FourPart;1476743 wrote: 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.
You are partially correct. The facts indicate the mountains were created in a matter of hours because of the Flood.
If a culture ignored, for any reason, a past event as cataclysmic as a global flood, major misunderstandings or errors would creep into science and society. One of the first would be the explanation for fossils. Typically, Fossil A lies below Fossil B, which lies below Fossil C, etc. If flood explanations were weak or disallowed, then evolution would provide an answer: Organism A evolved into B, which later evolved into C. Fossil layers would represent vast amounts of time. Other geologic features could then easily fit into that time frame. With so much time available, possible explanations multiply—explanations not easily tested in less than a million years. A century after Darwin, evolutionary explanations would be given for the universe, chemical elements, heavenly bodies, earth, and life. Part I of this book shows that these ideas are false.
Part II will show, in ways an interested layman can understand, the flaws in these geologic explanations and that a global flood, with vast and unique consequences, did occur. For example, coal, oil, and methane did not form over hundreds of millions of years; they formed in months. Fossils and layered strata did not form over a billion years; they formed in months. The Grand Canyon did not form in millions of years; it formed in weeks. Major mountain ranges did not form over hundreds of millions of years; each formed in hours. These statements may appear shocking, until one has examined the evidence in Part II. You will be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to debate these matters with someone who understands the flood. [See pages 549–552.]
Ironically, some leading creationists who believe in a global flood have contributed to its frequent rejection by advocating unsound mechanisms for the flood. They have failed to clearly answer people’s most basic questions: “Where did so much water come from, and where did it go?â€
One such explanation is the canopy theory. (Pages 498–506 examine its many problems.) Others who know of these problems have proposed an equally weak explanation called catastrophic plate tectonics. Basically, it is the flawed plate tectonic theory speeded up a millionfold by assumed miracles and unworkable mechanisms.
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.
In order to fully understand all the mechanisms involved you need to go to this link (In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:) and read the following pages.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
If, as you say, fossils form over a matter of months then there can be no global fuel shortage, as new stocks should be forming faster than we can use it.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1476798 wrote: If, as you say, fossils form over a matter of months then there can be no global fuel shortage, as new stocks should be forming faster than we can use it.
I didn't say that. I said that fossils formed over a period of months during the Flood a few thousand years ago. Very few are forming today.
Before the Flood the earth was about 5% water in the form of lakes. Today the earth is about 70% water, which is left over from the Flood. If the earth were smooth, the existing water would cover the earth over a mile deep. Before the Flood the earth was comparatively smooth with a few hills, but no mountains. Also, there were no frigid polar regions. The earth was covered with a tremendous amount of vegetation and animals, which is why we find so much coal and oil today.
Think about it: All over the world drillers have to go down over a mile to reach the oil. With the exception of Texas where the average depth is 3,500 ft. The deepest well is 50,502 ft. At 5,280 ft. = mile, that would be over nine miles. That means the animals that created that oil were once on the surface.
I didn't say that. I said that fossils formed over a period of months during the Flood a few thousand years ago. Very few are forming today.
Before the Flood the earth was about 5% water in the form of lakes. Today the earth is about 70% water, which is left over from the Flood. If the earth were smooth, the existing water would cover the earth over a mile deep. Before the Flood the earth was comparatively smooth with a few hills, but no mountains. Also, there were no frigid polar regions. The earth was covered with a tremendous amount of vegetation and animals, which is why we find so much coal and oil today.
Think about it: All over the world drillers have to go down over a mile to reach the oil. With the exception of Texas where the average depth is 3,500 ft. The deepest well is 50,502 ft. At 5,280 ft. = mile, that would be over nine miles. That means the animals that created that oil were once on the surface.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Once again you form all your subsequent conclusions on one primary erroneous basis - i.e. the timescale of the flood.
One thing we are agreed on, believe it or not, is that there was a flood. That much is proven fact - it even states that much in the Bible ("And darkness was upon the face of the deep"). The difference lies in that the flood came at the beginning (which is also backed up by the Bible), and not as a result of a downpour. The earth was practically covered by water - most of it still is - that much I'm sure even you have to agree. However, as a result of geological activity the continents began to drift apart, reshaping the structure of the planet. Lands were pushed up from the sea bed, making the remaining water mass deeper, thus maintaining the overall volume.
You claim that fossils are made over a matter of months, yet when it pointed out that we are running out of oil, instead of there being a plentiful supply of new fossilised fuels you backtrack & claim that hardly any fossilisation goes on any more. in this you are totally wrong. It is just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of a major flaw in your logic. You seem to think that everything happened overnight, and then nothing has happened since, simply because your story book doesn't comprehend that the earth was here billions of years before man existed on this planet, let alone became aware of his existence. Instead, you prefer to remain arrogant & believe that the entire world is based around the existence of mankind, believing that life could not exist without it.
Fossilisation is an ongoing process. Fact. It happens over Millions of years. Fact. There is a timeline of fossilisation. Fact. Lower levels of the timeline are frequently forced above the upper levels by geological activity. Fact. The continental plates are constantly moving. Fact. All of these are things that have been & are still being observed & recorded, so much so that occurences, such as earthquakes they can even, quite often, be predicted to a degree. Whenever you get an earthquake you usually get a big crack in the ground. These cracks get wider & wider following subsequent earthquakes. These are the roots of Continental Drift. It happens. It is happening. It has always happened, and in order for it to have reached the degree of division that it has, millions of years must have passed. The same can be said for the creation of mountains, pushing their way up from the sea bed. Mountains grow at the rate of about 2cm / year. This has been observed & recorded. Divide the height of a mountain by that & work out the approximate age of the mountain. Surprisingly enough, the result works out to be along the same sort of time scale as that of the origins of the Continental Drift, and of the earlier fossils - measured in MILLIONS of years.
Try to do a few calculations based on recorded FACTS for yourself & ignore, for once, the ravings of Dolt Brown. Accept that there are are other planets with similar geological structure as our own, and ask yourself how long it took them to form in the same way. Given that they don't have water on them, then ask yourself how they got to form that way without this imaginary magic Hydroplate notion which, by definition, has a prerequisite of the existence of water.
The problem here is that you either refuse to think for yourself, or you are incapable of thinking for yourself & choose to blindly follow the make believe fantasies, of some raving superstitious lunatic, who provides no evidence for his claims, in the face of plenty of hard evidence against it.
Dolt Brown's logic is along the lines of someone being tried for murder. He is arrested after Police force their way into a locked room after hearing screams. They find him covered in blood, pulling the knife from the body of the victim. Then, when it comes to trial, the defendant claims that he didn't do it & that in actual fact it was done by some aliens who beamed into the room and killed the victim in front of him, and that he was just going to her aid when the Police forced their way in, by which time the aliens had gone. Then the Jury thinking, "Well, that explains everything - Not Gulty".
One thing we are agreed on, believe it or not, is that there was a flood. That much is proven fact - it even states that much in the Bible ("And darkness was upon the face of the deep"). The difference lies in that the flood came at the beginning (which is also backed up by the Bible), and not as a result of a downpour. The earth was practically covered by water - most of it still is - that much I'm sure even you have to agree. However, as a result of geological activity the continents began to drift apart, reshaping the structure of the planet. Lands were pushed up from the sea bed, making the remaining water mass deeper, thus maintaining the overall volume.
You claim that fossils are made over a matter of months, yet when it pointed out that we are running out of oil, instead of there being a plentiful supply of new fossilised fuels you backtrack & claim that hardly any fossilisation goes on any more. in this you are totally wrong. It is just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of a major flaw in your logic. You seem to think that everything happened overnight, and then nothing has happened since, simply because your story book doesn't comprehend that the earth was here billions of years before man existed on this planet, let alone became aware of his existence. Instead, you prefer to remain arrogant & believe that the entire world is based around the existence of mankind, believing that life could not exist without it.
Fossilisation is an ongoing process. Fact. It happens over Millions of years. Fact. There is a timeline of fossilisation. Fact. Lower levels of the timeline are frequently forced above the upper levels by geological activity. Fact. The continental plates are constantly moving. Fact. All of these are things that have been & are still being observed & recorded, so much so that occurences, such as earthquakes they can even, quite often, be predicted to a degree. Whenever you get an earthquake you usually get a big crack in the ground. These cracks get wider & wider following subsequent earthquakes. These are the roots of Continental Drift. It happens. It is happening. It has always happened, and in order for it to have reached the degree of division that it has, millions of years must have passed. The same can be said for the creation of mountains, pushing their way up from the sea bed. Mountains grow at the rate of about 2cm / year. This has been observed & recorded. Divide the height of a mountain by that & work out the approximate age of the mountain. Surprisingly enough, the result works out to be along the same sort of time scale as that of the origins of the Continental Drift, and of the earlier fossils - measured in MILLIONS of years.
Try to do a few calculations based on recorded FACTS for yourself & ignore, for once, the ravings of Dolt Brown. Accept that there are are other planets with similar geological structure as our own, and ask yourself how long it took them to form in the same way. Given that they don't have water on them, then ask yourself how they got to form that way without this imaginary magic Hydroplate notion which, by definition, has a prerequisite of the existence of water.
The problem here is that you either refuse to think for yourself, or you are incapable of thinking for yourself & choose to blindly follow the make believe fantasies, of some raving superstitious lunatic, who provides no evidence for his claims, in the face of plenty of hard evidence against it.
Dolt Brown's logic is along the lines of someone being tried for murder. He is arrested after Police force their way into a locked room after hearing screams. They find him covered in blood, pulling the knife from the body of the victim. Then, when it comes to trial, the defendant claims that he didn't do it & that in actual fact it was done by some aliens who beamed into the room and killed the victim in front of him, and that he was just going to her aid when the Police forced their way in, by which time the aliens had gone. Then the Jury thinking, "Well, that explains everything - Not Gulty".
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1476827 wrote:
One thing we are agreed on, believe it or not, is that there was a flood. That much is proven fact - it even states that much in the Bible ("And darkness was upon the face of the deep"). The difference lies in that the flood came at the beginning (which is also backed up by the Bible), and not as a result of a downpour.
If you believe the Bible, why do you reject the account of the Flood, which was the result of the fountains of the great deep being broken up and the windows of heaven were opened (Gen 7:11).
You claim that fossils are made over a matter of months, yet when it pointed out that we are running out of oil, instead of there being a plentiful supply of new fossilised fuels you backtrack & claim that hardly any fossilisation goes on any more. in this you are totally wrong. It is just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of a major flaw in your logic.
Why do you keep misquoting me? What I said was most of the fossils were formed in a matter of months during the Flood. Very few have been formed since then.
You seem to think that everything happened overnight, and then nothing has happened since, simply because your story book doesn't comprehend that the earth was here billions of years before man existed on this planet, let alone became aware of his existence. Instead, you prefer to remain arrogant & believe that the entire world is based around the existence of mankind, believing that life could not exist without it.
Why do you believe earth was here billions of years before man existed? What evidence do you have to support that assertion? The Bible record contradicts you and it is believable for several reasons:
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.
Fossilisation is an ongoing process. Fact. It happens over Millions of years. Fact. There is a timeline of fossilisation. Fact. Lower levels of the timeline are frequently forced above the upper levels by geological activity. Fact. The continental plates are constantly moving. Fact. All of these are things that have been & are still being observed & recorded, so much so that occurences, such as earthquakes they can even, quite often, be predicted to a degree.
Where is the evidence supporting your "facts"?
Whenever you get an earthquake you usually get a big crack in the ground. These cracks get wider & wider following subsequent earthquakes. These are the roots of Continental Drift. It happens. It is happening. It has always happened, and in order for it to have reached the degree of division that it has, millions of years must have passed. The same can be said for the creation of mountains, pushing their way up from the sea bed. Mountains grow at the rate of about 2cm / year. This has been observed & recorded. Divide the height of a mountain by that & work out the approximate age of the mountain. Surprisingly enough, the result works out to be along the same sort of time scale as that of the origins of the Continental Drift, and of the earlier fossils - measured in MILLIONS of years.
More evidence free speculation. Actually, mountains were formed in a few hours as a result of the Flood a few thousand years ago. If you are interested in the facts, go here where you will find over 300 pages of evidence: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:
Try to do a few calculations based on recorded FACTS for yourself & ignore, for once, the ravings of Dolt Brown. Accept that there are are other planets with similar geological structure as our own, and ask yourself how long it took them to form in the same way. Given that they don't have water on them, then ask yourself how they got to form that way without this imaginary magic Hydroplate notion which, by definition, has a prerequisite of the existence of water.
The hydroplate hypothesis makes more sense than any other and is based on scientific evidence. If you are interested in the scientific facts, go here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
One thing we are agreed on, believe it or not, is that there was a flood. That much is proven fact - it even states that much in the Bible ("And darkness was upon the face of the deep"). The difference lies in that the flood came at the beginning (which is also backed up by the Bible), and not as a result of a downpour.
If you believe the Bible, why do you reject the account of the Flood, which was the result of the fountains of the great deep being broken up and the windows of heaven were opened (Gen 7:11).
You claim that fossils are made over a matter of months, yet when it pointed out that we are running out of oil, instead of there being a plentiful supply of new fossilised fuels you backtrack & claim that hardly any fossilisation goes on any more. in this you are totally wrong. It is just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of a major flaw in your logic.
Why do you keep misquoting me? What I said was most of the fossils were formed in a matter of months during the Flood. Very few have been formed since then.
You seem to think that everything happened overnight, and then nothing has happened since, simply because your story book doesn't comprehend that the earth was here billions of years before man existed on this planet, let alone became aware of his existence. Instead, you prefer to remain arrogant & believe that the entire world is based around the existence of mankind, believing that life could not exist without it.
Why do you believe earth was here billions of years before man existed? What evidence do you have to support that assertion? The Bible record contradicts you and it is believable for several reasons:
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.
Fossilisation is an ongoing process. Fact. It happens over Millions of years. Fact. There is a timeline of fossilisation. Fact. Lower levels of the timeline are frequently forced above the upper levels by geological activity. Fact. The continental plates are constantly moving. Fact. All of these are things that have been & are still being observed & recorded, so much so that occurences, such as earthquakes they can even, quite often, be predicted to a degree.
Where is the evidence supporting your "facts"?
Whenever you get an earthquake you usually get a big crack in the ground. These cracks get wider & wider following subsequent earthquakes. These are the roots of Continental Drift. It happens. It is happening. It has always happened, and in order for it to have reached the degree of division that it has, millions of years must have passed. The same can be said for the creation of mountains, pushing their way up from the sea bed. Mountains grow at the rate of about 2cm / year. This has been observed & recorded. Divide the height of a mountain by that & work out the approximate age of the mountain. Surprisingly enough, the result works out to be along the same sort of time scale as that of the origins of the Continental Drift, and of the earlier fossils - measured in MILLIONS of years.
More evidence free speculation. Actually, mountains were formed in a few hours as a result of the Flood a few thousand years ago. If you are interested in the facts, go here where you will find over 300 pages of evidence: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:
Try to do a few calculations based on recorded FACTS for yourself & ignore, for once, the ravings of Dolt Brown. Accept that there are are other planets with similar geological structure as our own, and ask yourself how long it took them to form in the same way. Given that they don't have water on them, then ask yourself how they got to form that way without this imaginary magic Hydroplate notion which, by definition, has a prerequisite of the existence of water.
The hydroplate hypothesis makes more sense than any other and is based on scientific evidence. If you are interested in the scientific facts, go here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[QUOTE=FourPart;1476827]
The problem here is that you either refuse to think for yourself, or you are incapable of thinking for yourself & choose to blindly follow the make believe fantasies, of some raving superstitious lunatic, who provides no evidence for his claims, in the face of plenty of hard evidence against it.
Where is that hard evidence agains Brown's conclusions, which scientists confirm?
Obviously you have ignored the facts probably because they conflict with what you choose to believe. Here is information about Brown you may be unaware of:
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider†intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.10
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.12
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
The problem here is that you either refuse to think for yourself, or you are incapable of thinking for yourself & choose to blindly follow the make believe fantasies, of some raving superstitious lunatic, who provides no evidence for his claims, in the face of plenty of hard evidence against it.
Where is that hard evidence agains Brown's conclusions, which scientists confirm?
Obviously you have ignored the facts probably because they conflict with what you choose to believe. Here is information about Brown you may be unaware of:
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider†intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.10
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.12
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
What little YOU wrote, I read. Once it got to the same old pastings I scrolled past them. Waste of time & space.
You ask me where is the evidence. I have provided you with plenty of facts which are common knowledge & there is a plethora of quantifying evidence out there if you just Google it - all from different sources. I have, in the past referred you to multiple supportive links. Your single source is Dolt Brown's story book. I'm not going to bother providing you with any more, as it serves no purpose. You have too blinkered a view to understand, or even attempt to understand reality & the truth of overwhelming evidence. You obviously prefer to follow in the footsteps of your master, Dolt Brown, in his dreamworld.
You keep referring to scientists backing up his ideas, yet despite being challenged to do so you have failed to provide one piece of evidence to this claim - and before you set about pasting it again, a list of names taken from your story book, which could easily have been copied from a copy of the Who's Who of Science cannot be taken as evidence without quantifying link to where they are said to have made these supporting claims IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT. Without providing such supporting links neither you nor Dolt Brown have any right to make such claims.
Do the other passengers on the bus get off whenever you get on? I imagine so, because you are clearly the typical "Crazy Man On The Bus".
You ask me where is the evidence. I have provided you with plenty of facts which are common knowledge & there is a plethora of quantifying evidence out there if you just Google it - all from different sources. I have, in the past referred you to multiple supportive links. Your single source is Dolt Brown's story book. I'm not going to bother providing you with any more, as it serves no purpose. You have too blinkered a view to understand, or even attempt to understand reality & the truth of overwhelming evidence. You obviously prefer to follow in the footsteps of your master, Dolt Brown, in his dreamworld.
You keep referring to scientists backing up his ideas, yet despite being challenged to do so you have failed to provide one piece of evidence to this claim - and before you set about pasting it again, a list of names taken from your story book, which could easily have been copied from a copy of the Who's Who of Science cannot be taken as evidence without quantifying link to where they are said to have made these supporting claims IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT. Without providing such supporting links neither you nor Dolt Brown have any right to make such claims.
Do the other passengers on the bus get off whenever you get on? I imagine so, because you are clearly the typical "Crazy Man On The Bus".
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1476870 wrote: What little YOU wrote, I read. Once it got to the same old pastings I scrolled past them. Waste of time & space.
You ask me where is the evidence. I have provided you with plenty of facts which are common knowledge & there is a plethora of quantifying evidence out there if you just Google it - all from different sources. I have, in the past referred you to multiple supportive links. Your single source is Dolt Brown's story book. I'm not going to bother providing you with any more, as it serves no purpose. You have too blinkered a view to understand, or even attempt to understand reality & the truth of overwhelming evidence. You obviously prefer to follow in the footsteps of your master, Dolt Brown, in his dreamworld.
You keep referring to scientists backing up his ideas, yet despite being challenged to do so you have failed to provide one piece of evidence to this claim - and before you set about pasting it again, a list of names taken from your story book, which could easily have been copied from a copy of the Who's Who of Science cannot be taken as evidence without quantifying link to where they are said to have made these supporting claims IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT. Without providing such supporting links neither you nor Dolt Brown have any right to make such claims.
Do the other passengers on the bus get off whenever you get on? I imagine so, because you are clearly the typical "Crazy Man On The Bus".
You are welcome to your evidence free erroneous notions, which you must cling to. You are unwilling to face the facts. Eventually you will learn the truth, but probably not in this lifetime.
You ask me where is the evidence. I have provided you with plenty of facts which are common knowledge & there is a plethora of quantifying evidence out there if you just Google it - all from different sources. I have, in the past referred you to multiple supportive links. Your single source is Dolt Brown's story book. I'm not going to bother providing you with any more, as it serves no purpose. You have too blinkered a view to understand, or even attempt to understand reality & the truth of overwhelming evidence. You obviously prefer to follow in the footsteps of your master, Dolt Brown, in his dreamworld.
You keep referring to scientists backing up his ideas, yet despite being challenged to do so you have failed to provide one piece of evidence to this claim - and before you set about pasting it again, a list of names taken from your story book, which could easily have been copied from a copy of the Who's Who of Science cannot be taken as evidence without quantifying link to where they are said to have made these supporting claims IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT. Without providing such supporting links neither you nor Dolt Brown have any right to make such claims.
Do the other passengers on the bus get off whenever you get on? I imagine so, because you are clearly the typical "Crazy Man On The Bus".
You are welcome to your evidence free erroneous notions, which you must cling to. You are unwilling to face the facts. Eventually you will learn the truth, but probably not in this lifetime.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Earth: The Water Planet 1
The amount of water on Earth greatly exceeds that known on or within any other planet in the solar system. Liquid water, which is essential for life to survive, has unique and amazing properties; it covers 70% of Earth’s surface. Where did all Earth’s water come from?
If the Earth and solar system evolved from a swirling cloud of dust and gas, almost no water would reside near Earth’s present orbit—or within 5 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun. (1 AU is the average Earth-Sun distance.) Any water (liquid or ice) that close to the Sun would vaporize and be blown by solar wind to the outer reaches of the solar system (a), as we see happening with water vapor in the tails of comets.
a. “Earth has substantially more water than scientists would expect to find at a mere 93 million miles from the sun.†Ben Harder, “Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s Oceans Come from the Heavens?†Science News, Vol. 161, 23 March 2002, p. 184.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
From the start the opening statement demonstrates Brown's arrogance - "Essential for life to survive". That should be "Essential for life AS WE KNOW IT to survive", as it automatically denies even the POSSIBILITY of other life forms to exist in other climates which may not have water. This is plain arrogance & ignorance.
To answer the question as to where it all came from. The simple answer is from 2 parts of hydrogen & 1 of oxygen, compounded by a spark.
There are other planets which have atmospheres of liquid methane. Who is to say there aren't life forms which thrive in liquid methane. In fact, the notion of life managing to survive in liquid water may seem just as unequivocal to them.
To even presuppose that the Earth is the only one to have life it is even more arrogant. Just what form other life forms may take is another matter again. They could still be at the stage of the primordial slime of our origins, or they could have evolved & become extinct.
To answer the question as to where it all came from. The simple answer is from 2 parts of hydrogen & 1 of oxygen, compounded by a spark.
There are other planets which have atmospheres of liquid methane. Who is to say there aren't life forms which thrive in liquid methane. In fact, the notion of life managing to survive in liquid water may seem just as unequivocal to them.
To even presuppose that the Earth is the only one to have life it is even more arrogant. Just what form other life forms may take is another matter again. They could still be at the stage of the primordial slime of our origins, or they could have evolved & become extinct.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477019 wrote: From the start the opening statement demonstrates Brown's arrogance - "Essential for life to survive". That should be "Essential for life AS WE KNOW IT to survive", as it automatically denies even the POSSIBILITY of other life forms to exist in other climates which may not have water. This is plain arrogance & ignorance.
Brown is using facts, not speculation like you.
To answer the question as to where it all came from. The simple answer is from 2 parts of hydrogen & 1 of oxygen, compounded by a spark.
There are other planets which have atmospheres of liquid methane. Who is to say there aren't life forms which thrive in liquid methane. In fact, the notion of life managing to survive in liquid water may seem just as unequivocal to them.
To even presuppose that the Earth is the only one to have life it is even more arrogant. Just what form other life forms may take is another matter again. They could still be at the stage of the primordial slime of our origins, or they could have evolved & become extinct.
More evidence free speculation!
Brown is using facts, not speculation like you.
To answer the question as to where it all came from. The simple answer is from 2 parts of hydrogen & 1 of oxygen, compounded by a spark.
There are other planets which have atmospheres of liquid methane. Who is to say there aren't life forms which thrive in liquid methane. In fact, the notion of life managing to survive in liquid water may seem just as unequivocal to them.
To even presuppose that the Earth is the only one to have life it is even more arrogant. Just what form other life forms may take is another matter again. They could still be at the stage of the primordial slime of our origins, or they could have evolved & become extinct.
More evidence free speculation!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1477021 wrote: Brown is using facts, not speculation like you.
More evidence free speculation!
Sorry, Dude, It is you who is free of evidence.
More evidence free speculation!
Sorry, Dude, It is you who is free of evidence.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
So, water being made of 2 parts hydrogen & 1 part oxygen, compounded by a spark is evidence free speculation? Oh - of course - it was God - basic physics had nothing to do with it.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477060 wrote: So, water being made of 2 parts hydrogen & 1 part oxygen, compounded by a spark is evidence free speculation? Oh - of course - it was God - basic physics had nothing to do with it.
It may be possible to produce water by introducing a spark into 2 parts hydrogen & 1 part oxygen under controlled conditions in the lab. What I object to is your evidence free conclusion that therefor all the water on earth was created by a spark. How many trillions of sparks happen every day without producing water?
It may be possible to produce water by introducing a spark into 2 parts hydrogen & 1 part oxygen under controlled conditions in the lab. What I object to is your evidence free conclusion that therefor all the water on earth was created by a spark. How many trillions of sparks happen every day without producing water?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
halfway;1477235 wrote: Good work Pahu
Thank you. It is a rare moment in history when I get a compliment.
Thank you. It is a rare moment in history when I get a compliment.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
halfway;1477239 wrote: pursuit of truth is a solid value.
Especially when using peer revued evidence and facts and not spurious or out of context quotes from a book written by Walt Brown.
Flat Earth anyone ? Holographic moon ? Man riding astride a dinosaur ?
You cant just make up your own science because the real stuff wont prove what you want it to.
Especially when using peer revued evidence and facts and not spurious or out of context quotes from a book written by Walt Brown.
Flat Earth anyone ? Holographic moon ? Man riding astride a dinosaur ?
You cant just make up your own science because the real stuff wont prove what you want it to.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1477240 wrote: Especially when using peer revued evidence and facts and not spurious or out of context quotes from a book written by Walt Brown.
Flat Earth anyone ? Holographic moon ? Man riding astride a dinosaur ?
You cant just make up your own science because the real stuff wont prove what you want it to.
None of the above has anything to do with Walt Brown. There is evidence man and dinosaurs lived together:
Proof Man and Dinosaurs lived together
Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish†on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago. Therefore,
these art works are not frauds perpetrated by mischievous European newcomers (who had no motive for such a fraud), but were made by natives long ago, showing men and dinosaurs living together. In the ancient city of Angkor in Cambodia, we can see a stegosaurus carved in one of the temple walls. In Mexico, many hundreds ancient dinosaur figurines have been unearthed, some even with men riding them! (see below)
This is not just accidental similarity between the Indian artwork and what we believe the edmontosaurus looked like!
This remarkable pictograph can be seen etched into the canyon walls of the Grand Canyon. Other animals show the same clarity. The people living there not too long ago saw reptiles that we only see in books. They painted what they observed. Dinosaurs did not become extinct 65 million years before the "evolution" of man. They were obviously created at the same time!
Cave drawing to the right of a long neck dragon. Bottom picture is outlined in white to show it's shape better.
Ica Stone, found in the Ica valley in Peru. The people lived there about 3,000 years ago. How did they know what dinosaurs looked like?
More Indian artwork from Canada. The evolutionary time-table has been proved entirely wrong.
This carving was found on a Cambodian temple wall. It is an excellent depiction of a stegosaurus, many hundreds of years old. How could they have known about stegosaurs if they had never seen one?
Thousands of Indian clay figurines have been unearthed in Acambaro, Mexico.
This pottery is several thousand years old. Remember we aren't supposed to know what dinosaurs looked like until the late 1800's really the mid 1900's. This Pottery is dated back to between 800BC and 200 AD.
The Alvis Delk Track
This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.
Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.
The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!
Precambrian Trilobites are supposed to be separated from man by millions of years, yet fossils appear in "recent" strata and even within a fossil sandal print. There are thousands of fossils that are "out of order" and even sophisticated man-made artifacts in "ancient" rock. There are fossil clams on the highest mountains and human tracks in supposed ancient layers of volcanic ash.
A fossil footprint was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.
This photo was taken by the late Dr. Cecil Daugherty, in the 1970's. It shows a human footprint within a trail of dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
Flat Earth anyone ? Holographic moon ? Man riding astride a dinosaur ?
You cant just make up your own science because the real stuff wont prove what you want it to.
None of the above has anything to do with Walt Brown. There is evidence man and dinosaurs lived together:
Proof Man and Dinosaurs lived together
Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish†on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago. Therefore,
these art works are not frauds perpetrated by mischievous European newcomers (who had no motive for such a fraud), but were made by natives long ago, showing men and dinosaurs living together. In the ancient city of Angkor in Cambodia, we can see a stegosaurus carved in one of the temple walls. In Mexico, many hundreds ancient dinosaur figurines have been unearthed, some even with men riding them! (see below)
This is not just accidental similarity between the Indian artwork and what we believe the edmontosaurus looked like!
This remarkable pictograph can be seen etched into the canyon walls of the Grand Canyon. Other animals show the same clarity. The people living there not too long ago saw reptiles that we only see in books. They painted what they observed. Dinosaurs did not become extinct 65 million years before the "evolution" of man. They were obviously created at the same time!
Cave drawing to the right of a long neck dragon. Bottom picture is outlined in white to show it's shape better.
Ica Stone, found in the Ica valley in Peru. The people lived there about 3,000 years ago. How did they know what dinosaurs looked like?
More Indian artwork from Canada. The evolutionary time-table has been proved entirely wrong.
This carving was found on a Cambodian temple wall. It is an excellent depiction of a stegosaurus, many hundreds of years old. How could they have known about stegosaurs if they had never seen one?
Thousands of Indian clay figurines have been unearthed in Acambaro, Mexico.
This pottery is several thousand years old. Remember we aren't supposed to know what dinosaurs looked like until the late 1800's really the mid 1900's. This Pottery is dated back to between 800BC and 200 AD.
The Alvis Delk Track
This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.
Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.
The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!
Precambrian Trilobites are supposed to be separated from man by millions of years, yet fossils appear in "recent" strata and even within a fossil sandal print. There are thousands of fossils that are "out of order" and even sophisticated man-made artifacts in "ancient" rock. There are fossil clams on the highest mountains and human tracks in supposed ancient layers of volcanic ash.
A fossil footprint was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.
This photo was taken by the late Dr. Cecil Daugherty, in the 1970's. It shows a human footprint within a trail of dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Not so fast.
Are some examples of ancient art proof that dinosaurs and humans coexisted?
...
But surely these people must be seeing something. Legitimate zoologists who have followed up on the cryptozoologists' claims routinely find that known animals were likely the cause of the stories: birds for the Ropen, and hippos or crocodiles for the Mokele Mbembe. Since the personal anecdote route has failed to produce hard data, cryptozoologists and Young Earthers have turned to ancient artwork in an effort to form a parallel line of evidence. Chief among these accounts is a stone carving buried in the jungles of Cambodia, the Buddhist temple of Ta Prohm...
Are some examples of ancient art proof that dinosaurs and humans coexisted?
...
But surely these people must be seeing something. Legitimate zoologists who have followed up on the cryptozoologists' claims routinely find that known animals were likely the cause of the stories: birds for the Ropen, and hippos or crocodiles for the Mokele Mbembe. Since the personal anecdote route has failed to produce hard data, cryptozoologists and Young Earthers have turned to ancient artwork in an effort to form a parallel line of evidence. Chief among these accounts is a stone carving buried in the jungles of Cambodia, the Buddhist temple of Ta Prohm...
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
You've shown the same photos time & time again, except previously you've also included the pre-photoshopped copies, without the additional outlines drawn in, without which there is no rmore evidence of any image than can be found in any cloud formation.
As far as the models are concerned, all it proves is that they knew of the existence of dinosaurs, having probably found fossils themselves, then leaving the rest to their imagination. In much older Religions there are also icons of multi headed dogs & multi limbed elephants (this, incidentally, proves the existence of my Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants, I might add), mermaids, the Egyptian gods of men with the heads of dogs, the Sphinx, idols of Gods with wings on their head & their ankles - all evidence of the existence of these creatures, according to your logic, because these have all been modelled from prehistorical times.
As with mermaids and centaurs, unless you're claiming the actual existence of these as well, they were the creation of Man's imagination by combining the characteristics of 2 entirely different species. The supposed images of the Stegasaurus could just as easily be to combination of a Rhinoceros & a number of different species of lizards, which have the same characteristics.
Even your inconsistencies are inconsistent. You have previously claimed that the dinosaurs were killed off by the Flood, yet according to the Bible there still weren't that many people on earth - certainly not enough to have populated the entire planet, which they would have had to have done in order to have supposedly co-existed with dinosaurs.
You have just referred to the difference of millions of years of fossils since trilobytes, yet you also claim that the world is only a few thousand years old. How many times must it be pointed out to you that mountains grow a few centimetres a year, and so over a few millions years the tops of the mountains would have grown up from the sea bed, so it would be surprising if there were NOT fossils of sea creatures on the tops of mountains. Their presence simply serves to verify the timeline.
Picture a slit tyre. When the inner tube is inflated does it retain its position inside the tyre wall? No. The pressure forces its way outward. The tyre is the earth's crust. The inner tube are the lower levels, except that this is just a single layer. With seismic activity being an ongoing thing, the lower layers are constantly being forced above the upper ones. It's only to be expected. Nature is not an orderly process.
How many sparks are there? How many lightning strikes are there every minute across the world? You are actually arguing now that the fundamental source of all life on earth is not made of 2 parts of Hydrogen & 1 of Oxygen. As with any compound, by definition, it has to combine the various atoms by a source of ignition - the smallest of which is a tiny spark. Without that spark you can mix as much Hydrogen & Oxygen together as you like - megatonnes of it if you like - all it needs, though, is a single tiny spark to trigger it. Curiously, that single spark doesn't stop with making a single molecule. It goes on to form a chain reaction until one or the other of the reacting elements is exhausted. It is the most basic of the first law of the Conservation of Energy. Potential Energy, in the form of Hydrogen & Oxygen (in this particular formula) is initiated by a spark & converted into Heat, Light & Sound energies. Water is the waste product. When water is subjected to electrolysis the reaction is reversed (such as while charging a car battery, for instance). And before you go on about there not being electric currents in nature - electricity is a fundamental force of nature & is to be found everywhere. Hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the universe, but in order to be ignited it has to have the presence of Oxygen as well. Like it or not Water is made up of 2 parts of Hydrogen & 1 of Oxygen, hence its formulaic name - H2O.
Of course sparks are not only caused by electricity, but by the burning up of meteorites burning up in the atmosphere, or 2 rocks hitting each other - such as one asteroid hitting another, for instance. There is no shortage of sparks, or flames, yet you try to argue your case about the lack of sparks. You really are living in the dark ages when they believed the elements to be Fire, Water, Wind & Earth.
Try learning some elementary physics before you try rewriting their laws.
As far as the models are concerned, all it proves is that they knew of the existence of dinosaurs, having probably found fossils themselves, then leaving the rest to their imagination. In much older Religions there are also icons of multi headed dogs & multi limbed elephants (this, incidentally, proves the existence of my Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants, I might add), mermaids, the Egyptian gods of men with the heads of dogs, the Sphinx, idols of Gods with wings on their head & their ankles - all evidence of the existence of these creatures, according to your logic, because these have all been modelled from prehistorical times.
As with mermaids and centaurs, unless you're claiming the actual existence of these as well, they were the creation of Man's imagination by combining the characteristics of 2 entirely different species. The supposed images of the Stegasaurus could just as easily be to combination of a Rhinoceros & a number of different species of lizards, which have the same characteristics.
Even your inconsistencies are inconsistent. You have previously claimed that the dinosaurs were killed off by the Flood, yet according to the Bible there still weren't that many people on earth - certainly not enough to have populated the entire planet, which they would have had to have done in order to have supposedly co-existed with dinosaurs.
You have just referred to the difference of millions of years of fossils since trilobytes, yet you also claim that the world is only a few thousand years old. How many times must it be pointed out to you that mountains grow a few centimetres a year, and so over a few millions years the tops of the mountains would have grown up from the sea bed, so it would be surprising if there were NOT fossils of sea creatures on the tops of mountains. Their presence simply serves to verify the timeline.
Picture a slit tyre. When the inner tube is inflated does it retain its position inside the tyre wall? No. The pressure forces its way outward. The tyre is the earth's crust. The inner tube are the lower levels, except that this is just a single layer. With seismic activity being an ongoing thing, the lower layers are constantly being forced above the upper ones. It's only to be expected. Nature is not an orderly process.
How many sparks are there? How many lightning strikes are there every minute across the world? You are actually arguing now that the fundamental source of all life on earth is not made of 2 parts of Hydrogen & 1 of Oxygen. As with any compound, by definition, it has to combine the various atoms by a source of ignition - the smallest of which is a tiny spark. Without that spark you can mix as much Hydrogen & Oxygen together as you like - megatonnes of it if you like - all it needs, though, is a single tiny spark to trigger it. Curiously, that single spark doesn't stop with making a single molecule. It goes on to form a chain reaction until one or the other of the reacting elements is exhausted. It is the most basic of the first law of the Conservation of Energy. Potential Energy, in the form of Hydrogen & Oxygen (in this particular formula) is initiated by a spark & converted into Heat, Light & Sound energies. Water is the waste product. When water is subjected to electrolysis the reaction is reversed (such as while charging a car battery, for instance). And before you go on about there not being electric currents in nature - electricity is a fundamental force of nature & is to be found everywhere. Hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the universe, but in order to be ignited it has to have the presence of Oxygen as well. Like it or not Water is made up of 2 parts of Hydrogen & 1 of Oxygen, hence its formulaic name - H2O.
Of course sparks are not only caused by electricity, but by the burning up of meteorites burning up in the atmosphere, or 2 rocks hitting each other - such as one asteroid hitting another, for instance. There is no shortage of sparks, or flames, yet you try to argue your case about the lack of sparks. You really are living in the dark ages when they believed the elements to be Fire, Water, Wind & Earth.
Try learning some elementary physics before you try rewriting their laws.
Science Disproves Evolution
Earth: The Water Planet 2
Did comets or meteorites deliver Earth’s water? Although comets contain considerable water (b), comets did not provide much of Earth’s water, because comet water contains too much heavy hydrogen, relatively rare in Earth’s oceans. Comets also contain too much argon. If comets provided only 1% of Earth’s water, then our atmosphere should have 400 times more argon than it does (c). The few types of meteorites that contain water also have too much heavy hydrogen (d). [Pages 289–357 explain why comets, asteroids, and some types of meteorites contain so much water and heavy hydrogen. Pages 363–411 explain why comets have so much argon. Heavy hydrogen is described on page 297.]
These observations have caused some to conclude that water was transported from the outer solar system to Earth by objects that no longer exist (e). If so, many of these “water tankers†should have collided with the other inner planets (Mercury, Venus, and Mars), producing water characteristics similar to those of Earth. Actually, their water characteristics are not like those of Earth (f). Instead of imagining “water tankers†that conveniently disappeared, perhaps we should ask if the Earth was created with its water already present.
b. The water content of Comet Tempel 1 was 38% by mass. [See Endnote 5 on page 312]
c. “Hence, if comets like Hale-Bopp brought in the Earth’s water, they would have brought in a factor of 40,000 times more argon than is presently in the atmosphere.†T. D. Swindle and D. A. Kring, “Implications of Noble Gas Budgets for the Origin of Water on Earth and Mars,†Eleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference, Abstract No. 3785 (Houston: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 20–24 May 2001). [To learn how comets probably collected argon, see Endnote 31 on page 302.]
d. “Oxygen, D/H and Os [osmium] isotopic ratios all...rule out extant meteoritic material as sources of the Earth’s water.†Michael J. Drake and Kevin Righter, “Determining the Composition of the Earth,†Nature, Vol. 416, 7 March 2002, p. 42.
D/H is the ratio of heavy hydrogen (also called deuterium, or D) to normal hydrogen (H). Drake and Righter give many other reasons why meteorites could not have provided much of Earth’s water.
e. “Earth is thought to have formed dry owing to its location inside the ‘snow line,’ which is the distance from the Sun [5 AU] within which it was too warm for water vapour in the nascent Solar System to condense as ice and be swept up into forming planetesimals. Therefore, the water that now fills our oceans and makes life possible must have been delivered to Earth from outside the snow line, perhaps by impacting asteroids and comets.†Henry H. Hsieh, “A Frosty Finding,†Nature, Vol. 464, 29 April 2010, p.1287.
“If existing objects in space couldn’t have combined to make Earth’s unique mix of water and other elements, the planet must have formed from—and entirely depleted—an ancient supply of water-rich material that has no modern analog, Drake and Righter argue.†Harder, p. 185.
f. “If water came from millions of comets or small asteroids, the same steady rain would have bombarded Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, so they would all have begun with the same water characteristics, he says. However, the waters of those four planets now have dissimilar profiles, Owen and other geochemists have found.†Ibid.
After reading pages 289–357, you will see that the water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids—as well as some water detected elsewhere in the inner solar system—came primarily from the subterranean water chambers. During the flood, this subterranean water mixed with Earth’s surface water, giving our surface water different isotope characteristics from water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids.
“The carrier’s elemental and isotopic characteristics would have to have been unlike those of any object that researchers have yet found in the solar system....it doesn’t seem geochemically plausible...†Ibid., p. 186.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Once again Dolt Brown proves the point against his argument.
In fact, the discovery of deuterium/protium ratios in a number of comets very similar to the mean ratio in Earth's oceans (156 atoms of deuterium per million hydrogens) has led to theories that much of Earth's ocean water has a cometary origin.[2][3] The deuterium/protium ratio of the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as measured by the Rosetta space probe is about three times that of earth water, a figure that is the highest yet measured in a comet.[4]
(Source: Deuterium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
D/H is the ratio of heavy hydrogen (also called deuterium, or D) to normal hydrogen (H). Drake and Righter give many other reasons why meteorites could not have provided much of Earth’s water.
Wrong!!!
First of all Ratios are depicted by the use of a colon (i.e. 2:1). Written as a dividing slash puts it as a fraction, not a ratio, which is semantics, but a basic point that anyone who knows the slightest thing about physics should know.
Secondly, even to say that D:H is the ratio of Heavy Hydrogen is ambiguous & has no meaning whatsoever - by which, I don't mean it is open to interpretation, I mean it has no meaning. It's like saying the ratio of a coin is 2:1. If it is to mean the existence of Deuterium to Hydrogen being equal parts, as would be expressed as D:H, that is utter nonsense - at least not within the Earth's atmosphere. If it refers to the number of Hydrogen atoms, then that would mean the ratio is 2:1, because Deuterium uses 2 for every 1 of Hydrogen.
Thirdly, Deuterium is a molecule made up of 2 parts Hydrogen. It does not comprise of 1 part Deuterium & 1 part Hydrogen, as that, by the most elementary addition, which even you might be able to comprehend, would total 2 + 1 = 3 parts Hydrogen.
In fact, the discovery of deuterium/protium ratios in a number of comets very similar to the mean ratio in Earth's oceans (156 atoms of deuterium per million hydrogens) has led to theories that much of Earth's ocean water has a cometary origin.[2][3] The deuterium/protium ratio of the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as measured by the Rosetta space probe is about three times that of earth water, a figure that is the highest yet measured in a comet.[4]
(Source: Deuterium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
D/H is the ratio of heavy hydrogen (also called deuterium, or D) to normal hydrogen (H). Drake and Righter give many other reasons why meteorites could not have provided much of Earth’s water.
Wrong!!!
First of all Ratios are depicted by the use of a colon (i.e. 2:1). Written as a dividing slash puts it as a fraction, not a ratio, which is semantics, but a basic point that anyone who knows the slightest thing about physics should know.
Secondly, even to say that D:H is the ratio of Heavy Hydrogen is ambiguous & has no meaning whatsoever - by which, I don't mean it is open to interpretation, I mean it has no meaning. It's like saying the ratio of a coin is 2:1. If it is to mean the existence of Deuterium to Hydrogen being equal parts, as would be expressed as D:H, that is utter nonsense - at least not within the Earth's atmosphere. If it refers to the number of Hydrogen atoms, then that would mean the ratio is 2:1, because Deuterium uses 2 for every 1 of Hydrogen.
Thirdly, Deuterium is a molecule made up of 2 parts Hydrogen. It does not comprise of 1 part Deuterium & 1 part Hydrogen, as that, by the most elementary addition, which even you might be able to comprehend, would total 2 + 1 = 3 parts Hydrogen.
Science Disproves Evolution
As I keep saying. They make their own science up when conventional science wont substantiate their ridiculous claims
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1477278 wrote: As I keep saying. They make their own science up when conventional science wont substantiate their ridiculous claims
You can't really blame Pahu - he hasn't got a clue what it's all about in the first place. He just goes about blindly pasting the ravings of the love of his life without even researching it first.
You can't really blame Pahu - he hasn't got a clue what it's all about in the first place. He just goes about blindly pasting the ravings of the love of his life without even researching it first.
Science Disproves Evolution
Well its a trend I see from those with views who are so left field . I put Pahu along side those who are genuinely convinced that the Earth is flat and the Moon landings didnt take place. They ignore conventional science and manipulate facts so it fits in with their world view of things. They clearly - as you state - refuse to investigate and question what it is that sets them apart from what the rest of us see as nonsense. They firmly fix the blinkers on and stick their fingers in their ears, for fear of seeing/hearing some plausible explanantion.
Just as their is a plausible and provable answer to all of the moon landing conspiracy twonks' "evidence" that NASA didnt go to the moon, the same is true for everything that YEC spout as "fact"
Just as their is a plausible and provable answer to all of the moon landing conspiracy twonks' "evidence" that NASA didnt go to the moon, the same is true for everything that YEC spout as "fact"
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
The world IS flat though. A simple spirit level proves that. The bubble wouldn't go to the centre if it wasn't. Absolute proof!!
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477288 wrote: The world IS flat though. A simple spirit level proves that. The bubble wouldn't go to the centre if it wasn't. Absolute proof!!
Funnily enough, one you tube nutcase cited the fact that water was level as proof the earth was flat.....but of course chose to ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary.
There's none so blind as those that don't want to see.
Funnily enough, one you tube nutcase cited the fact that water was level as proof the earth was flat.....but of course chose to ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary.
There's none so blind as those that don't want to see.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477246 wrote: You've shown the same photos time & time again, except previously you've also included the pre-photoshopped copies, without the additional outlines drawn in, without which there is no rmore evidence of any image than can be found in any cloud formation.
The scientists who examined them have found them to be much more distinct than that.
As far as the models are concerned, all it proves is that they knew of the existence of dinosaurs, having probably found fossils themselves, then leaving the rest to their imagination.
It is more likely they saw living dinosaurs.
In much older Religions there are also icons of multi headed dogs & multi limbed elephants (this, incidentally, proves the existence of my Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants, I might add), mermaids, the Egyptian gods of men with the heads of dogs, the Sphinx, idols of Gods with wings on their head & their ankles - all evidence of the existence of these creatures, according to your logic, because these have all been modelled from prehistorical times.
According to your logic they just found fossils and used their imaginations.
The supposed images of the Stegasaurus could just as easily be to combination of a Rhinoceros & a number of different species of lizards, which have the same characteristics.
Or they actually saw living stegosauruses.
Even your inconsistencies are inconsistent. You have previously claimed that the dinosaurs were killed off by the Flood, yet according to the Bible there still weren't that many people on earth - certainly not enough to have populated the entire planet, which they would have had to have done in order to have supposedly co-existed with dinosaurs.
There you go again; claiming I said something I never said. The Flood occurred about 4500 years ago. Many wonder at how the population could have grown to six billion from Noah’s family who survived the Flood that wiped out everyone else about 4,500 years ago. It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.
Data from the Bible (Genesis 10,11) shows that the population grew quite quickly in the years immediately after the Flood. Shem had five sons, Ham had four, and Japheth had seven. If we assume that they had the same number of daughters, then they averaged 10.7 children per couple. In the next generation, Shem had 14 grandsons, Ham, 28 and Japheth, 23, or 130 children in total. That is an average of 8.1 per couple. These figures are consisent with God’s command to ‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ (Genesis 9:1).
Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in Shem’s line ranged from 35 to 29 years (Genesis 11:10–24), with an average of 31 years, so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time). This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years.
If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection, this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood.
The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence?
Where are all the people? - creation.com
You have just referred to the difference of millions of years of fossils since trilobytes, yet you also claim that the world is only a few thousand years old.
When did I make that statement and in what context?
How many times must it be pointed out to you that mountains grow a few centimetres a year, and so over a few millions years the tops of the mountains would have grown up from the sea bed, so it would be surprising if there were NOT fossils of sea creatures on the tops of mountains. Their presence simply serves to verify the timeline.
How many times has it been pointed out to you that mountains developed in a matter of days. How did mountain ranges form? Major mountains are often crumpled like an accordion. Satellite photos of mountain ranges show that some resemble throw rugs that have been pushed against walls. But what force could push a long, thick slab of rock and cause it to buckle and sometimes fold back on itself? Besides, any force large enough to overcome the gigantic frictional locking at the base of the slab, would crush the end being pushed before movement could even begin. Therefore, a mountain would not form.
We can see, especially in mountains and road cuts, thinly layered rocks folded like doubled-over phone books. Other “bent†rocks are small enough to hold in one’s hand. The tiny, crystalline grains in those folds are not stretched. So, how could brittle rock, showing little evidence of heating or cracking, fold? Rocks are strong in compression but weak in tension, so their stretched outer surfaces should have easily fractured. Bent sedimentary rocks, found worldwide, often look as if they had the consistency of putty when they were compressed. They must have been squeezed and folded soon after the sediments were laid down, but before they hardened chemically. What squeezed and folded them?
Figure 49: Buckled Mountain. Textbooks and museums frequently refer to some uplifting force that formed mountains. Can you see that an uplifting force, by itself, would not produce this pattern? Horizontal compression was needed to buckle these sedimentary layers near the Sullivan River in southern British Columbia, Canada. Such layers—seen worldwide—must have been soft, like wet sand, at the time of compression. Today, surface rocks are brittle.
Picture a slit tire. When the inner tube is inflated does it retain its position inside the tire wall? No. The pressure forces its way outward. The tire is the earth's crust. The inner tube are the lower levels, except that this is just a single layer. With seismic activity being an ongoing thing, the lower layers are constantly being forced above the upper ones. It's only to be expected.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to
How many sparks are there? How many lightning strikes are there every minute across the world? You are actually arguing now that the fundamental source of all life on earth is not made of 2 parts of Hydrogen & 1 of Oxygen. As with any compound, by definition, it has to combine the various atoms by a source of ignition - the smallest of which is a tiny spark. Without that spark you can mix as much Hydrogen & Oxygen together as you like - megatonnes of it if you like - all it needs, though, is a single tiny spark to trigger it. Curiously, that single spark doesn't stop with making a single molecule. It goes on to form a chain reaction until one or the other of the reacting elements is exhausted. It is the most basic of the first law of the Conservation of Energy. Potential Energy, in the form of Hydrogen & Oxygen (in this particular formula) is initiated by a spark & converted into Heat, Light & Sound energies. Water is the waste product. When water is subjected to electrolysis the reaction is reversed (such as while charging a car battery, for instance). And before you go on about there not being electric currents in nature - electricity is a fundamental force of nature & is to be found everywhere. Hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the universe, but in order to be ignited it has to have the presence of Oxygen as well. Like it or not Water is made up of 2 parts of Hydrogen & 1 of Oxygen, hence its formulaic name - H2O.
But weren't you arguing that all the water on Earth was caused by a spark? Why then is there any free hydrogen and oxygen left with the trillions of sparks that occur every day?
Of course sparks are not only caused by electricity, but by the burning up of meteorites burning up in the atmosphere, or 2 rocks hitting each other - such as one asteroid hitting another, for instance. There is no shortage of sparks, or flames, yet you try to argue your case about the lack of sparks.
No, I am arguing that with all the trillions of sparks, they are not sufficient to create all the water on Earth as you claim. You really are living in the dark ages when they believed the elements to be Fire, Water, Wind & Earth. Like them, you are in a permanent state of denial, unwilling to admit the facts even if a dinosaur stepped on you.
Try learning some elementary physics before you try rewriting their laws.
The scientists who examined them have found them to be much more distinct than that.
As far as the models are concerned, all it proves is that they knew of the existence of dinosaurs, having probably found fossils themselves, then leaving the rest to their imagination.
It is more likely they saw living dinosaurs.
In much older Religions there are also icons of multi headed dogs & multi limbed elephants (this, incidentally, proves the existence of my Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants, I might add), mermaids, the Egyptian gods of men with the heads of dogs, the Sphinx, idols of Gods with wings on their head & their ankles - all evidence of the existence of these creatures, according to your logic, because these have all been modelled from prehistorical times.
According to your logic they just found fossils and used their imaginations.
The supposed images of the Stegasaurus could just as easily be to combination of a Rhinoceros & a number of different species of lizards, which have the same characteristics.
Or they actually saw living stegosauruses.
Even your inconsistencies are inconsistent. You have previously claimed that the dinosaurs were killed off by the Flood, yet according to the Bible there still weren't that many people on earth - certainly not enough to have populated the entire planet, which they would have had to have done in order to have supposedly co-existed with dinosaurs.
There you go again; claiming I said something I never said. The Flood occurred about 4500 years ago. Many wonder at how the population could have grown to six billion from Noah’s family who survived the Flood that wiped out everyone else about 4,500 years ago. It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.
Data from the Bible (Genesis 10,11) shows that the population grew quite quickly in the years immediately after the Flood. Shem had five sons, Ham had four, and Japheth had seven. If we assume that they had the same number of daughters, then they averaged 10.7 children per couple. In the next generation, Shem had 14 grandsons, Ham, 28 and Japheth, 23, or 130 children in total. That is an average of 8.1 per couple. These figures are consisent with God’s command to ‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ (Genesis 9:1).
Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in Shem’s line ranged from 35 to 29 years (Genesis 11:10–24), with an average of 31 years, so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time). This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years.
If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection, this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood.
The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence?
Where are all the people? - creation.com
You have just referred to the difference of millions of years of fossils since trilobytes, yet you also claim that the world is only a few thousand years old.
When did I make that statement and in what context?
How many times must it be pointed out to you that mountains grow a few centimetres a year, and so over a few millions years the tops of the mountains would have grown up from the sea bed, so it would be surprising if there were NOT fossils of sea creatures on the tops of mountains. Their presence simply serves to verify the timeline.
How many times has it been pointed out to you that mountains developed in a matter of days. How did mountain ranges form? Major mountains are often crumpled like an accordion. Satellite photos of mountain ranges show that some resemble throw rugs that have been pushed against walls. But what force could push a long, thick slab of rock and cause it to buckle and sometimes fold back on itself? Besides, any force large enough to overcome the gigantic frictional locking at the base of the slab, would crush the end being pushed before movement could even begin. Therefore, a mountain would not form.
We can see, especially in mountains and road cuts, thinly layered rocks folded like doubled-over phone books. Other “bent†rocks are small enough to hold in one’s hand. The tiny, crystalline grains in those folds are not stretched. So, how could brittle rock, showing little evidence of heating or cracking, fold? Rocks are strong in compression but weak in tension, so their stretched outer surfaces should have easily fractured. Bent sedimentary rocks, found worldwide, often look as if they had the consistency of putty when they were compressed. They must have been squeezed and folded soon after the sediments were laid down, but before they hardened chemically. What squeezed and folded them?
Figure 49: Buckled Mountain. Textbooks and museums frequently refer to some uplifting force that formed mountains. Can you see that an uplifting force, by itself, would not produce this pattern? Horizontal compression was needed to buckle these sedimentary layers near the Sullivan River in southern British Columbia, Canada. Such layers—seen worldwide—must have been soft, like wet sand, at the time of compression. Today, surface rocks are brittle.
Picture a slit tire. When the inner tube is inflated does it retain its position inside the tire wall? No. The pressure forces its way outward. The tire is the earth's crust. The inner tube are the lower levels, except that this is just a single layer. With seismic activity being an ongoing thing, the lower layers are constantly being forced above the upper ones. It's only to be expected.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to
How many sparks are there? How many lightning strikes are there every minute across the world? You are actually arguing now that the fundamental source of all life on earth is not made of 2 parts of Hydrogen & 1 of Oxygen. As with any compound, by definition, it has to combine the various atoms by a source of ignition - the smallest of which is a tiny spark. Without that spark you can mix as much Hydrogen & Oxygen together as you like - megatonnes of it if you like - all it needs, though, is a single tiny spark to trigger it. Curiously, that single spark doesn't stop with making a single molecule. It goes on to form a chain reaction until one or the other of the reacting elements is exhausted. It is the most basic of the first law of the Conservation of Energy. Potential Energy, in the form of Hydrogen & Oxygen (in this particular formula) is initiated by a spark & converted into Heat, Light & Sound energies. Water is the waste product. When water is subjected to electrolysis the reaction is reversed (such as while charging a car battery, for instance). And before you go on about there not being electric currents in nature - electricity is a fundamental force of nature & is to be found everywhere. Hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the universe, but in order to be ignited it has to have the presence of Oxygen as well. Like it or not Water is made up of 2 parts of Hydrogen & 1 of Oxygen, hence its formulaic name - H2O.
But weren't you arguing that all the water on Earth was caused by a spark? Why then is there any free hydrogen and oxygen left with the trillions of sparks that occur every day?
Of course sparks are not only caused by electricity, but by the burning up of meteorites burning up in the atmosphere, or 2 rocks hitting each other - such as one asteroid hitting another, for instance. There is no shortage of sparks, or flames, yet you try to argue your case about the lack of sparks.
No, I am arguing that with all the trillions of sparks, they are not sufficient to create all the water on Earth as you claim. You really are living in the dark ages when they believed the elements to be Fire, Water, Wind & Earth. Like them, you are in a permanent state of denial, unwilling to admit the facts even if a dinosaur stepped on you.
Try learning some elementary physics before you try rewriting their laws.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Technically you're correct. Humans did see Dinosaurs - they're called Birds - they descended via EVOLUTION from the Dinosaurs.
Your link states that DNA only lasts a few thousand years. More selective arguments. USABLE DNA only lasts a few thousand years.
The rate, however, isn't slow enough for humans to take blood from an amber-encased mosquito and clone dinosaurs, like in Jurassic Park. "We believe this is the last nail in the coffin," of claims that scientists can get DNA from million-year-old fossils, says Morten Allentoft, a scientist from Copenhagen's Natural History Museum who worked on the project. Even in ideal preservation conditions, the scientists calculated that every single DNA bond would be broken at 6.8 million years: The youngest dino fossils are 65 million years old. And because scientists need long stretches of DNA to replicate it, they estimate that the oldest usable DNA will actually be one to two million years old. The record holder right now is DNA found in ice cores, at 500,000 years old.
(Source: What's The Half-Life Of DNA? | Popular Science)
Just because it's broken down too much to be able to make clones, as in Jurassic Park, doesn't mean that there aren't still partial chains that can be studied. When fossils of bones are found you don't need the entire skeleton to get an idea of what the creature looked like. Even a part of its skull can lead to tell what its diet was (if the eyes are on the side it's likely to be a herbivore, with all round vision, so as to be able to see predators - if they're at the front they're likely to be carniverous predators, giving them binocular vision - a perfect example of evolution).
Living dinosaurs that haven't changed much still exist, as with crocodiles & alligators. There are others such as the Komodo Dragon, which can easily be compared to its distant dinosaur ancestors, and they can get quite big, plus it is human nature to exaggerate as well as to fantasise (of which you are a perfect example).
How many times has it been pointed out to you that mountains developed in a matter of days. How did mountain ranges form? Major mountains are often crumpled like an accordion. Satellite photos of mountain ranges show that some resemble throw rugs that have been pushed against walls. But what force could push a long, thick slab of rock and cause it to buckle and sometimes fold back on itself? Besides, any force large enough to overcome the gigantic frictional locking at the base of the slab, would crush the end being pushed before movement could even begin. Therefore, a mountain would not form.
You can point out a baseless theory as much as you like, but it doesn't make it true. The FACT that mountains grow at the rate of about 2cm a year has, and still is being measured & monitored. This is hard, recordable EVIDENCE. Simple mathematical calculations work out that at that rate, divided by the current height of the mountains the date at which it would have been underwater matches the age of the fossils found at the top, just as would be expected. The fossils were found first, and until it was found that the mountains were still growing it was a mystery. Once evidence was found to explain the mystery it was no longer a mystery. The real mystery is how flat earth idiots, such as yourself, can't see that. The continental drift is still going on. That too is being recorded & monitored, yet you deny that as well because it doesn't fit in with your Master's Voice.
It doesn't matter how much copying & pasting you do, the hard scientific evidence of thousands of expert scientist from thousands of academies around the world still outweighs the foundless notions of one crazed superstitious lunatic who decies to make up 'facts' to fit in with his fantasies.
You remind me of a Bruce Lee film. In actual fact he never moved as fast as the movies made out, the movie makers would speed up the film to make it fit in with the fictional character they wanted to portray. He made the moves, but nowhere near as fast as they wanted him to do it. He is your mountain. Speeding the film up is your desperate attempt at trying to make it fit in with your timeline. Your simple mind simply cannot comprehend the notion of millions, let alone billions of years. You are of the arrogant school of thought that the entire world was placed here for no other purpose than as a habitat for humans, just because some book, written by superstitious primitives who had no concept of science or of the existence of the world beyond their own walking distance. They couldn't explain things, so they would make up stories to make them fit the scenario. Time has moved on. The rest of us see things for what they really are & are learning more every day. The likes of you, however, are just too scared to contemplate that everything they've believed in previously is nothing more than a fairy story.
I wonder if you've ever read any of Erich von Daniken's books?
(Erich von Däniken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
A lot of his theories have been shown to be erroneous, but many more give much food for thought. The difference is that he bases his theories on practical possibilities, and demonstrates how ignorance throughout history has caused the invention of God figures in order to explain the unexplained.
"Why is the sky blue?"
"I don't know - because God said so!!"
This is the sort of logic that was believed for thousands of years - that is until it was discovered how the Oxygen in the atmosphere filters the wavebands of visible light, so that the light we see is blue. Once this is learned, God becomes redundant for yet another mystery.
Your link states that DNA only lasts a few thousand years. More selective arguments. USABLE DNA only lasts a few thousand years.
The rate, however, isn't slow enough for humans to take blood from an amber-encased mosquito and clone dinosaurs, like in Jurassic Park. "We believe this is the last nail in the coffin," of claims that scientists can get DNA from million-year-old fossils, says Morten Allentoft, a scientist from Copenhagen's Natural History Museum who worked on the project. Even in ideal preservation conditions, the scientists calculated that every single DNA bond would be broken at 6.8 million years: The youngest dino fossils are 65 million years old. And because scientists need long stretches of DNA to replicate it, they estimate that the oldest usable DNA will actually be one to two million years old. The record holder right now is DNA found in ice cores, at 500,000 years old.
(Source: What's The Half-Life Of DNA? | Popular Science)
Just because it's broken down too much to be able to make clones, as in Jurassic Park, doesn't mean that there aren't still partial chains that can be studied. When fossils of bones are found you don't need the entire skeleton to get an idea of what the creature looked like. Even a part of its skull can lead to tell what its diet was (if the eyes are on the side it's likely to be a herbivore, with all round vision, so as to be able to see predators - if they're at the front they're likely to be carniverous predators, giving them binocular vision - a perfect example of evolution).
Living dinosaurs that haven't changed much still exist, as with crocodiles & alligators. There are others such as the Komodo Dragon, which can easily be compared to its distant dinosaur ancestors, and they can get quite big, plus it is human nature to exaggerate as well as to fantasise (of which you are a perfect example).
How many times has it been pointed out to you that mountains developed in a matter of days. How did mountain ranges form? Major mountains are often crumpled like an accordion. Satellite photos of mountain ranges show that some resemble throw rugs that have been pushed against walls. But what force could push a long, thick slab of rock and cause it to buckle and sometimes fold back on itself? Besides, any force large enough to overcome the gigantic frictional locking at the base of the slab, would crush the end being pushed before movement could even begin. Therefore, a mountain would not form.
You can point out a baseless theory as much as you like, but it doesn't make it true. The FACT that mountains grow at the rate of about 2cm a year has, and still is being measured & monitored. This is hard, recordable EVIDENCE. Simple mathematical calculations work out that at that rate, divided by the current height of the mountains the date at which it would have been underwater matches the age of the fossils found at the top, just as would be expected. The fossils were found first, and until it was found that the mountains were still growing it was a mystery. Once evidence was found to explain the mystery it was no longer a mystery. The real mystery is how flat earth idiots, such as yourself, can't see that. The continental drift is still going on. That too is being recorded & monitored, yet you deny that as well because it doesn't fit in with your Master's Voice.
It doesn't matter how much copying & pasting you do, the hard scientific evidence of thousands of expert scientist from thousands of academies around the world still outweighs the foundless notions of one crazed superstitious lunatic who decies to make up 'facts' to fit in with his fantasies.
You remind me of a Bruce Lee film. In actual fact he never moved as fast as the movies made out, the movie makers would speed up the film to make it fit in with the fictional character they wanted to portray. He made the moves, but nowhere near as fast as they wanted him to do it. He is your mountain. Speeding the film up is your desperate attempt at trying to make it fit in with your timeline. Your simple mind simply cannot comprehend the notion of millions, let alone billions of years. You are of the arrogant school of thought that the entire world was placed here for no other purpose than as a habitat for humans, just because some book, written by superstitious primitives who had no concept of science or of the existence of the world beyond their own walking distance. They couldn't explain things, so they would make up stories to make them fit the scenario. Time has moved on. The rest of us see things for what they really are & are learning more every day. The likes of you, however, are just too scared to contemplate that everything they've believed in previously is nothing more than a fairy story.
I wonder if you've ever read any of Erich von Daniken's books?
(Erich von Däniken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
A lot of his theories have been shown to be erroneous, but many more give much food for thought. The difference is that he bases his theories on practical possibilities, and demonstrates how ignorance throughout history has caused the invention of God figures in order to explain the unexplained.
"Why is the sky blue?"
"I don't know - because God said so!!"
This is the sort of logic that was believed for thousands of years - that is until it was discovered how the Oxygen in the atmosphere filters the wavebands of visible light, so that the light we see is blue. Once this is learned, God becomes redundant for yet another mystery.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477311 wrote: Technically you're correct. Humans did see Dinosaurs - they're called Birds - they descended via EVOLUTION from the Dinosaurs.
Their imagination exceeds yours. They saw birds and drew dinosaurs!
Just because it's broken down too much to be able to make clones, as in Jurassic Park, doesn't mean that there aren't still partial chains that can be studied. When fossils of bones are found you don't need the entire skeleton to get an idea of what the creature looked like. Even a part of its skull can lead to tell what its diet was (if the eyes are on the side it's likely to be a herbivore, with all round vision, so as to be able to see predators - if they're at the front they're likely to be carniverous predators, giving them binocular vision - a perfect example of evolution).
Since evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth, how is binocular vision a perfect example of evolution?
Living dinosaurs that haven't changed much still exist, as with crocodiles & alligators. There are others such as the Komodo Dragon, which can easily be compared to its distant dinosaur ancestors, and they can get quite big, plus it is human nature to exaggerate as well as to fantasise (of which you are a perfect example).
I have presented proof that man and dinosaurs lived together. Your attempts to explain away that proof is a perfect example of your tendency to exaggerate and fantasise.
You can point out a baseless theory as much as you like, but it doesn't make it true. The FACT that mountains grow at the rate of about 2cm a year has, and still is being measured & monitored. This is hard, recordable EVIDENCE.
That fact does not rule out the evidence that the major mountain ranges of the world rose in a matter of weeks as the result of the Flood. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery
Simple mathematical calculations work out that at that rate, divided by the current height of the mountains the date at which it would have been underwater matches the age of the fossils found at the top, just as would be expected. The fossils were found first, and until it was found that the mountains were still growing it was a mystery. Once evidence was found to explain the mystery it was no longer a mystery. The real mystery is how flat earth idiots, such as yourself, can't see that. The continental drift is still going on. That too is being recorded & monitored, yet you deny that as well because it doesn't fit in with your Master's Voice.
What is your Master's Voice that blinds you to the fact that since the mountains were raised within weeks during the Flood, sea creatures that fossilized would be raised with them making them only a few thousand years old.
It doesn't matter how much copying & pasting you do, the hard scientific evidence of thousands of expert scientist from thousands of academies around the world still outweighs the foundless notions of one crazed superstitious lunatic who decies to make up 'facts' to fit in with his fantasies.
Are you including the scientists that confirm Brown's conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
You remind me of a Bruce Lee film. In actual fact he never moved as fast as the movies made out, the movie makers would speed up the film to make it fit in with the fictional character they wanted to portray. He made the moves, but nowhere near as fast as they wanted him to do it. He is your mountain. Speeding the film up is your desperate attempt at trying to make it fit in with your timeline. Your simple mind simply cannot comprehend the notion of millions, let alone billions of years. You are of the arrogant school of thought that the entire world was placed here for no other purpose than as a habitat for humans, just because some book, written by superstitious primitives who had no concept of science or of the existence of the world beyond their own walking distance. They couldn't explain things, so they would make up stories to make them fit the scenario. Time has moved on. The rest of us see things for what they really are & are learning more every day. The likes of you, however, are just too scared to contemplate that everything they've believed in previously is nothing more than a fairy story.
The Bible is more accurate than you wish to admit:
Bible Accuracy
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 fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecies
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.
I wonder if you've ever read any of Erich von Daniken's books?
(Erich von Däniken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
A lot of his theories have been shown to be erroneous, but many more give much food for thought. The difference is that he bases his theories on practical possibilities, and demonstrates how ignorance throughout history has caused the invention of God figures in order to explain the unexplained.
"Why is the sky blue?"
"I don't know - because God said so!!"
This is the sort of logic that was believed for thousands of years - that is until it was discovered how the Oxygen in the atmosphere filters the wavebands of visible light, so that the light we see is blue. Once this is learned, God becomes redundant for yet another mystery.
Where did the oxygen come from? Plants, good. Where did the plants come from? And so forth until we ask where did the universe come from? Before it existed there was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must have been supernatural. So there is another theory of Erich von Daniken shown to be erroneous.
Their imagination exceeds yours. They saw birds and drew dinosaurs!
Just because it's broken down too much to be able to make clones, as in Jurassic Park, doesn't mean that there aren't still partial chains that can be studied. When fossils of bones are found you don't need the entire skeleton to get an idea of what the creature looked like. Even a part of its skull can lead to tell what its diet was (if the eyes are on the side it's likely to be a herbivore, with all round vision, so as to be able to see predators - if they're at the front they're likely to be carniverous predators, giving them binocular vision - a perfect example of evolution).
Since evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth, how is binocular vision a perfect example of evolution?
Living dinosaurs that haven't changed much still exist, as with crocodiles & alligators. There are others such as the Komodo Dragon, which can easily be compared to its distant dinosaur ancestors, and they can get quite big, plus it is human nature to exaggerate as well as to fantasise (of which you are a perfect example).
I have presented proof that man and dinosaurs lived together. Your attempts to explain away that proof is a perfect example of your tendency to exaggerate and fantasise.
You can point out a baseless theory as much as you like, but it doesn't make it true. The FACT that mountains grow at the rate of about 2cm a year has, and still is being measured & monitored. This is hard, recordable EVIDENCE.
That fact does not rule out the evidence that the major mountain ranges of the world rose in a matter of weeks as the result of the Flood. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery
Simple mathematical calculations work out that at that rate, divided by the current height of the mountains the date at which it would have been underwater matches the age of the fossils found at the top, just as would be expected. The fossils were found first, and until it was found that the mountains were still growing it was a mystery. Once evidence was found to explain the mystery it was no longer a mystery. The real mystery is how flat earth idiots, such as yourself, can't see that. The continental drift is still going on. That too is being recorded & monitored, yet you deny that as well because it doesn't fit in with your Master's Voice.
What is your Master's Voice that blinds you to the fact that since the mountains were raised within weeks during the Flood, sea creatures that fossilized would be raised with them making them only a few thousand years old.
It doesn't matter how much copying & pasting you do, the hard scientific evidence of thousands of expert scientist from thousands of academies around the world still outweighs the foundless notions of one crazed superstitious lunatic who decies to make up 'facts' to fit in with his fantasies.
Are you including the scientists that confirm Brown's conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
You remind me of a Bruce Lee film. In actual fact he never moved as fast as the movies made out, the movie makers would speed up the film to make it fit in with the fictional character they wanted to portray. He made the moves, but nowhere near as fast as they wanted him to do it. He is your mountain. Speeding the film up is your desperate attempt at trying to make it fit in with your timeline. Your simple mind simply cannot comprehend the notion of millions, let alone billions of years. You are of the arrogant school of thought that the entire world was placed here for no other purpose than as a habitat for humans, just because some book, written by superstitious primitives who had no concept of science or of the existence of the world beyond their own walking distance. They couldn't explain things, so they would make up stories to make them fit the scenario. Time has moved on. The rest of us see things for what they really are & are learning more every day. The likes of you, however, are just too scared to contemplate that everything they've believed in previously is nothing more than a fairy story.
The Bible is more accurate than you wish to admit:
Bible Accuracy
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 fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecies
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.
I wonder if you've ever read any of Erich von Daniken's books?
(Erich von Däniken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
A lot of his theories have been shown to be erroneous, but many more give much food for thought. The difference is that he bases his theories on practical possibilities, and demonstrates how ignorance throughout history has caused the invention of God figures in order to explain the unexplained.
"Why is the sky blue?"
"I don't know - because God said so!!"
This is the sort of logic that was believed for thousands of years - that is until it was discovered how the Oxygen in the atmosphere filters the wavebands of visible light, so that the light we see is blue. Once this is learned, God becomes redundant for yet another mystery.
Where did the oxygen come from? Plants, good. Where did the plants come from? And so forth until we ask where did the universe come from? Before it existed there was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must have been supernatural. So there is another theory of Erich von Daniken shown to be erroneous.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1477344 wrote: Their imagination exceeds yours. They saw birds and drew dinosaurs!
They saw lizards - the descendants of dinosaurs & drew them.
Since evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth, how is binocular vision a perfect example of evolution?
1. Not 'thought' to have developed - 'proved' to have developed.
2. Binocular vision, as known by any primary school child is necessary for Depth Perception - something that is essential for predators. You only need to look at the difference between the eyes of carnivores & those of herbivores. Carnivores face forward for focusing on prey so as to assess speed & distance. Herbivores, which etnd to be the prey need all round vision so as to be on the alert from predators, so have their eyes on the side.
I have presented proof that man and dinosaurs lived together. Your attempts to explain away that proof is a perfect example of your tendency to exaggerate and fantasise.
You have presented no proof whatsoever. All you have presented, just as you always do are the ravings of Dolt Brown. I don't think I have ever known you to come up with any other independant sources that come anywhere near corroborating his dreams - and before you try pasting his phoney list, you have yet to take up the challenge I have made time & time again to link to where any of the names say anything near what he claims to have said, nor can any links connected to his Creationist organisation be considered as independant. Nor can pasting from the same old book be considered as being evidence, for the same reason. My arguments have been made from citing a multitude of sources. You have only ever cited one.
That fact does not rule out the evidence that the major mountain ranges of the world rose in a matter of weeks as the result of the Flood. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery
1. At least you have finally accepted it as a fact.
2. Because the ravings of Dolt Brown cannot be accepted as being evidence & because that is the only supposed 'evidence' you have produced, you have not produced any evidence whatsoever. I, on the other hand have provided plenty to the contrary.
What is your Master's Voice that blinds you to the fact that since the mountains were raised within weeks during the Flood, sea creatures that fossilized would be raised with them making them only a few thousand years old.
MY Master's Voice is that of Hard, Undeniable Evidence gathered & recognised by scientific academies worldwide. YOUR Master's Voice is some nutter that you treat as a God.
Are you including the scientists that confirm Brown's conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
See previous note. I have challenged you to produce links to where these scientists were quoted as saying anything of the sort.. Time & time again you refuse to take up the challenge. He CLAIMS that they have said things but has never quantified how, when, where, or, most importantly, in what context. I could be quoted as saying "Walt Brown's Hydroplate is obviously the answer to everything - what utter bollocks", but by omitting the "What Utter Bollocks" you could achieve the "Quote". All the leading reputable scientific journals are available for viewing online. Again, I challenge you - Find me the links where these supposed quotes are made. A list of names & journals means nothing. If such citation were genuine a credible writer would have referred to the precise details. Because he doesn't then it demonstrates his lack of credibility & demonstrates him to be the charlatan that he is.
The Bible is more accurate than you wish to admit:
Bible Accuracy
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 fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecies
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.
Every single link to Religious organisations, hell bent on promoting their own fantasies by blatant misinterpretation & invention of 'evidence' where the facts don't fall in line with what they want it to say, conveniently ignoring the multitude of actual evidence that disproves their theories.
Where did the oxygen come from? Plants, good. Where did the plants come from? And so forth until we ask where did the universe come from? Before it existed there was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must have been supernatural. So there is another theory of Erich von Daniken shown to be erroneous.
We've been through all this before. There is no such thing as anything being supernatural. If it existed then it would be natural that it existed, therefore it couldn't exist. On many occasions I have pointed out things that have been done under laboratory conditions, and you have argued that they don't count by saying that these aren't natural conditions. I could use your exact same argument by saying that if it's not natural, then it must be supernatural - so there you have it - replicating supernatural events in laboratory conditions.
Elements, such as Hydrogen & Oxygen simply exist. They exist & have always existed. Everything else in the Universe is comprised of these base elements. Elements combine to make molecules. Different conditions bring about different combinations. Eventually different molecules get drawn together, resulting in basic DNA, at which point Evolution takes over.
I really don't understand why it is that you can't even consider that your God might even have had the whole concept of Evolution as part of his almighty plan. But then again, Dolt Brown knows more than God, and you clearly have more faith in his word than you do in God's.
Incidentally, this little site accurately summarises Dolt Brown's Hydroplate Theory in a simple concise article which is far more credible that all your reams of repeated pasting.
Hydroplate theory - RationalWiki
They saw lizards - the descendants of dinosaurs & drew them.
Since evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth, how is binocular vision a perfect example of evolution?
1. Not 'thought' to have developed - 'proved' to have developed.
2. Binocular vision, as known by any primary school child is necessary for Depth Perception - something that is essential for predators. You only need to look at the difference between the eyes of carnivores & those of herbivores. Carnivores face forward for focusing on prey so as to assess speed & distance. Herbivores, which etnd to be the prey need all round vision so as to be on the alert from predators, so have their eyes on the side.
I have presented proof that man and dinosaurs lived together. Your attempts to explain away that proof is a perfect example of your tendency to exaggerate and fantasise.
You have presented no proof whatsoever. All you have presented, just as you always do are the ravings of Dolt Brown. I don't think I have ever known you to come up with any other independant sources that come anywhere near corroborating his dreams - and before you try pasting his phoney list, you have yet to take up the challenge I have made time & time again to link to where any of the names say anything near what he claims to have said, nor can any links connected to his Creationist organisation be considered as independant. Nor can pasting from the same old book be considered as being evidence, for the same reason. My arguments have been made from citing a multitude of sources. You have only ever cited one.
That fact does not rule out the evidence that the major mountain ranges of the world rose in a matter of weeks as the result of the Flood. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Phases of the Hydroplate Theory: Rupture, Flood, Drift, and Recovery
1. At least you have finally accepted it as a fact.
2. Because the ravings of Dolt Brown cannot be accepted as being evidence & because that is the only supposed 'evidence' you have produced, you have not produced any evidence whatsoever. I, on the other hand have provided plenty to the contrary.
What is your Master's Voice that blinds you to the fact that since the mountains were raised within weeks during the Flood, sea creatures that fossilized would be raised with them making them only a few thousand years old.
MY Master's Voice is that of Hard, Undeniable Evidence gathered & recognised by scientific academies worldwide. YOUR Master's Voice is some nutter that you treat as a God.
Are you including the scientists that confirm Brown's conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
See previous note. I have challenged you to produce links to where these scientists were quoted as saying anything of the sort.. Time & time again you refuse to take up the challenge. He CLAIMS that they have said things but has never quantified how, when, where, or, most importantly, in what context. I could be quoted as saying "Walt Brown's Hydroplate is obviously the answer to everything - what utter bollocks", but by omitting the "What Utter Bollocks" you could achieve the "Quote". All the leading reputable scientific journals are available for viewing online. Again, I challenge you - Find me the links where these supposed quotes are made. A list of names & journals means nothing. If such citation were genuine a credible writer would have referred to the precise details. Because he doesn't then it demonstrates his lack of credibility & demonstrates him to be the charlatan that he is.
The Bible is more accurate than you wish to admit:
Bible Accuracy
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 fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecies
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.
Every single link to Religious organisations, hell bent on promoting their own fantasies by blatant misinterpretation & invention of 'evidence' where the facts don't fall in line with what they want it to say, conveniently ignoring the multitude of actual evidence that disproves their theories.
Where did the oxygen come from? Plants, good. Where did the plants come from? And so forth until we ask where did the universe come from? Before it existed there was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must have been supernatural. So there is another theory of Erich von Daniken shown to be erroneous.
We've been through all this before. There is no such thing as anything being supernatural. If it existed then it would be natural that it existed, therefore it couldn't exist. On many occasions I have pointed out things that have been done under laboratory conditions, and you have argued that they don't count by saying that these aren't natural conditions. I could use your exact same argument by saying that if it's not natural, then it must be supernatural - so there you have it - replicating supernatural events in laboratory conditions.
Elements, such as Hydrogen & Oxygen simply exist. They exist & have always existed. Everything else in the Universe is comprised of these base elements. Elements combine to make molecules. Different conditions bring about different combinations. Eventually different molecules get drawn together, resulting in basic DNA, at which point Evolution takes over.
I really don't understand why it is that you can't even consider that your God might even have had the whole concept of Evolution as part of his almighty plan. But then again, Dolt Brown knows more than God, and you clearly have more faith in his word than you do in God's.
Incidentally, this little site accurately summarises Dolt Brown's Hydroplate Theory in a simple concise article which is far more credible that all your reams of repeated pasting.
Hydroplate theory - RationalWiki
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477349 wrote: They saw lizards - the descendants of dinosaurs & drew them.
So you have gone from birds to lizards. Do these look like lizards to you:
And remember this:
Footprints in the sand
There are many dinosaur footprints being found worldwide. Some have been found with human footprints. Evolutionists do everything they can to discredit these finds. You - the reader - must decide for yourself. We try to gather as much archaeological information as possible to help you know how much evidence is being kept from you in the school textbooks - information the evolutionists don't want you to know about.
The Alvis Delk Track
This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.
Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.
The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
So you have gone from birds to lizards. Do these look like lizards to you:
And remember this:
Footprints in the sand
There are many dinosaur footprints being found worldwide. Some have been found with human footprints. Evolutionists do everything they can to discredit these finds. You - the reader - must decide for yourself. We try to gather as much archaeological information as possible to help you know how much evidence is being kept from you in the school textbooks - information the evolutionists don't want you to know about.
The Alvis Delk Track
This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.
Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.
The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Since evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth, how is binocular vision a perfect example of evolution?
FourPart;1477349 wrote:
1. Not 'thought' to have developed - 'proved' to have developed.
Where is that proof?
2. Binocular vision, as known by any primary school child is necessary for Depth Perception - something that is essential for predators. You only need to look at the difference between the eyes of carnivores & those of herbivores. Carnivores face forward for focusing on prey so as to assess speed & distance. Herbivores, which etnd to be the prey need all round vision so as to be on the alert from predators, so have their eyes on the side.
How does that fact prove evolution since evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth?
You have presented no proof whatsoever. All you have presented, just as you always do are the ravings of Dolt Brown. I don't think I have ever known you to come up with any other independant sources that come anywhere near corroborating his dreams - and before you try pasting his phoney list, you have yet to take up the challenge I have made time & time again to link to where any of the names say anything near what he claims to have said, nor can any links connected to his Creationist organisation be considered as independant. Nor can pasting from the same old book be considered as being evidence, for the same reason. My arguments have been made from citing a multitude of sources. You have only ever cited one.
Each of my posts disprove evolution. You have yet to prove it even though I have asked you for proof numerous times. Most of the posts from Brown contain confirmation from scientists in the endnotes. I have used other sources such as the dinosaur information.
1. At least you have finally accepted it as a fact .
2. Because the ravings of Dolt Brown cannot be accepted as being evidence & because that is the only supposed 'evidence' you have produced, you have not produced any evidence whatsoever. I, on the other hand have provided plenty to the contrary.
Why not share that contrary evidence with us?
MY Master's Voice is that of Hard, Undeniable Evidence gathered & recognised by scientific academies worldwide. YOUR Master's Voice is some nutter that you treat as a God.
Where is that Hard, Undeniable Evidence gathered & recognised by scientific academies worldwide that refutes Brown's conclusions confirmed by the scientists he quotes?
I have challenged you to produce links to where these scientists were quoted as saying anything of the sort.. Time & time again you refuse to take up the challenge. He CLAIMS that they have said things but has never quantified how, when, where, or, most importantly, in what context. I could be quoted as saying "Walt Brown's Hydroplate is obviously the answer to everything - what utter bollocks", but by omitting the "What Utter Bollocks" you could achieve the "Quote". All the leading reputable scientific journals are available for viewing online. Again, I challenge you - Find me the links where these supposed quotes are made. A list of names & journals means nothing. If such citation were genuine a credible writer would have referred to the precise details. Because he doesn't then it demonstrates his lack of credibility & demonstrates him to be the charlatan that he is.
Look it up for yourself. You will find those scientists in the endnotes at the end of his statements. Start here: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory
Every single link to Religious organisations, hell bent on promoting their own fantasies by blatant misinterpretation & invention of 'evidence' where the facts don't fall in line with what they want it to say, conveniently ignoring the multitude of actual evidence that disproves their theories. [In response to Bible Accuracy]
Those links take you to archaeological, scientific and prophetic proof that the Bible is accurate. You can't accept that proof because of your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions.
We've been through all this before. There is no such thing as anything being supernatural.
An excellent example of your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions. The fact remains that before the universe existed there was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must have been supernatural. No one, including you, has ever been able to refute that fact.
Elements, such as Hydrogen & Oxygen simply exist. They exist & have always existed. Everything else in the Universe is comprised of these base elements. Elements combine to make molecules. Different conditions bring about different combinations. Eventually different molecules get drawn together, resulting in basic DNA, at which point Evolution takes over.
I really don't understand why it is that you can't even consider that your God might even have had the whole concept of Evolution as part of his almighty plan. But then again, Dolt Brown knows more than God, and you clearly have more faith in his word than you do in God's.
Of course God could have created everything by way of evolutional, but the facts of science disproves evolution and God said He created everything intelligently. Evolution is a mindless unintelligent concept lacking any evidence.
FourPart;1477349 wrote:
1. Not 'thought' to have developed - 'proved' to have developed.
Where is that proof?
2. Binocular vision, as known by any primary school child is necessary for Depth Perception - something that is essential for predators. You only need to look at the difference between the eyes of carnivores & those of herbivores. Carnivores face forward for focusing on prey so as to assess speed & distance. Herbivores, which etnd to be the prey need all round vision so as to be on the alert from predators, so have their eyes on the side.
How does that fact prove evolution since evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth?
You have presented no proof whatsoever. All you have presented, just as you always do are the ravings of Dolt Brown. I don't think I have ever known you to come up with any other independant sources that come anywhere near corroborating his dreams - and before you try pasting his phoney list, you have yet to take up the challenge I have made time & time again to link to where any of the names say anything near what he claims to have said, nor can any links connected to his Creationist organisation be considered as independant. Nor can pasting from the same old book be considered as being evidence, for the same reason. My arguments have been made from citing a multitude of sources. You have only ever cited one.
Each of my posts disprove evolution. You have yet to prove it even though I have asked you for proof numerous times. Most of the posts from Brown contain confirmation from scientists in the endnotes. I have used other sources such as the dinosaur information.
1. At least you have finally accepted it as a fact .
2. Because the ravings of Dolt Brown cannot be accepted as being evidence & because that is the only supposed 'evidence' you have produced, you have not produced any evidence whatsoever. I, on the other hand have provided plenty to the contrary.
Why not share that contrary evidence with us?
MY Master's Voice is that of Hard, Undeniable Evidence gathered & recognised by scientific academies worldwide. YOUR Master's Voice is some nutter that you treat as a God.
Where is that Hard, Undeniable Evidence gathered & recognised by scientific academies worldwide that refutes Brown's conclusions confirmed by the scientists he quotes?
I have challenged you to produce links to where these scientists were quoted as saying anything of the sort.. Time & time again you refuse to take up the challenge. He CLAIMS that they have said things but has never quantified how, when, where, or, most importantly, in what context. I could be quoted as saying "Walt Brown's Hydroplate is obviously the answer to everything - what utter bollocks", but by omitting the "What Utter Bollocks" you could achieve the "Quote". All the leading reputable scientific journals are available for viewing online. Again, I challenge you - Find me the links where these supposed quotes are made. A list of names & journals means nothing. If such citation were genuine a credible writer would have referred to the precise details. Because he doesn't then it demonstrates his lack of credibility & demonstrates him to be the charlatan that he is.
Look it up for yourself. You will find those scientists in the endnotes at the end of his statements. Start here: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory
Every single link to Religious organisations, hell bent on promoting their own fantasies by blatant misinterpretation & invention of 'evidence' where the facts don't fall in line with what they want it to say, conveniently ignoring the multitude of actual evidence that disproves their theories. [In response to Bible Accuracy]
Those links take you to archaeological, scientific and prophetic proof that the Bible is accurate. You can't accept that proof because of your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions.
We've been through all this before. There is no such thing as anything being supernatural.
An excellent example of your evidence free erroneous pre-conceptions. The fact remains that before the universe existed there was nothing. From nothing the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe must have been supernatural. No one, including you, has ever been able to refute that fact.
Elements, such as Hydrogen & Oxygen simply exist. They exist & have always existed. Everything else in the Universe is comprised of these base elements. Elements combine to make molecules. Different conditions bring about different combinations. Eventually different molecules get drawn together, resulting in basic DNA, at which point Evolution takes over.
I really don't understand why it is that you can't even consider that your God might even have had the whole concept of Evolution as part of his almighty plan. But then again, Dolt Brown knows more than God, and you clearly have more faith in his word than you do in God's.
Of course God could have created everything by way of evolutional, but the facts of science disproves evolution and God said He created everything intelligently. Evolution is a mindless unintelligent concept lacking any evidence.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
So much hate and anger these days as to what people believe.
I see our diversity and tolerance teachings have been for naught.
Racists, bigots, and sexists all employ the same tactics.
For shame.
I see our diversity and tolerance teachings have been for naught.
Racists, bigots, and sexists all employ the same tactics.
For shame.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
Science Disproves Evolution
Once again you fail to meet the challenge.
Your "Endnotes" quote names & publications. They do not itemise ANYTHING where his claims can be verified by any of the REPUTABLE scientists (as opposed to his religiously motivated ones). Once again you 'evidence' pasting can be disregarded as it is taken from another Religiously based website, and therefore biased, misleading & creative.
The very word 'Dinosaur' literally means "Terrible Lizard". It takes little or no imagination at all to see a lizard (such as a Komodo Dragon, for instance) & exaggerate its size - especially when there is no reference to size at all. Even the photoshopped chalk drawings (which you claim to be cave drawings of dinosaurs) give no reference to size & could just as easily be pictures of creature held in the palm of the artists hand. There is no evidence to support or deny that.
As for the footprint argument:
FOSSILS OF 'MAN TRACKS' SHOWN TO BE DINOSAURIAN - NYTimes.com
The footprints are ambiguous at best, with no detail of being human & are far more likely to be those of a bipedal dinosaur, bearing in mind that many of their modern day ancestors walk & run on 2 legs.
You really should check out a wider variety of sources before showing yourself up by blindly following in Dolt Brown's footsteps - just as those 2 dinosaurs (which were also reckoned to have a brain no bigger than that of a walnut).
Your "Endnotes" quote names & publications. They do not itemise ANYTHING where his claims can be verified by any of the REPUTABLE scientists (as opposed to his religiously motivated ones). Once again you 'evidence' pasting can be disregarded as it is taken from another Religiously based website, and therefore biased, misleading & creative.
The very word 'Dinosaur' literally means "Terrible Lizard". It takes little or no imagination at all to see a lizard (such as a Komodo Dragon, for instance) & exaggerate its size - especially when there is no reference to size at all. Even the photoshopped chalk drawings (which you claim to be cave drawings of dinosaurs) give no reference to size & could just as easily be pictures of creature held in the palm of the artists hand. There is no evidence to support or deny that.
As for the footprint argument:
FOSSILS OF 'MAN TRACKS' SHOWN TO BE DINOSAURIAN - NYTimes.com
The footprints are ambiguous at best, with no detail of being human & are far more likely to be those of a bipedal dinosaur, bearing in mind that many of their modern day ancestors walk & run on 2 legs.
You really should check out a wider variety of sources before showing yourself up by blindly following in Dolt Brown's footsteps - just as those 2 dinosaurs (which were also reckoned to have a brain no bigger than that of a walnut).
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477374 wrote: Once again you fail to meet the challenge.
Your "Endnotes" quote names & publications. They do not itemise ANYTHING where his claims can be verified by any of the REPUTABLE scientists (as opposed to his religiously motivated ones). Once again you 'evidence' pasting can be disregarded as it is taken from another Religiously based website, and therefore biased, misleading & creative.
Which of these scientists, who confirmed Brown's conclusions, are religiously motivated:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé,
The very word 'Dinosaur' literally means "Terrible Lizard". It takes little or no imagination at all to see a lizard (such as a Komodo Dragon, for instance) & exaggerate its size - especially when there is no reference to size at all. Even the photoshopped chalk drawings (which you claim to be cave drawings of dinosaurs) give no reference to size & could just as easily be pictures of creature held in the palm of the artists hand. There is no evidence to support or deny that.
It is amazing how far you are willing to go to deny the obvious. We have bones of those "terrible lizard" in museums that are far larger than those that can be held in your hand and they are the same as portrayed in the drawings hundreds of years before any bones were discovered.
As for the footprint argument:
FOSSILS OF 'MAN TRACKS' SHOWN TO BE DINOSAURIAN - NYTimes.com
The footprints are ambiguous at best, with no detail of being human & are far more likely to be those of a bipedal dinosaur, bearing in mind that many of their modern day ancestors walk & run on 2 legs.
Your link does not deal with the Alvis Delk Track. There is nothing ambiguous about the dinosaur footprint overlapping a human footprint and thoroughly examined scientifically for authenticity. Take another look: Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
Your "Endnotes" quote names & publications. They do not itemise ANYTHING where his claims can be verified by any of the REPUTABLE scientists (as opposed to his religiously motivated ones). Once again you 'evidence' pasting can be disregarded as it is taken from another Religiously based website, and therefore biased, misleading & creative.
Which of these scientists, who confirmed Brown's conclusions, are religiously motivated:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé,
The very word 'Dinosaur' literally means "Terrible Lizard". It takes little or no imagination at all to see a lizard (such as a Komodo Dragon, for instance) & exaggerate its size - especially when there is no reference to size at all. Even the photoshopped chalk drawings (which you claim to be cave drawings of dinosaurs) give no reference to size & could just as easily be pictures of creature held in the palm of the artists hand. There is no evidence to support or deny that.
It is amazing how far you are willing to go to deny the obvious. We have bones of those "terrible lizard" in museums that are far larger than those that can be held in your hand and they are the same as portrayed in the drawings hundreds of years before any bones were discovered.
As for the footprint argument:
FOSSILS OF 'MAN TRACKS' SHOWN TO BE DINOSAURIAN - NYTimes.com
The footprints are ambiguous at best, with no detail of being human & are far more likely to be those of a bipedal dinosaur, bearing in mind that many of their modern day ancestors walk & run on 2 legs.
Your link does not deal with the Alvis Delk Track. There is nothing ambiguous about the dinosaur footprint overlapping a human footprint and thoroughly examined scientifically for authenticity. Take another look: Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1477386 wrote: Which of these scientists, who confirmed Brown's conclusions, are religiously motivated:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé,
It is amazing how far you are willing to go to deny the obvious. We have bones of those "terrible lizard" in museums that are far larger than those that can be held in your hand and they are the same as portrayed in the drawings hundreds of years before any bones were discovered.
Your link does not deal with the Alvis Delk Track. There is nothing ambiguous about the dinosaur footprint overlapping a human footprint and thoroughly examined scientifically for authenticity. Take another look: Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
No, you can't pull that on us, again.
We already went over that. I called you on it, before.
You take one sentence from one of these guys, removing it completely from its context, and claim that it corroborates Brown's "findings" and put him on your list, ignoring the hundreds, if not thousands of other words the person has spoken that completely disagrees with everything that Brown stands for.
And the Alvis Delk track has been debunked, already. No use hanging on that that little morsel. Let it go.
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé,
It is amazing how far you are willing to go to deny the obvious. We have bones of those "terrible lizard" in museums that are far larger than those that can be held in your hand and they are the same as portrayed in the drawings hundreds of years before any bones were discovered.
Your link does not deal with the Alvis Delk Track. There is nothing ambiguous about the dinosaur footprint overlapping a human footprint and thoroughly examined scientifically for authenticity. Take another look: Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
No, you can't pull that on us, again.
We already went over that. I called you on it, before.
You take one sentence from one of these guys, removing it completely from its context, and claim that it corroborates Brown's "findings" and put him on your list, ignoring the hundreds, if not thousands of other words the person has spoken that completely disagrees with everything that Brown stands for.
And the Alvis Delk track has been debunked, already. No use hanging on that that little morsel. Let it go.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1477387 wrote: No, you can't pull that on us, again.
We already went over that. I called you on it, before.
You take one sentence from one of these guys, removing it completely from its context, and claim that it corroborates Brown's "findings" and put him on your list, ignoring the hundreds, if not thousands of other words the person has spoken that completely disagrees with everything that Brown stands for.
Will you provide an example of any of those scientists contradicting themselves?
And the Alvis Delk track has been debunked, already. No use hanging on that that little morsel. Let it go.
When and how was it debunked?
Remember, The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with your religion. How much better would your time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around you, instead of erroneously discounting them with no evidence!
Here is more information:
We already went over that. I called you on it, before.
You take one sentence from one of these guys, removing it completely from its context, and claim that it corroborates Brown's "findings" and put him on your list, ignoring the hundreds, if not thousands of other words the person has spoken that completely disagrees with everything that Brown stands for.
Will you provide an example of any of those scientists contradicting themselves?
And the Alvis Delk track has been debunked, already. No use hanging on that that little morsel. Let it go.
When and how was it debunked?
Remember, The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with your religion. How much better would your time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around you, instead of erroneously discounting them with no evidence!
Here is more information:
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Shall we start with the interesting point that the only place where the rock show any compression around the "human footprint" is the Big toe? And that compression is even more intense than any of the "dinosaur print"?
What does that mean? Can the human have been walking in such a way that all of his weight was on his big toe?
That would be pretty amazing, dontchathink?
What does that mean? Can the human have been walking in such a way that all of his weight was on his big toe?
That would be pretty amazing, dontchathink?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1477386 wrote: Which of these scientists, who confirmed Brown's conclusions, are religiously motivated:
Try reading what I said instead of trying to work around it. I said that the only ones that you / Brown GENUINELY cites are religiously motivates. All of those listed in your endnotes have no citation of exactly where they were supposed to have said such things. Neither does the list of know publications support anything with specific reference to precisely where these remarks were made.
I have ssued the challenge time & time again. You have avoided it time & time again. There is only one answer which can explain why - quite simply because they don't exist.
Incidentally, both Carl Sagan & Steven Hawking have both written thesis in support of the existence of my Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants in many of the leading scientific journals, including New Scientist.
As for which of those named are religiously motivated - just look at the website on the photo of the supposed dino / human footprint.
I also notice that any comments from you regarding my links, from different independant sources, I might add, discrediting your / Brown's claims are also conspicuous by their absence.
Try reading what I said instead of trying to work around it. I said that the only ones that you / Brown GENUINELY cites are religiously motivates. All of those listed in your endnotes have no citation of exactly where they were supposed to have said such things. Neither does the list of know publications support anything with specific reference to precisely where these remarks were made.
I have ssued the challenge time & time again. You have avoided it time & time again. There is only one answer which can explain why - quite simply because they don't exist.
Incidentally, both Carl Sagan & Steven Hawking have both written thesis in support of the existence of my Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants in many of the leading scientific journals, including New Scientist.
As for which of those named are religiously motivated - just look at the website on the photo of the supposed dino / human footprint.
I also notice that any comments from you regarding my links, from different independant sources, I might add, discrediting your / Brown's claims are also conspicuous by their absence.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1477390 wrote: Shall we start with the interesting point that the only place where the rock show any compression around the "human footprint" is the Big toe? And that compression is even more intense than any of the "dinosaur print"?
Not so! Take a closer look.
Not so! Take a closer look.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477394 wrote: Try reading what I said instead of trying to work around it. I said that the only ones that you / Brown GENUINELY cites are religiously motivates. All of those listed in your endnotes have no citation of exactly where they were supposed to have said such things. Neither does the list of know publications support anything with specific reference to precisely where these remarks were made.
All of those listed in the endnotes have citations of exactly where they said such things. The list of known publications support specific references to precisely where these remarks were made.
I have ssued the challenge time & time again. You have avoided it time & time again. There is only one answer which can explain why - quite simply because they don't exist.
Your challenge has been answered time and time again and you pretend it hasn't.
Incidentally, both Carl Sagan & Steven Hawking have both written thesis in support of the existence of my Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants in many of the leading scientific journals, including New Scientist.
Which only proves they are as out of touch with reality as you are.
As for which of those named are religiously motivated - just look at the website on the photo of the supposed dino / human footprint.
I was not aware they said anything about the Alvis Delk track. Are you referring to this web site? The Alvis Delk Track
It is true the owners of that site are religious. How does that fact refute the science. Scientists in all disciplines are religious. Does that mean their findings are invalid? Does the fact that science deals with the natural mean the supernatural cannot exist? No, it only means scientist devote their examination to God's creation. That fact does not rule the reality of God.
I also notice that any comments from you regarding my links, from different independant sources, I might add, discrediting your / Brown's claims are also conspicuous by their absence.
I only comment on things I consider important and relevant.
All of those listed in the endnotes have citations of exactly where they said such things. The list of known publications support specific references to precisely where these remarks were made.
I have ssued the challenge time & time again. You have avoided it time & time again. There is only one answer which can explain why - quite simply because they don't exist.
Your challenge has been answered time and time again and you pretend it hasn't.
Incidentally, both Carl Sagan & Steven Hawking have both written thesis in support of the existence of my Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants in many of the leading scientific journals, including New Scientist.
Which only proves they are as out of touch with reality as you are.
As for which of those named are religiously motivated - just look at the website on the photo of the supposed dino / human footprint.
I was not aware they said anything about the Alvis Delk track. Are you referring to this web site? The Alvis Delk Track
It is true the owners of that site are religious. How does that fact refute the science. Scientists in all disciplines are religious. Does that mean their findings are invalid? Does the fact that science deals with the natural mean the supernatural cannot exist? No, it only means scientist devote their examination to God's creation. That fact does not rule the reality of God.
I also notice that any comments from you regarding my links, from different independant sources, I might add, discrediting your / Brown's claims are also conspicuous by their absence.
I only comment on things I consider important and relevant.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1477441 wrote: Not so! Take a closer look.
I suggest that you do the same.
I suggest that you do the same.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
You cannot change a cold heart Pahu.
No sense in arguing with closed minds.
Their silliness is amusing, but will wear you out over time.
No sense in arguing with closed minds.
Their silliness is amusing, but will wear you out over time.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1477443 wrote: All of those listed in the endnotes have citations of exactly where they said such things. The list of known publications support specific references to precisely where these remarks were made.
They do not. They list a load of names which could just as easily been taken from Who's Who & a list of publications which could have been taken from the Yellow Pages. The citations are meaningless & unless it can be proved otherwise, which you have failed to do, are clearly false.
Your challenge has been answered time and time again and you pretend it hasn't.
No it hasn't. You show me just one of your posts from where you have supposedly answered my challenge "time & time again".
Which only proves they are as out of touch with reality as you are.
ME out of touch of reality. That's a laugh. Whos' the one who's denying the vast amount of scientific evidence for the sake of the dreamworld of a single creationist nutter, who can provide absolutely no evidence to support his claims?
I was not aware they said anything about the Alvis Delk track. Are you referring to this web site? www.bible.ca/tracks/delk-track.htm">The Alvis Delk Track
I said that the only precise links you ever provided were sourced to more biased sites which, just as yourself, would be grasping at straws to invent their own 'facts'. Such sources cannot be taken as being impartial & can therefore be disregarded.
It is true the owners of that site are religious. How does that fact refute the science. Scientists in all disciplines are religious. Does that mean their findings are invalid? Does the fact that science deals with the natural mean the supernatural cannot exist? No, it only means scientist devote their examination to God's creation. That fact does not rule the reality of God.
In any branch of science no findings are invalid. It's the interpretations which are invalid when they are made to fit what the preconceptions are. If scientists were to find evidence to support the existence of a God, then that would be the finding. If, however, science were to prove the non-existence of a God your Religiously biased 'scientists' would either disregard it or more probably, as is usually the case (as shown here) work around it by making up some bizarre interpretation.
I only comment on things I consider important and relevant.
That much is clearly true. Your entire argument is based on Dolt Brown. A nobody who has been shown up many a time, by independant sources, to be a total charlatan. You have never provided any other independant evidence. Why? Because all of it goes totally against what he claims. He makes lies about who supports his claims. You believe him. You adore the pratt. He IS your God. That is why you can only comment on what you find important & relevant. You are incapable of independant thought, which is why you have to rely on the constant pastings.
They do not. They list a load of names which could just as easily been taken from Who's Who & a list of publications which could have been taken from the Yellow Pages. The citations are meaningless & unless it can be proved otherwise, which you have failed to do, are clearly false.
Your challenge has been answered time and time again and you pretend it hasn't.
No it hasn't. You show me just one of your posts from where you have supposedly answered my challenge "time & time again".
Which only proves they are as out of touch with reality as you are.
ME out of touch of reality. That's a laugh. Whos' the one who's denying the vast amount of scientific evidence for the sake of the dreamworld of a single creationist nutter, who can provide absolutely no evidence to support his claims?
I was not aware they said anything about the Alvis Delk track. Are you referring to this web site? www.bible.ca/tracks/delk-track.htm">The Alvis Delk Track
I said that the only precise links you ever provided were sourced to more biased sites which, just as yourself, would be grasping at straws to invent their own 'facts'. Such sources cannot be taken as being impartial & can therefore be disregarded.
It is true the owners of that site are religious. How does that fact refute the science. Scientists in all disciplines are religious. Does that mean their findings are invalid? Does the fact that science deals with the natural mean the supernatural cannot exist? No, it only means scientist devote their examination to God's creation. That fact does not rule the reality of God.
In any branch of science no findings are invalid. It's the interpretations which are invalid when they are made to fit what the preconceptions are. If scientists were to find evidence to support the existence of a God, then that would be the finding. If, however, science were to prove the non-existence of a God your Religiously biased 'scientists' would either disregard it or more probably, as is usually the case (as shown here) work around it by making up some bizarre interpretation.
I only comment on things I consider important and relevant.
That much is clearly true. Your entire argument is based on Dolt Brown. A nobody who has been shown up many a time, by independant sources, to be a total charlatan. You have never provided any other independant evidence. Why? Because all of it goes totally against what he claims. He makes lies about who supports his claims. You believe him. You adore the pratt. He IS your God. That is why you can only comment on what you find important & relevant. You are incapable of independant thought, which is why you have to rely on the constant pastings.
Science Disproves Evolution
halfway;1477446 wrote: You cannot change a cold heart Pahu.
No sense in arguing with closed minds.
Their silliness is amusing, but will wear you out over time.
Very true. He does have a cold heart. He does have a closed mind, and we will wear him out over time.
Facts always overrule superstition.
No sense in arguing with closed minds.
Their silliness is amusing, but will wear you out over time.
Very true. He does have a cold heart. He does have a closed mind, and we will wear him out over time.
Facts always overrule superstition.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477455 wrote:
In any branch of science no findings are invalid. It's the interpretations which are invalid when they are made to fit what the preconceptions are.
Such as the preconception God does not exist and evolution is true?
If scientists were to find evidence to support the existence of a God, then that would be the finding.
Which they have:
Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here?†Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.
Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.
Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.
Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from?†His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.
One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material.
FROM NOTHING COMES NOTHING
I know that it is insulting to your intelligence to have to include this paragraph, but some people today are saying that the Universe evolved from nothing. However, if there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.
THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT THE CAUSE
The Bible certainly is not silent about what caused the Universe. In the very first verse of the first chapter of the first book it says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.†Acts 17:24 records: “God, who made the world and everything in it…He is Lord of heaven and earth.†Exodus 20:11 notes: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.â€
God is undoubtedly an adequate cause, since He is all-powerful. In Genesis 17:1, God told Abraham “I am Almighty God.â€
He came before this material world, fulfilling the criteria that the cause must come before the effect. The psalmist wrote: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God†(Psalm 90:2).
And He definitely would instill within mankind the concept of morality, since He is a God of morals. Titus 1:2 says that He cannot lie.
Only God fits the criteria of an adequate cause that came before the Universe.
WHY DOES GOD NOT HAVE A CAUSE?
Hold on just a minute! If we contend that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the Universe, then the obvious question is: “What caused God?†Doesn’t the law of cause and effect apply to God, too?
There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.
CONCLUSION
The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions. It was not conjured up from the creationists’ magic hat to prove the existence of God (although it does that quite well). The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God. If natural forces created the Universe, randomly selecting themselves, then morality in humans never could be explained. Why is this Universe here? Because “in the beginning, God….â€
Apologetics Press | Christian Evidences |
That much is clearly true. Your entire argument is based on Dolt Brown. A nobody who has been shown up many a time, by independant sources, to be a total charlatan. You have never provided any other independant evidence. Why? Because all of it goes totally against what he claims. He makes lies about who supports his claims. You believe him. You adore the pratt. He IS your God. That is why you can only comment on what you find important & relevant. You are incapable of independant thought, which is why you have to rely on the constant pastings.[/QUOTE]
In any branch of science no findings are invalid. It's the interpretations which are invalid when they are made to fit what the preconceptions are.
Such as the preconception God does not exist and evolution is true?
If scientists were to find evidence to support the existence of a God, then that would be the finding.
Which they have:
Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here?†Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.
Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.
Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.
Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from?†His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.
One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material.
FROM NOTHING COMES NOTHING
I know that it is insulting to your intelligence to have to include this paragraph, but some people today are saying that the Universe evolved from nothing. However, if there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.
THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT THE CAUSE
The Bible certainly is not silent about what caused the Universe. In the very first verse of the first chapter of the first book it says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.†Acts 17:24 records: “God, who made the world and everything in it…He is Lord of heaven and earth.†Exodus 20:11 notes: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.â€
God is undoubtedly an adequate cause, since He is all-powerful. In Genesis 17:1, God told Abraham “I am Almighty God.â€
He came before this material world, fulfilling the criteria that the cause must come before the effect. The psalmist wrote: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God†(Psalm 90:2).
And He definitely would instill within mankind the concept of morality, since He is a God of morals. Titus 1:2 says that He cannot lie.
Only God fits the criteria of an adequate cause that came before the Universe.
WHY DOES GOD NOT HAVE A CAUSE?
Hold on just a minute! If we contend that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the Universe, then the obvious question is: “What caused God?†Doesn’t the law of cause and effect apply to God, too?
There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.
CONCLUSION
The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions. It was not conjured up from the creationists’ magic hat to prove the existence of God (although it does that quite well). The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God. If natural forces created the Universe, randomly selecting themselves, then morality in humans never could be explained. Why is this Universe here? Because “in the beginning, God….â€
Apologetics Press | Christian Evidences |
That much is clearly true. Your entire argument is based on Dolt Brown. A nobody who has been shown up many a time, by independant sources, to be a total charlatan. You have never provided any other independant evidence. Why? Because all of it goes totally against what he claims. He makes lies about who supports his claims. You believe him. You adore the pratt. He IS your God. That is why you can only comment on what you find important & relevant. You are incapable of independant thought, which is why you have to rely on the constant pastings.[/QUOTE]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477455 wrote:
Your entire argument is based on Dolt Brown. A nobody who has been shown up many a time, by independant sources, to be a total charlatan. You have never provided any other independant evidence. Why? Because all of it goes totally against what he claims. He makes lies about who supports his claims. You believe him. You adore the pratt. He IS your God. That is why you can only comment on what you find important & relevant. You are incapable of independant thought, which is why you have to rely on the constant pastings.
You are misinformed. Here is others say about Brown and his book:
Walt Brown’s book is the rarest of species: It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions. This book is essential for any teacher or student who is serious about resolving these issues on the basis of the evidences rather than on opinions or unsubstantiated or unverifiable hypotheses.
Dr. C. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Furman University
The subject of origins is not peripheral; it is foundational. I have spent most of my adult career in universities in the U.S. and Europe (as a Fulbright scholar), and it is clear that Christianity is losing ground on college campuses. The Christian faith is becoming unraveled with bad science. I can say without reservation that In the Beginning is the single most useful resource I know of on this subject, bar none. Walt is both diligent and creative, and you will find the arguments concise and thought provoking. The material is helpful on almost any level, and the references will be invaluable to those wishing to dig deeper. If I had to send my child off with only two books, they would be the Bible and In the Beginning.
Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, The Center for Electromechanics, University of Texas at Austin
Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.
Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College
Dr. Walt Brown uses three striking gifts in his creation science research and teaching:
(1) a highly organized mind,
(2) the ability to consider scientific evidence without the encumbrance of conventional paradigms, and
(3) the ability to articulate the material with complete clarity. Walt is a born teacher. This enables him to develop significant new theories, such as the hydroplate theory, and to present them with remarkable clarity in both his seminars and this book. I am convinced that everyone needs to be familiar with the landmark work documented in this book.
Dr. Stanley A. Mumma, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Walt Brown’s seminal text, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood has developed into a mature exposition of an important new approach to the geological sciences. The hydroplate theory is an alternate explanation of events of the Noahic flood, present-day geological features of the world, and actual mechanisms that operated then and continue to do so now. It directly challenges the current plate tectonics model of large-scale geology, and suggests a major revamping of the geological events associated with the flood God sent upon the world in light of the clear text of Genesis. It represents, then, a serious attempt at reconstructing the science of geology from the ground up.
Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Geology: Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory,†Chalcedon Report
The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.
Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ements.htm
Your entire argument is based on Dolt Brown. A nobody who has been shown up many a time, by independant sources, to be a total charlatan. You have never provided any other independant evidence. Why? Because all of it goes totally against what he claims. He makes lies about who supports his claims. You believe him. You adore the pratt. He IS your God. That is why you can only comment on what you find important & relevant. You are incapable of independant thought, which is why you have to rely on the constant pastings.
You are misinformed. Here is others say about Brown and his book:
Walt Brown’s book is the rarest of species: It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions. This book is essential for any teacher or student who is serious about resolving these issues on the basis of the evidences rather than on opinions or unsubstantiated or unverifiable hypotheses.
Dr. C. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Furman University
The subject of origins is not peripheral; it is foundational. I have spent most of my adult career in universities in the U.S. and Europe (as a Fulbright scholar), and it is clear that Christianity is losing ground on college campuses. The Christian faith is becoming unraveled with bad science. I can say without reservation that In the Beginning is the single most useful resource I know of on this subject, bar none. Walt is both diligent and creative, and you will find the arguments concise and thought provoking. The material is helpful on almost any level, and the references will be invaluable to those wishing to dig deeper. If I had to send my child off with only two books, they would be the Bible and In the Beginning.
Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, The Center for Electromechanics, University of Texas at Austin
Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.
Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College
Dr. Walt Brown uses three striking gifts in his creation science research and teaching:
(1) a highly organized mind,
(2) the ability to consider scientific evidence without the encumbrance of conventional paradigms, and
(3) the ability to articulate the material with complete clarity. Walt is a born teacher. This enables him to develop significant new theories, such as the hydroplate theory, and to present them with remarkable clarity in both his seminars and this book. I am convinced that everyone needs to be familiar with the landmark work documented in this book.
Dr. Stanley A. Mumma, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Walt Brown’s seminal text, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood has developed into a mature exposition of an important new approach to the geological sciences. The hydroplate theory is an alternate explanation of events of the Noahic flood, present-day geological features of the world, and actual mechanisms that operated then and continue to do so now. It directly challenges the current plate tectonics model of large-scale geology, and suggests a major revamping of the geological events associated with the flood God sent upon the world in light of the clear text of Genesis. It represents, then, a serious attempt at reconstructing the science of geology from the ground up.
Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Geology: Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory,†Chalcedon Report
The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.
Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ements.htm
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1477456 wrote:
Facts always overrule superstition.
Except for the moronic, simple minded, uneducated and gullible disciples of an evolutionism age superstition!
Facts always overrule superstition.
Except for the moronic, simple minded, uneducated and gullible disciples of an evolutionism age superstition!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.