilisation is by volcanic precipitation, such as with Pompeii, which is an entirely different kind of fossilisation.

You claim that bacteria continue to live on if sealed from the outside. Not quite so. As with all lifeforms they still require gases to breath. In a closed, sealed environment their waste products end up killing them, just as with yeast. Once it reaches a certain level of fermentation with the waste product of alcohol, the yeast is killed off.

If, as you claim, fossils are formed within a year, then how come all your relics from Biblical characters haven't been fossilised? You have claimed there has been evidence of blood from the cross, etc. By your claims, that blood, would have been fossilised long ago & the wood have turned to coal.

Fossilisation doesn't occur within a year, nor within thousands of years. It happens over MILLIONS of years, and the simple reason you refuse to believe that is that by the calculation of the generations, the earth was first created about 5800 years BC, which would mean that no fossils could possibly exist in that time frame. Therefore, because we have the evidence that they do exist, then the only other explanation is that the Bible is erroneous - Surprise, Surprise. Once again reality triumphs over magic.

Your denial of the facts is pathetic. If you want to believe unscientific notions based on you rejection of the validity of the authors, fine, but you might try refuting the science, which you have been unable to do.

Your beliefs are erroneous including the notion that I have claimed there has been evidence of blood from the cross, etc., which I never claimed. You have a habit of making things up without evidence to make your case despite the overwhelming evidence proving you are wrong. If ignorance is bliss, you are blistered, and that is where you will remain until you wise up.

Regarding your erroneous comment about the Bible, remember:

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Rocks Cry Out

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

Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

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

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

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

100prophecies.org

http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... stdays.cfm

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy

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

Also, the magic of evolution cannot compare with that. Isn’t it absurd for evolutionists to ridicule creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while evolutionists maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:49 pm

Pahu;1476115 wrote: Your denial of the facts is pathetic. If you want to believe unscientific notions based on you rejection of the validity of the authors, fine, but you might try refuting the science, which you have been unable to do.

Your beliefs are erroneous including the notion that I have claimed there has been evidence of blood from the cross, etc., which I never claimed. You have a habit of making things up without evidence to make your case despite the overwhelming evidence proving you are wrong. If ignorance is bliss, you are blistered, and that is where you will remain until you wise up.

Regarding your erroneous comment about the Bible, remember:

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Rocks Cry Out

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

Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

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

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

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

100prophecies.org

http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... stdays.cfm

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy

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

Also, the magic of evolution cannot compare with that. Isn’t it absurd for evolutionists to ridicule creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while evolutionists maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything?

No science here....carry on !

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:57 pm

Snowfire;1476120 wrote: No science here....carry on !

But quite a bit here.....

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American

.....proper scientific reasoning and understanding supported by peer reviewed scientists not idiotic, cringe making pseudo scientists.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:01 pm

You can't ignore actual science and invent your own like Pahu's hero Walt Brown

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:25 am

Strange Planets 1

Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved (a). One theory says planets formed when a star, passing near our Sun, tore matter from the Sun. More popular theories hold that the solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, or larger particles. If the planets and their known moons evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. After several decades of planetary exploration, this expectation is now recognized as false (b).

Figure 22: Unique Planets. This is a composite photograph (not-to-scale) of all planets in the solar system, except Pluto. They are, from top to bottom: Mercury, Venus, Earth (with the Moon to the right), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The photos were taken by Mariner 10 (Mercury), Pioneer Venus Orbiter (Venus), Apollo 17 astronauts (Earth), Earth-based telescopes (Moon and Mars), and the two Voyager spacecraft (the four giant planets).

Each planet is unique. Similarities that would be expected if the planets had evolved from the same swirling dust cloud are seldom found. Yet most planetary studies begin by assuming that the planets evolved and are therefore similar. Typical arguments are as follows: “By studying the magnetic field (or any other feature) of Planet X, we will better understand how Earth’s magnetic field evolved. Actually, each magnetic field is surprisingly different. “By studying Earth’s sister planet, Venus, we will see how plate tectonics shaped its surface and better understand how plate tectonics works on Earth. It is now recognized that plate tectonics does not occur on Venus.

a. “...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong. Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters, Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.

“To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist. Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution, 6th edition (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 387.

“But if we had a reliable theory of the origin of planets, if we knew of some mechanism consistent with the laws of physics so that we understood how planets form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate the probability that other stars have attendant planets. However, no such theory exists yet, despite the large number of hypotheses suggested. R. A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 4.

“A great array of observational facts must be explained by a satisfactory theory, [on the evolution of the solar system] and the theory must be consistent with the principles of dynamics and modern physics. All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or remain unproved, when physical theory is properly applied. Fred L. Whipple, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 3rd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 243.

“Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the Solar System began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science. Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.

b. “I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seems to be unique. Michael Carr, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “The Solar System’s New Diversity, Science, Vol. 265, 2 September 1994, p. 1360.

“The most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets. David Stevenson, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, Ibid.

“Stevenson and others are puzzling out how subtle differences in starting conditions such as distance from the sun, along with chance events like giant impacts early in the solar system history, can send planets down vastly different evolutionary paths. Kerr, Ibid.

“You put together the same basic materials and get startlingl y different results. No two [planets] are alike; it’s like a zoo. Alexander Dessler, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, Ibid., p. 1361.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:53 am

I don't ignore 'facts'. I ignore the inane unfounded superstitious raving of nutters like Dolt Brown et al. Whenever you paste anything I just scroll past it all as there's nothing you've not pasted many times already & as I've said before, it doesn't matter how much you paste it, it doesn't make it any less bollocks.

I've told you before - If you really believe in what YOU'RE saying (not in what DOLT BROWN is saying), then try standing on your own 2 feet without having to rely on anothers idiot's rantings. I've challenged you to do this many times & each time you have simply responded by pasting more of Dolt Brown's ravings, thus proving that you don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:00 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:01 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:02 pm

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

Quote Originally Posted by Snowfire View Post

Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, (Job 38:19)

From this we are to believe that the bible is telling us that light is a particle and has mass.

It says NOTHING of the sort !!

I have asked about this twice and have yet to receive some sort of response.

I would like to know how you establish that the Bible explains the existence of light as particles and that it has a mass, from.....Job 38:19.

By what stretch of imagination do you extrapolate from one to get the other ?

I have asked this question several times but still have had no response. Are you still researching the answer or are you still inventing one ?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:17 pm

Snowfire;1476152 wrote: Re: Science Disproves Evolution

Quote Originally Posted by Snowfire View Post

I have asked this question several times but still have had no response. Are you still researching the answer or are you still inventing one ?
Pahu answer a direct question? Come off it. By now he'll be charging his clipboard with a load more clips from Dolt Brown.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:50 am

Snowfire;1476152 wrote: Re: Science Disproves Evolution

Quote Originally Posted by Snowfire View Post

Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, (Job 38:19)

From this we are to believe that the bible is telling us that light is a particle and has mass.

I would like to know how you establish that the Bible explains the existence of light as particles and that it has a mass, from.....Job 38:19.

It says NOTHING of the sort !!

Right! It doesn't say that. How do you establish that the Bible explains the existence of light as particles and that it has a mass, from Job 38:19?

By what stretch of imagination do you extrapolate from one to get the other?

Job is speaking poetically and is not to be taken literally. Ether way he is not claiming the existence of light as particles and that it has a mass. Here is what John Gills (a Bible scholar) has to say:

Where [is] the way [where] light dwelleth?

&c.] Or the way to the place where it dwells, and what that is;

and [as for] darkness, where [is] the place thereof?

where these were placed when they were first separated at the creation? where light goes and dwells, when it departs from us at sun setting? and where the darkness betakes itself, and makes its abode at sun rising? What is the chamber of the sun, and the tabernacle of it? from whence it sets out, and whither it returns? And though these questions may be answered by geographers and astronomers in their way; yet they seem to respect chiefly the disposal of light and darkness, in such a manner as to cause the revolution of them, and the inequality of days and nights in different seasons and climates; and which is not in the power of men to effect, but depends on the sovereign will of God.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:58 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:59 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:01 am

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:35 am

Strange Planets 2

According to these evolutionary theories:

Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus (c), and Pluto rotate backwards (d).

Backward Orbits. Each of the almost 200 known moons in the solar system should orbit its planet in the same direction, but more than 30 have backward orbits (e). Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Tipped Orbits:

Moons. The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits (f).

Planets. The orbital planes of the planets should lie in the equatorial plane of the Sun. Instead, the orbital planes of the planets typically deviate from the Sun’s equatorial plane by 7 degrees, a significant amount.

Angular Momentum. The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun (g).

c. Uranus’ spin axis is “tilted 97.77°. In other words, Uranus spins on its side and slightly backwards. Evolutionists have incorrectly speculated that Uranus must have been tipped over by a giant impact. However, such an impact would not have changed the orbital planes of Uranus’ larger moons, which are also “tipped over.

d. The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2003 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), p.F2.

e. Ibid.

f. Ibid.

The Moon’s orbital plane is inclined 18.5° – 28.5° to the Earth’s equatorial plane. (The Moon’s orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when one recognizes that the Moon possesses 82.9% of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.

Theories that for centuries claimed to show how the Moon evolved can now be rejected because of this fact alone. A more recent theory claims that a Mars-size body collided with the early Earth and kicked up debris that formed the Moon. Ward and Canup acknowledge that:

“Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near, [less than 1°] the Earth’s equatorial plane. William R. Ward and Robin M. Canup, “Origin of the Moon’s Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions, Nature, Vol.403, 17 February 2000, p.741.

Nevertheless, speculative ways to circumvent this problem continue to be suggested. Even if some theory could explain the Moon’s high orbital inclination and angular momentum, other problems remain. [See “Origin of the Moon ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 48.** Origin of the Moon

h. Lyttleton, p.16.

Fred Hoyle, The Cosmology of the Solar System (Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1979), pp.11–12.

“One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum. Frank D. Stacey, Physics of the Earth (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), p.4.

Some have proposed transferring angular momentum from the sun to the planets by “magnetic linking. McCrea states:

“However, I scarcely think it has yet been established that the postulated processes would inevitably occur, or that if they did they would operate with the extreme efficiency needed in order to achieve the required distribution of angular momentum. William Hunter McCrea, “Origin of the Solar System, Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), p.8.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:43 am

Really funny that you should mention Uranus so prominently because uranus is where most of your claims originate!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:22 pm

Oh look, he is real.

A real poop head that is

The word restrictions of the board are preventing the image from rendering so I'll link it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1xVjwp7vOlA/V ... y-****.jpg

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:34 pm

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:46 pm

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:36 am

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

• Epicurus

God is both willing and able to prevent most evil but He chooses not to because it is the result of our own choices. At times He does choose to protect some.

In the beginning we decided our way was superior to His way. His response was to give us a few thousand years to prove whether or not that is true. When we have reached the point where we are about to end all life on Earth, He will end our experiment of trying to live without Him and teach us the truth. Those who repent of their sins, accept Him as LORD and obey His Ten Commandment Law will be given the gift of eternal life with Him. He will reluctantly annihilate those who choose not to.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:35 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:36 am

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:20 am

Pahu;1476626 wrote:

Strange Planets 2

According to these evolutionary theories:

et (twadd) al

I'm not going to quote it all, seeing as you've already pasted it so many times already.

There is basically only one thing that can be said about the pasting , and that is the initial claim is false, therefore everything that ensues, as a result of that claim is also false. No physicists have claimed that planets should all spin in the same direction. Certainly, it has always been a matter of curiosity as to why they don't, but there is absolutely no physical reason why they shouldn't. Therefore, theinitial claim that physicists make the opposing claim is false, therefore the arguments against anyone having made that claim are also false. The only person who has made the claim at all is Dolt Brown. It is another theory of his own unbalanced mind that he tries to attribute to others so as to attempt to disprove them.

It is known, from polarised rock strata that every few million years the earth flips on its axis, so that North becomes South & vice versa. However, the rotational direction remains constant so that, in effect, once the shift is complete it is actually going in the opposite direction in relation to the original location of the poles. Mind you, you're bound to deny that as well, as you claim that the earth only a few thousand years old.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:04 am

FourPart;1476730 wrote: ...you claim that the earth only a few thousand years old.

That is what the evidence indicates:

YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE

The evidence for a young earth is more compelling than for an earth billions of years old. 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 the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

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

Estimated old ages for the Earth are frequently based on “clocks that today are ticking at extremely slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were thought to have always been very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show that no known coral formation need be older than 3,400 years. A similar comment can be made for growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites in caves.

One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. 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.

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. Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals. 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.

Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock. 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.

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.

More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport was much greater in the past as the looser topsoil was removed and as erosion smoothed 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.

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

Rivers are carrying 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 metals are dissolved in the oceans than one would expect if a million years had been available for them to enter solution. 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.

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. Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers. 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 observations can be made concerning ancient rock slides. Rock slides are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock.

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.

Over the past 140 years, direct measurements of Earth’s magnetic field show its steady and rapid decline in strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that a decaying electrical current inside Earth produces the magnetic field. If this is correct, then just 20,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that Earth’s structure could not have survived the heat produced. This implies Earth could not be older than 20,000 years.

If Earth had initially been molten, 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.

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 billion’s 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. Because it has not yet cooled off, the Moon seems much younger than most people had guessed.

[continue]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:09 am

YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE

[continued]

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. So comets and the solar system appear to be less than 10,000 years old.

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. 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.

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

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. Conclusion: the solar system appears young.

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 the so-called “zodiacal light. Forces acting on these particles should spiral most of them into the Sun in less than 10,000 years. Known forces and sources of replenishment cannot maintain this cloud, so the solar system is probably less than 10,000 years old.

Huge quantities of microscopic dust particles also have been discovered around some stars. 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.

In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so. 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. So the Milky Way looks young.

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. If redshifts imply velocities, 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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 redshift of starlight always indicates a star’s velocity, then a billion-year-old universe is completely inconsistent with what is observed. If redshifts can be caused by phenomena other than a star’s velocity, much of current astronomical thinking is wrong.

These observations have led some to conclude, not that the universe is young, but that unseen, undetected mass is holding these stars and galaxies together. For this to work, the hidden mass, sometimes called dark matter, must be 10–100 times greater than all visible mass, and the hidden mass must be in the right places. However, many experiments have shown that the needed “missing mass does not exist. Some researchers are still searching, because the alternative is a young universe.

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?

Lead and Helium Diffusion

“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.

“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.

Excess Fluid Pressure

“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.

“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. W.B.]

Volcanic Debris

“It has been estimated that just four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutï¿½*n [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.

Shallow Meteorites

“...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.

More:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 70. Parallel Layers

How Old Is The Earth?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:18 am

Once again, a pasted essay to attempt to deny the real facts (which, incidentally bear no relation to the matter in hand) - no individual thought.

The PROVEN facts are that mountains grow as a result of geological / volcanic activity pushing them upwards. This much has been measured & recorded. This means that nearly all rocks ARE of volcanic origin. As I have said before, it also explains the existence of fossils at the tops of mountains. By calcutaling the height of the mountain against its rate of growth it can't be discovered, reasonably accurately how old the mountain is, and I can asure you that's it's more than a few thousand years.

Then, as a result of erosion bits of the rock find their way back to the sea. You see, I don't need reams of nonsensical pasting to explain that much.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:28 am

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:30 am