Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Planetary Rings
Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune (a). Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved (b).
Figure24: Planetary Rings. The rings of Saturn, Uranus, and Jupiter (left to right) are forming today and steadily breaking up. Rings are not composed of debris remaining after planets evolved.
Actually, rings do not relate to a planet’s origin. Planetary rings form when material is expelled from a moon or asteroid passing near a giant planet. The material could be expelled by a volcano, a geyser, tidal effects, or the impact of a comet or meteorite (c). Debris that escapes a moon or asteroid because of its weak gravity and the giant planet’s gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished (or young), they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years (d). Because a planet’s gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.
a. William K. Hartmann, Moons and Planets, 3rd edition (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993), p.143.
b. Similar faulty logic claims that, because we see comets, asteroids, and meteoroids, the solar system must have evolved.
c. “Geysers on Enceladus replenish the E ring.†Richard A. Kerr, “At Last, a Supportive Parent for Saturn’s Youngest Ring,†Science, Vol.309, 9 September 2005, p.1660.
“Saturn’s moons are bombarded by comets or micro-meteoroids. Those collisions knock off ice particles and send them into orbit around Saturn, forming rings.†Ron Cowen, “Ring Shots,†Science News, Vol.170, 21 October 2006, p.263.
This has also been observed for Jupiter’s rings. Jupiter has a few moons large enough to be hit frequently by meteoroids or comets, small enough to have little gravity so the debris can escape the moon, and close enough to Jupiter that tidal effects can spread the moon’s debris into rings. [See Ron Cowen, “Mooning Over the Dust Rings of Jupiter,†Science News, Vol.154, 12September 1998, pp.182–183. See also Gretchen Vogel, “Tiny Moon Source of Jupiter’s Ring,†Science, Vol.281, 25 September 1998, p.1951.]
d. “Yet nonstop erosion poses a difficult problem for the very existence of Saturn’s opaque rings—the expected bombardment rate would pulverize the entire system in only 10,000 years! Most of this material is merely redeposited elsewhere in the rings, but even if only a tiny fraction is truly lost (as ionized vapor, for example), it becomes a real trick to maintain the rings since the formation of the solar system [as imagined by evolutionists].†Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Ringed Planets: Still Mysterious—II,†Sky & Telescope, Vol.69, January 1985, p.22.
Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Saturn: Jewel of the Solar System,†The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp.12–15.
Also, water in Saturn’s rings is rapidly ionized and transported along magnetic lines to certain latitudes on Saturn. The Hubble Space Telescope has detected this water concentration in Saturn’s atmosphere. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Slow Leak Seen in Saturn’s Rings,†Science, Vol.274, 29 November 1996, p.1468.]
Richard A. Simpson and Ellis D. Miner, “Uranus: Beneath That Bland Exterior,†The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp.16–18.
“Saturn’s rings (as well as the recently discovered ring system around Uranus) are unstable, therefore recent formations.†S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky, “Comets and the Cosmogony of the Solar System,†Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, editor A. H. Delsemme (Toledo, Ohio: The University of Toledo, 1977), p.473.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
As usual the entire thing is based on a false premise. It begins with stating some unfounded claims, and then proceeds to use that 'fact' to support everything else. Planetary rings are not said to be associated with their formation in any way whatsoever, the reason being is quite simply that no-one really knows. However, one thing that is certain, is that dust & rocks don't just up & float away due to low gravity. Even with a body having minimal gravity other masses will still be drawn toward it. In the event of another gravitational influence passing within its field, then the whole body would be drawn towards it, not parts of it. For an item to escape from any degree of gravitational influence from the surface requires a far stronger force of impetus from physical impact - like a spark flying from 2 pieces of flint being struck together. Once again, Brown makes up these claims that he imagines 'scientists' to have made & maintains it to be something ascertained as being the facts, basing everything that follows accordingly. Therefore, when the initial premise is false, so is everything else that follows.
Science Disproves Evolution
Origin of the Moon
Evolutionary theories for the origin of the Moon are highly speculative and completely inadequate (a). The Moon could not have spun off Earth, because its orbital plane is too highly inclined. The Moon’s nearly circular orbit is also strong evidence that it was never torn from nor captured by Earth (b). If the Moon formed from particles orbiting Earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the Moon’s orbit; none are.
The once popular theory that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor is now largely rejected, because the rocks that astronauts brought back from the moon are too similar to those of Earth. The impactor’s material should have been quite different. (In Part II of this book, you will see why the loose rocks the astronauts brought back from the moon are so similar to Earth’s rocks (c). Those rocks came from Earth.) Had a Mars-size impact occurred, many small moons should have formed (d). Also, the impactor’s glancing blow would either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent that Earth would end up spinning too fast (e). Besides, part of Earth’s surface and mantle would have melted, but none of the indicators of that melting have been found (f). Small particles splashed from Earth would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space. However, Apollo astronauts found on the Moon tiny glass beads that had erupted as molten material from inside the Moon but had dissolved water inside! The total amount of water that was once inside the moon probably equaled that in the Caribbean Sea (g). Finally, a Mar-size impactor would heat up and evaporate much, if not all, of Earth’s surface water. Earth would likely have experienced a runaway greenhouse effect, making earth permanently uninhabitable. [Page 580 explains aspects of this problem.]
These explanations have many other problems. Understanding them caused one expert to joke, “The best explanation [for the Moon] was observational error—the Moon does not exist (h).†Similar difficulties exist for evolutionary explanations of the other (almost 200) known moons in the solar system.
But the Moon does exist. If it was not pulled or splashed from Earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one hypothesis remains: the Moon was created in its present orbit.[See “Evolving Planets?†on page 31, and “Moon Recession,†“Moon Dust and Debris,†and “Hot Moon†on page 41.]
a. “The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative.†Robert C. Haymes, Introduction to Space Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), p.209.
On 10 November 1971, Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-winning chemist and lunar scientist, stated “I do not know the origin of the moon, I’m not sure of my own or any other’s models, I’d lay odds against any of the models proposed being correct.†Robert Treash, “Magnetic Remanence in Lunar Rocks,†Pensee, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 1972, p. 22.
“In astronomical terms, therefore, the Moon must be classed as a well-known object, but astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from. This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme.†David W. Hughes, “The Open Question in Selenology,†Nature, Vol. 327, 28 May 1987, p. 291.
b. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 77–79.
M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Origin of the Moon,â€Science,Vol. 216, 7 May 1982, pp. 606–607.
“If the Moon had separated from the Earth, it would either have broken away completely or returned, but it could not have gone into orbit.†Stacey, p. 38.
c. “The giant impact has major problems. It doesn’t produce the moon as seen.†David J. Stevenson, as quoted by Daniel Clery, “Impact Theory Gets Whacked,â€Science,Vol. 342, 11 October 2013, p. 184.
“The moon rocks, however, showed [oxygen isotope] ratios markedly similar to those of rocks from Earth. ‘The moon and Earth are indistinguishable on the oxygen isotope plot,’ Melosh said. The isotopes of other elements told the same story.â€
Jay Melosh, as quoted by Daniel Clery, Ibid.
d. “We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met.†Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, “Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk,†Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427.
e. “...no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed.†Shigeru Ida et al., “Lunar Accretion from an Impact-Generated Disk,†Nature, No. 2, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, p. 357.
f. “A collision big and hot enough to yield the moon’s magma ocean would have melted at least part of Earth’s surface as well. But geologists could not find any evidence that the mantle had ever melted. If it had, they expected to find that iron-loving elements such as nickel, tungsten, and cobalt had been drawn from Earth’s upper layers into its iron core. Instead, the concentration of iron-loving elements, called siderophiles, remains relatively high in Earth’s mantle. And other elements that should have segregated in a liquid mantle were instead commingled.†Karen Wright, “Where Did the Moon Come From?†Discover, Vol. 24, February 2003, pp. 65–66.
g. “This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says [Erik] Hauri. ‘It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,’ he says. ‘That’s a really, really difficult knot to untie.’†Nell Greenfieldboyce, quoting Erik Hauri, “Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past,†Glass Beads From Moon Hint Of Watery Past : NPR, 12 July 2008. [See Endnote 66 on page 318.]
h. Jack J. Lissauer, “It’s Not Easy to Make the Moon,†Nature, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, pp. 327–328.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Same old pastings. Same old rubbish. The last time you made this pasting I made the same point, which you conveniently ignored & followed up with more irrelevant pastings (no surprise there).
The once popular theory that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor is now largely rejected, because the rocks that astronauts brought back from the moon are too similar to those of Earth.
1. "Once Popular" = Still Generally Accepted.
2. It is not largely rejected at all, except by self effacing idiots like Dolt Brown).
3. "Because the rocks that astronauts brought back from the moon are too similar to those of Earth". And this is being used as an argument that the moon DIDN'T originate from Earth??? Oh, but of course - according to Brown the crust of the moon is made of hydroplates floating upon a core of molten cheese.
The once popular theory that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor is now largely rejected, because the rocks that astronauts brought back from the moon are too similar to those of Earth.
1. "Once Popular" = Still Generally Accepted.
2. It is not largely rejected at all, except by self effacing idiots like Dolt Brown).
3. "Because the rocks that astronauts brought back from the moon are too similar to those of Earth". And this is being used as an argument that the moon DIDN'T originate from Earth??? Oh, but of course - according to Brown the crust of the moon is made of hydroplates floating upon a core of molten cheese.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1479522 wrote: Same old pastings. Same old rubbish. The last time you made this pasting I made the same point, which you conveniently ignored & followed up with more irrelevant pastings (no surprise there).
1. "Once Popular" = Still Generally Accepted.
2. It is not largely rejected at all, except by self effacing idiots like Dolt Brown).
3. "Because the rocks that astronauts brought back from the moon are too similar to those of Earth". And this is being used as an argument that the moon DIDN'T originate from Earth??? Oh, but of course - according to Brown the crust of the moon is made of hydroplates floating upon a core of molten cheese.
Did you fail to read the rest of the article explaining why those rocks indicate the moon could not have come form Earth?
Where does Brown claim the crust of the moon is made of hydroplates floating upon a core of molten cheese?
1. "Once Popular" = Still Generally Accepted.
2. It is not largely rejected at all, except by self effacing idiots like Dolt Brown).
3. "Because the rocks that astronauts brought back from the moon are too similar to those of Earth". And this is being used as an argument that the moon DIDN'T originate from Earth??? Oh, but of course - according to Brown the crust of the moon is made of hydroplates floating upon a core of molten cheese.
Did you fail to read the rest of the article explaining why those rocks indicate the moon could not have come form Earth?
Where does Brown claim the crust of the moon is made of hydroplates floating upon a core of molten cheese?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
To use your own logic. Does he not say in your very own QUOTE that the rocks on the moon are too like those on Earth? That very statement supports the premise of the moons origin being terrestrial. YOUR quote of BROWN'S words.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1479527 wrote: To use your own logic. Does he not say in your very own QUOTE that the rocks on the moon are too like those on Earth? That very statement supports the premise of the moons origin being terrestrial. YOUR quote of BROWN'S words.
Did you fail to read the rest of the article explaining why those rocks indicate the moon could not have come form Earth?
Did you fail to read the rest of the article explaining why those rocks indicate the moon could not have come form Earth?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I am merely using your very own rules of citing quotes. Is that or is it not what he said? I don't have to refer to anything else. You / Brown choose not to do so when quoting Hawking. Why should I not be allowed to play by the same rules?
Besides, every one of the other "quotes", at best says thatthe origin of the moon is unknown - which, at least is scientific. To admit that something is unknown is the basis of all science. However, despite all these supposed experts stating that the answers are not known, Brown seems to have the answers for everything, albeit with no evidence whatsoever.
The claim that the moon would have continued to have drifted away from the Earth or would have returned is only partially true. I say "Partially", because it has been measured that it IS returning towards the Earth, so in saying so, once again he is supporting the premise of the moon being of terrestrial origin. Furthermore, you should look at how a body remains in orbit. It is akin to tying a ball to a string & whirling it around your head. The motion& centrifugal force keeps it trying to pull away, but the string is the Earth's gravitational force (and to a degree, the Moon's own gravitational force as well). When the 2 forces are in equilibrium they remain as they are. In one of the other posts in there something states that if the collision premise were true there would be additional moons out there. Well, I've got news for you - there ARE (or at least multiple natural satelites, which are essentially the same thing.) - Claimed moons of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The vast majority of actual physical evidence from the moon, as regards rock samples & other measurements etc are in the hands of NASA. These have been analysed by the greatest minds of Geo & Astro Physics. From their years of independent & communal studies they have reached a general consensus, agreeing that the moon originated from the Earth. However, Brown, who has no evidence whatsoever comes up & makes these crazy claims that they are all wrong & tries to tell us that they have all changed their minds over their general consensus, so as to fall in line with his ideas. Furthermore, each one of the quotes made are from Creationist origins & people of no notable background whatsoever.
As to your question as to whether I read your blether. Of course not. No-one does. You keep pasting so much of it all the time that everyone knows it's utter dross & as soon as they see it they switch off & treat it as the background noise that it is & you seem to be the only one that doesn't get this.
Besides, every one of the other "quotes", at best says thatthe origin of the moon is unknown - which, at least is scientific. To admit that something is unknown is the basis of all science. However, despite all these supposed experts stating that the answers are not known, Brown seems to have the answers for everything, albeit with no evidence whatsoever.
The claim that the moon would have continued to have drifted away from the Earth or would have returned is only partially true. I say "Partially", because it has been measured that it IS returning towards the Earth, so in saying so, once again he is supporting the premise of the moon being of terrestrial origin. Furthermore, you should look at how a body remains in orbit. It is akin to tying a ball to a string & whirling it around your head. The motion& centrifugal force keeps it trying to pull away, but the string is the Earth's gravitational force (and to a degree, the Moon's own gravitational force as well). When the 2 forces are in equilibrium they remain as they are. In one of the other posts in there something states that if the collision premise were true there would be additional moons out there. Well, I've got news for you - there ARE (or at least multiple natural satelites, which are essentially the same thing.) - Claimed moons of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The vast majority of actual physical evidence from the moon, as regards rock samples & other measurements etc are in the hands of NASA. These have been analysed by the greatest minds of Geo & Astro Physics. From their years of independent & communal studies they have reached a general consensus, agreeing that the moon originated from the Earth. However, Brown, who has no evidence whatsoever comes up & makes these crazy claims that they are all wrong & tries to tell us that they have all changed their minds over their general consensus, so as to fall in line with his ideas. Furthermore, each one of the quotes made are from Creationist origins & people of no notable background whatsoever.
As to your question as to whether I read your blether. Of course not. No-one does. You keep pasting so much of it all the time that everyone knows it's utter dross & as soon as they see it they switch off & treat it as the background noise that it is & you seem to be the only one that doesn't get this.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1479531 wrote: I am merely using your very own rules of citing quotes. Is that or is it not what he said? I don't have to refer to anything else. You / Brown choose not to do so when quoting Hawking. Why should I not be allowed to play by the same rules?
The rest of Hawing's quote was pure evidence free speculation. The rest of Brown's quote is based on laws of physics.
The vast majority of actual physical evidence from the moon, as regards rock samples & other measurements etc are in the hands of NASA. These have been analysed by the greatest minds of Geo & Astro Physics. From their years of independent & communal studies they have reached a general consensus, agreeing that the moon originated from the Earth.
The rocks did come from the earth during the Flood, not the moon.
However, Brown, who has no evidence whatsoever comes up & makes these crazy claims that they are all wrong & tries to tell us that they have all changed their minds over their general consensus, so as to fall in line with his ideas. Furthermore, each one of the quotes made are from Creationist origins & people of no notable background whatsoever.
He provides plenty of evidence based on the laws of physics. Also, there are some scientists quoted in the endnotes who agree with Brown:
“The giant impact has major problems. It doesn’t produce the moon as seen.†David J. Stevenson, as quoted by Daniel Clery, “Impact Theory Gets Whacked,†Science, Vol. 342, 11 October 2013, p. 184.
“We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met.†Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, “Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk,†Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427.
“... no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed.†Shigeru Ida et al., “Lunar Accretion from an Impact-Generated Disk,†Nature, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, p. 357.
As to your question as to whether I read your blether. Of course not. No-one does.
Except you?
The rest of Hawing's quote was pure evidence free speculation. The rest of Brown's quote is based on laws of physics.
The vast majority of actual physical evidence from the moon, as regards rock samples & other measurements etc are in the hands of NASA. These have been analysed by the greatest minds of Geo & Astro Physics. From their years of independent & communal studies they have reached a general consensus, agreeing that the moon originated from the Earth.
The rocks did come from the earth during the Flood, not the moon.
However, Brown, who has no evidence whatsoever comes up & makes these crazy claims that they are all wrong & tries to tell us that they have all changed their minds over their general consensus, so as to fall in line with his ideas. Furthermore, each one of the quotes made are from Creationist origins & people of no notable background whatsoever.
He provides plenty of evidence based on the laws of physics. Also, there are some scientists quoted in the endnotes who agree with Brown:
“The giant impact has major problems. It doesn’t produce the moon as seen.†David J. Stevenson, as quoted by Daniel Clery, “Impact Theory Gets Whacked,†Science, Vol. 342, 11 October 2013, p. 184.
“We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met.†Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, “Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk,†Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427.
“... no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed.†Shigeru Ida et al., “Lunar Accretion from an Impact-Generated Disk,†Nature, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, p. 357.
As to your question as to whether I read your blether. Of course not. No-one does.
Except you?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Evolution occurs frequently in the natural world. You've only to look at similar fossils in multiple rock strata to chart the evolution of a species. Why does it occur? Because the organism concerned "develops" to meet the new demands of it's environment. The faster the environmental change, the faster the evolution, up to a point. If environmental factors change too fast, serious reductions in the number of that species, or even EXTINCTION can occur.
Things changed so fast and so severely in the late Jurassic that the Dinosaurs were made extinct, with a few exceptions (the saltwater crocodile for one), and POSSIBLY modern birds, though this latter is unproven as yet. However, not all ancient, and I mean ANCIENT species have evolved appreciably (horseshoe crabs, Coelacanth fish). There are evolved ANCIENT plants, too, such as Horsetails (fossils show some ancient horsetails as being huge), whereas today, they're seldom larger than 18 inches (45 cm) in height.
And mankind, from his Pierolapithecus catalaunicus distant past, to today's Homo sapiens.
Evolution definitely ISN'T universal, but it IS prolific AND persistent!
Things changed so fast and so severely in the late Jurassic that the Dinosaurs were made extinct, with a few exceptions (the saltwater crocodile for one), and POSSIBLY modern birds, though this latter is unproven as yet. However, not all ancient, and I mean ANCIENT species have evolved appreciably (horseshoe crabs, Coelacanth fish). There are evolved ANCIENT plants, too, such as Horsetails (fossils show some ancient horsetails as being huge), whereas today, they're seldom larger than 18 inches (45 cm) in height.
And mankind, from his Pierolapithecus catalaunicus distant past, to today's Homo sapiens.
Evolution definitely ISN'T universal, but it IS prolific AND persistent!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1479579 wrote: Evolution occurs frequently in the natural world. You've only to look at similar fossils in multiple rock strata to chart the evolution of a species. Why does it occur? Because the organism concerned "develops" to meet the new demands of it's environment. The faster the environmental change, the faster the evolution, up to a point. If environmental factors change too fast, serious reductions in the number of that species, or even EXTINCTION can occur.
Things changed so fast and so severely in the late Jurassic that the Dinosaurs were made extinct, with a few exceptions (the saltwater crocodile for one), and POSSIBLY modern birds, though this latter is unproven as yet. However, not all ancient, and I mean ANCIENT species have evolved appreciably (horseshoe crabs, Coelacanth fish). There are evolved ANCIENT plants, too, such as Horsetails (fossils show some ancient horsetails as being huge), whereas today, they're seldom larger than 18 inches (45 cm) in height.
And mankind, from his Pierolapithecus catalaunicus distant past, to today's Homo sapiens.
Evolution definitely ISN'T universal, but it IS prolific AND persistent!
The main problem with evolution is the lack of evidence. Similarity does not prove evolution, it could also point to an Intelligent Designer. Also, there has not been found a single transitional fossil of the millions that have been collected and categorized.
It is interesting you mention the coelacanth fish. Here is some information you may not be aware of:
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood.
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.†Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular, many discoveries, such as living coelacanths, were unexpected.
Figure 29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia. How could the ancestors of these coelacanths leave no fossils for 70,000,000 years?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs†and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all.e Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution. If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 65. Index Fossils
Things changed so fast and so severely in the late Jurassic that the Dinosaurs were made extinct, with a few exceptions (the saltwater crocodile for one), and POSSIBLY modern birds, though this latter is unproven as yet. However, not all ancient, and I mean ANCIENT species have evolved appreciably (horseshoe crabs, Coelacanth fish). There are evolved ANCIENT plants, too, such as Horsetails (fossils show some ancient horsetails as being huge), whereas today, they're seldom larger than 18 inches (45 cm) in height.
And mankind, from his Pierolapithecus catalaunicus distant past, to today's Homo sapiens.
Evolution definitely ISN'T universal, but it IS prolific AND persistent!
The main problem with evolution is the lack of evidence. Similarity does not prove evolution, it could also point to an Intelligent Designer. Also, there has not been found a single transitional fossil of the millions that have been collected and categorized.
It is interesting you mention the coelacanth fish. Here is some information you may not be aware of:
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood.
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.†Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular, many discoveries, such as living coelacanths, were unexpected.
Figure 29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia. How could the ancestors of these coelacanths leave no fossils for 70,000,000 years?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs†and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all.e Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution. If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 65. Index Fossils
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1479584 wrote: The main problem with evolution is the lack of evidence. Similarity does not prove evolution, it could also point to an Intelligent Designer. Also, there has not been found a single transitional fossil of the millions that have been collected and categorized.
It is interesting you mention the coelacanth fish. Here is some information you may not be aware of:
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood.
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.†Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular, many discoveries, such as living coelacanths, were unexpected.
Figure 29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia. How could the ancestors of these coelacanths leave no fossils for 70,000,000 years?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs†and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all.e Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution. If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 65.** Index Fossils
Or that we have not been looking in the right places. There have been many cataclysms on Earth throughout its history, any one of which would have brought various species to the verge of extinction. Take the Mount Toba eruption in Afrca, early in Man's history. Mankind was reduced in GENOTYPE DIVERSITY by approximately 75% (20 separate genotypes became, broadly, 5!), and the world population dropped sharply from several million, to approximately 20.000. Decimation. The "fingerprint" from the Toba Eruption is worldwide, captured in the young rock layers. They were able to "fingerprint" Toba by analysing the volcanic dust composition/grain size and pattern (each volcano is UNIQUE) and chemical content.
Mutation is also a form of "spontaneous evolution", and we see plenty of examples of that, not the least in hospital superbugs, which have become largely immune to antibiotics and a host of other treatments. As I say, EVOLUTION and MUTATION are related, "kissing Cousins", so-to-speak. These diseases have ADAPTED or EVOLVED to meet the challenges of their environment...
Thanks for taking the time and the trouble to give the Coelacanth info. I am fairly familiar with it's story, but that 70 million year "fossil gap" was something new. I seem to remember that a wealthy American was offering a massive bounty to anyone catching a live one. One was duly caught, then; Shock, Horror, people started catching them in increasing numbers. Hardly surprising, though, when you consider that the total land mass available above waterline is only about 1/3 of the area the worlds seas and oceans occupy... and we've only just explored the land masses to date. The maritime world is sometimes described as "Inner Space", and has many times many more anomalies and revelations for us "scientific toddlers" yet.
It is interesting you mention the coelacanth fish. Here is some information you may not be aware of:
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood.
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.†Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular, many discoveries, such as living coelacanths, were unexpected.
Figure 29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia. How could the ancestors of these coelacanths leave no fossils for 70,000,000 years?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs†and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all.e Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution. If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 65.** Index Fossils
Or that we have not been looking in the right places. There have been many cataclysms on Earth throughout its history, any one of which would have brought various species to the verge of extinction. Take the Mount Toba eruption in Afrca, early in Man's history. Mankind was reduced in GENOTYPE DIVERSITY by approximately 75% (20 separate genotypes became, broadly, 5!), and the world population dropped sharply from several million, to approximately 20.000. Decimation. The "fingerprint" from the Toba Eruption is worldwide, captured in the young rock layers. They were able to "fingerprint" Toba by analysing the volcanic dust composition/grain size and pattern (each volcano is UNIQUE) and chemical content.
Mutation is also a form of "spontaneous evolution", and we see plenty of examples of that, not the least in hospital superbugs, which have become largely immune to antibiotics and a host of other treatments. As I say, EVOLUTION and MUTATION are related, "kissing Cousins", so-to-speak. These diseases have ADAPTED or EVOLVED to meet the challenges of their environment...
Thanks for taking the time and the trouble to give the Coelacanth info. I am fairly familiar with it's story, but that 70 million year "fossil gap" was something new. I seem to remember that a wealthy American was offering a massive bounty to anyone catching a live one. One was duly caught, then; Shock, Horror, people started catching them in increasing numbers. Hardly surprising, though, when you consider that the total land mass available above waterline is only about 1/3 of the area the worlds seas and oceans occupy... and we've only just explored the land masses to date. The maritime world is sometimes described as "Inner Space", and has many times many more anomalies and revelations for us "scientific toddlers" yet.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1479596 wrote: Or that we have not been looking in the right places. There have been many cataclysms on Earth throughout its history, any one of which would have brought various species to the verge of extinction. Take the Mount Toba eruption in Afrca, early in Man's history. Mankind was reduced in GENOTYPE DIVERSITY by approximately 75% (20 separate genotypes became, broadly, 5!), and the world population dropped sharply from several million, to approximately 20.000. Decimation. The "fingerprint" from the Toba Eruption is worldwide, captured in the young rock layers. They were able to "fingerprint" Toba by analysing the volcanic dust composition/grain size and pattern (each volcano is UNIQUE) and chemical content.
Mutation is also a form of "spontaneous evolution", and we see plenty of examples of that, not the least in hospital superbugs, which have become largely immune to antibiotics and a host of other treatments. As I say, EVOLUTION and MUTATION are related, "kissing Cousins", so-to-speak. These diseases have ADAPTED or EVOLVED to meet the challenges of their environment...
Thanks for taking the time and the trouble to give the Coelacanth info. I am fairly familiar with it's story, but that 70 million year "fossil gap" was something new. I seem to remember that a wealthy American was offering a massive bounty to anyone catching a live one. One was duly caught, then; Shock, Horror, people started catching them in increasing numbers. Hardly surprising, though, when you consider that the total land mass available above waterline is only about 1/3 of the area the worlds seas and oceans occupy... and we've only just explored the land masses to date. The maritime world is sometimes described as "Inner Space", and has many times many more anomalies and revelations for us "scientific toddlers" yet.
You need to be careful of the info that Pahu posts. They are disingenuous at best and mostly based on the Hocus Pocus ramblings of Young Earth Creationists, mostly Walt Brown, who believe the world was created a mere 6,000 years ago. Most Creationists dont even believe in the stuff he posts and he thinks scientific evidence from geniuses like Hawking are "evidence free speculation".
If you read and post here again be prepared for some outrageous claims and out of context quotes from respected scientists (thats a little trick he uses)
Mutation is also a form of "spontaneous evolution", and we see plenty of examples of that, not the least in hospital superbugs, which have become largely immune to antibiotics and a host of other treatments. As I say, EVOLUTION and MUTATION are related, "kissing Cousins", so-to-speak. These diseases have ADAPTED or EVOLVED to meet the challenges of their environment...
Thanks for taking the time and the trouble to give the Coelacanth info. I am fairly familiar with it's story, but that 70 million year "fossil gap" was something new. I seem to remember that a wealthy American was offering a massive bounty to anyone catching a live one. One was duly caught, then; Shock, Horror, people started catching them in increasing numbers. Hardly surprising, though, when you consider that the total land mass available above waterline is only about 1/3 of the area the worlds seas and oceans occupy... and we've only just explored the land masses to date. The maritime world is sometimes described as "Inner Space", and has many times many more anomalies and revelations for us "scientific toddlers" yet.
You need to be careful of the info that Pahu posts. They are disingenuous at best and mostly based on the Hocus Pocus ramblings of Young Earth Creationists, mostly Walt Brown, who believe the world was created a mere 6,000 years ago. Most Creationists dont even believe in the stuff he posts and he thinks scientific evidence from geniuses like Hawking are "evidence free speculation".
If you read and post here again be prepared for some outrageous claims and out of context quotes from respected scientists (thats a little trick he uses)
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1479598 wrote: You need to be careful of the info that Pahu posts. They are disingenuous at best and mostly based on the Hocus Pocus ramblings of Young Earth Creationists, mostly Walt Brown, who believe the world was created a mere 6,000 years ago. Most Creationists dont even believe in the stuff he posts and he thinks scientific evidence from geniuses like Hawking are "evidence free speculation".
If you read and post here again be prepared for some outrageous claims and out of context quotes from respected scientists (thats a little trick he uses)
Thanks for the "heads up", Snowfire. It is precisely because of these outlandish claims that I thought I would like to challenge Pahu's evidence and reasoning, especially as this thread is so long-running! As for evidence-free speculation, maybe Pahu should look a bit closer to home, rather than deriding one of the cleverest men to hold a Professorship!
If you read and post here again be prepared for some outrageous claims and out of context quotes from respected scientists (thats a little trick he uses)
Thanks for the "heads up", Snowfire. It is precisely because of these outlandish claims that I thought I would like to challenge Pahu's evidence and reasoning, especially as this thread is so long-running! As for evidence-free speculation, maybe Pahu should look a bit closer to home, rather than deriding one of the cleverest men to hold a Professorship!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1479596 wrote: Or that we have not been looking in the right places.
After millions of fossils over 200 years, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume there there are no places to look for transitional fossils?
Mutation is also a form of "spontaneous evolution", and we see plenty of examples of that, not the least in hospital superbugs, which have become largely immune to antibiotics and a host of other treatments. As I say, EVOLUTION and MUTATION are related, "kissing Cousins", so-to-speak. These diseases have ADAPTED or EVOLVED to meet the challenges of their environment...
Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article
here.
There are too many errors in “Evolution†to itemize here, but let’s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example:
“The development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. “Evolution†thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.â€
Well, not quite.
All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example—one Darwin himself used—is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.
[continue]
After millions of fossils over 200 years, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume there there are no places to look for transitional fossils?
Mutation is also a form of "spontaneous evolution", and we see plenty of examples of that, not the least in hospital superbugs, which have become largely immune to antibiotics and a host of other treatments. As I say, EVOLUTION and MUTATION are related, "kissing Cousins", so-to-speak. These diseases have ADAPTED or EVOLVED to meet the challenges of their environment...
Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article
here.
There are too many errors in “Evolution†to itemize here, but let’s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example:
“The development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. “Evolution†thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.â€
Well, not quite.
All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example—one Darwin himself used—is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1479596 wrote:
Mutation is also a form of "spontaneous evolution", and we see plenty of examples of that, not the least in hospital superbugs, which have become largely immune to antibiotics and a host of other treatments. As I say, EVOLUTION and MUTATION are related, "kissing Cousins", so-to-speak. These diseases have ADAPTED or EVOLVED to meet the challenges of their environment...
[continued]
The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution—big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals—even fruit flies —there simply isn’t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?
With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet—and this the producers don’t tell us—it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the “150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.â€
[continue]
Mutation is also a form of "spontaneous evolution", and we see plenty of examples of that, not the least in hospital superbugs, which have become largely immune to antibiotics and a host of other treatments. As I say, EVOLUTION and MUTATION are related, "kissing Cousins", so-to-speak. These diseases have ADAPTED or EVOLVED to meet the challenges of their environment...
[continued]
The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution—big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals—even fruit flies —there simply isn’t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?
With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet—and this the producers don’t tell us—it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the “150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.â€
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1479596 wrote:
Mutation is also a form of "spontaneous evolution", and we see plenty of examples of that, not the least in hospital superbugs, which have become largely immune to antibiotics and a host of other treatments. As I say, EVOLUTION and MUTATION are related, "kissing Cousins", so-to-speak. These diseases have ADAPTED or EVOLVED to meet the challenges of their environment...
[continued]
The producers of “Evolution†unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.
The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and—voila!—the HIV returns to its original “wild-type.†Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.
On other issues, “Evolution†mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin’s mechanism and “change over time†which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the “Cambrian Explosion,†in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.
PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science
Mutation is also a form of "spontaneous evolution", and we see plenty of examples of that, not the least in hospital superbugs, which have become largely immune to antibiotics and a host of other treatments. As I say, EVOLUTION and MUTATION are related, "kissing Cousins", so-to-speak. These diseases have ADAPTED or EVOLVED to meet the challenges of their environment...
[continued]
The producers of “Evolution†unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.
The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and—voila!—the HIV returns to its original “wild-type.†Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.
On other issues, “Evolution†mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin’s mechanism and “change over time†which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the “Cambrian Explosion,†in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.
PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Evolution of the Solar System?
Evolutionists claim the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4.6 billion years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun. (To understand why, see "Poynting-Robertson Effect" here ) Particles should still be falling into the Sun’s upper atmosphere, burning up, and giving off an easily measured, infrared glow. Measurements taken during the solar eclipse of 11 July 1991, showed no such glow (a). So the assumed “millions of years†and this explanation for the solar system’s origin are probably wrong.
Disks of gas and dust sometimes surround stars. That does not mean planets are forming in those disks. Some disks formed from matter suddenly expelled from the star (b). Other disks formed from impact debris or other matter near the star. Early astronomers called the disks planetary nebula, because they mistakenly thought they contained evolving planets.
a. “For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea [Hawaii], above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill....In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring, [Donald N. B.] Hall [Director of the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy] was able to report within days that ‘the data were really superb.’ They don’t tell an entirely welcome story, though. ‘Unfortunately, they don’t seem to show any dust rings at all.’†Charles Petit, “A Mountain Cliffhanger of an Eclipse,†Science, Vol.253, 26 July 1991, pp.386–387.
“... interplanetary dust is not highly concentrated around the sun. In situ measurements made with impact detectors aboard the two Helios probes, which reached a heliocentric distance of 60 [solar radii], have also shown that the spatial IDP [interplanetary dust particles] density gradually levels off inside ~100 solar radii.
“Our two-dimensional IR [infrared] observations have shown unambiguously that a prominent circumsolar dust ring did not exist at the time of the 11 July 1991 solar eclipse. Consistent with these results, a second recent IR eclipse experiment also found no evidence of surface brightness enhancements.†P. Lamy et al., “No Evidence of a Circumsolar Dust Ring from Infrared Observations of the 1991 Solar Eclipse,†Science, Vol. 257, 4 September 1992, p.1379.
b. L. F. Miranda et al., “Water-Maser Emission from a Planetary Nebula with a Magnetic Torus,†Nature, Vol. 414, 15 November 2001, pp.284–286.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Yawn!! Typical Paste-Hu defence to anything. More pasting of same old rubbish.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1479784 wrote: Yawn!! Typical Paste-Hu defence to anything. More pasting of same old rubbish.
What do you find wrong with the information?
What do you find wrong with the information?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1479787 wrote: What do you find wrong with the information?
What I just said. Same old rubbish. We've seen it all time & time before. You've been pasting the same old crap ever since you started this inane thread. Do you really not see what an idiot you're showing yourself up to be to everybody else?
What I just said. Same old rubbish. We've seen it all time & time before. You've been pasting the same old crap ever since you started this inane thread. Do you really not see what an idiot you're showing yourself up to be to everybody else?
Science Disproves Evolution
Thank you Pahu.
Some will go out of their way to hate.
Human nature on display.
Some will go out of their way to hate.
Human nature on display.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
Science Disproves Evolution
halfway;1479800 wrote: Thank you Pahu.
Some will go out of their way to hate.
Human nature on display.
I don't think FourPart hates anyone, so I take issue with that! Just as Pahu posts on a public forum he must also expect to be challenged or affirmed publicly, too. For my part, I feel a little frustrated with Pahu, as he just seems to grind on endlessly with his theories, flying in the face of mankind's ever-increasing body of scientific evidences!
Some will go out of their way to hate.
Human nature on display.
I don't think FourPart hates anyone, so I take issue with that! Just as Pahu posts on a public forum he must also expect to be challenged or affirmed publicly, too. For my part, I feel a little frustrated with Pahu, as he just seems to grind on endlessly with his theories, flying in the face of mankind's ever-increasing body of scientific evidences!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Pahu:
What do you find wrong with the information?
FourPart;1479789 wrote: What I just said. Same old rubbish. We've seen it all time & time before. You've been pasting the same old crap ever since you started this inane thread. Do you really not see what an idiot you're showing yourself up to be to everybody else?
Can you be more specific? What is there about the information do you find to be "rubbish"?
What do you find wrong with the information?
FourPart;1479789 wrote: What I just said. Same old rubbish. We've seen it all time & time before. You've been pasting the same old crap ever since you started this inane thread. Do you really not see what an idiot you're showing yourself up to be to everybody else?
Can you be more specific? What is there about the information do you find to be "rubbish"?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1479804 wrote: I don't think FourPart hates anyone, so I take issue with that! Just as Pahu posts on a public forum he must also expect to be challenged or affirmed publicly, too. For my part, I feel a little frustrated with Pahu, as he just seems to grind on endlessly with his theories, flying in the face of mankind's ever-increasing body of scientific evidences!
The scientific evidence supports Brown's conclusions and so do the scientists he quotes, 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
The scientific evidence supports Brown's conclusions and so do the scientists he quotes, 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
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1479804 wrote: I don't think FourPart hates anyone, so I take issue with that! Just as Pahu posts on a public forum he must also expect to be challenged or affirmed publicly, too. For my part, I feel a little frustrated with Pahu, as he just seems to grind on endlessly with his theories, flying in the face of mankind's ever-increasing body of scientific evidences!
Actually, the predisposition to the issue shown is the "same old babbling" without any consideration or further study. These articles and examples show a system of "play along to get along sheep mentality".
Whatever floats your boat my friend.
Actually, the predisposition to the issue shown is the "same old babbling" without any consideration or further study. These articles and examples show a system of "play along to get along sheep mentality".
Whatever floats your boat my friend.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
Science Disproves Evolution
halfway;1479800 wrote: Thank you Pahu.
Some will go out of their way to hate.
Human nature on display.
Why do you continue to bring up hate, here?
Some will go out of their way to hate.
Human nature on display.
Why do you continue to bring up hate, here?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1479830 wrote: Why do you continue to bring up hate, here?
Because it is very evident....can't you see?
Why follow and pester a poster when you are obviously against the entire premise of the arguments?
Seems like stalking in the name of.....fill in the blanks.
Because it is very evident....can't you see?
Why follow and pester a poster when you are obviously against the entire premise of the arguments?
Seems like stalking in the name of.....fill in the blanks.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
Science Disproves Evolution
halfway;1479834 wrote: Because it is very evident....can't you see?
Why follow and pester a poster when you are obviously against the entire premise of the arguments?
Seems like stalking in the name of.....fill in the blanks.
Umm, this is a forum, where people come to discuss issues, and items of interests.
People come to share their opinions, and argue their point of view.
That why we are here.
Why are you here, halfway?
Why follow and pester a poster when you are obviously against the entire premise of the arguments?
Seems like stalking in the name of.....fill in the blanks.
Umm, this is a forum, where people come to discuss issues, and items of interests.
People come to share their opinions, and argue their point of view.
That why we are here.
Why are you here, halfway?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1479837 wrote: Umm, this is a forum, where people come to discuss issues, and items of interests.
People come to share their opinions, and argue their point of view.
That why we are here.
Why are you here, halfway?
Apparently to offend?
People come to share their opinions, and argue their point of view.
That why we are here.
Why are you here, halfway?
Apparently to offend?
My Journal of a New Endeavor
Science Disproves Evolution
I just like to play with the idiot. No hate whatsoever.
BTW - they're not his theories - they're Dolt Brown's theories, unfounded & bizarre as they may be.
Just what part do I find rubbish? How about the bits between the very first word & the very last one? You keep posting that meaningless list of names & publications, once again copied from that stupid book without any reference to connect the two of them. The names are meaningless, as they are names that could just as easily be taken from the phone book at random. The publications are meaningless - they could be picked up at any newsagent. Not once, despite frequent challenges for you to do so, have you ever provided a direct link to any of these wild claims being affirmed. The reason why not? Because you can't. You can't affirm something that doesn't exist. Furthermore, as your only source of input is as pastings from Brown's ramblings, I very much doubt you have any idea exactly what is supposed to have been said by who or where, as Brown himself doesn't give such information, and that is all you know. The nearest you have been is your supposed quote from a reputable physicist, namely Stephen Hawking, which you clearly only took at face value without taking any steps to check things for yourself, as I have on many occasions - including this particular example. The quote, as we have all seen, was a partial phrase, from a much longer statement which put the meaning to be the total opposite of what Brown wwas trying to make out it meant. A quotation of words when taken out of context is nothing short of a blatant lie. As you are aware, this is not my opinion that it was taken out of context, I proved it by providing the rest of the statement. You see, I did MY homework. I did independant research into your / Brown's wild claims & on every time have found the to be utterly false - not just an opinion based on physical evidence, but repeatedly based on a speculative premise which he continues to make up & use as 'facts'.
Everything you have posted in this thread thus far is based on perpetual pasting, spamming Brown's nonsense. You have put in absolutely no input or discussion into the thread whatsoever. Your answer to anything & everything is to paste the same old stuff over & over again, as if by pasting it more & more, then somehow it will magically become true. I've got news for you - it doesn't. It just reinforces how ridiculous the concept really is. You clearly don't understand anything of what Brown claims, otherwise you would be able to discuss the matter for yourself in a semi-intelligent manner. You don't. You can't. You are asked questions to quantify the ambiguous claims. Your response is always the same - you merely paste it again... and again... and again.
Paste-hu. You are not the object of hate. You are the object of ridicule, and you are the only one who can change that. Put the pastes aside & start to discuss the matter for yourself. Try to think for yourself. You don't even have to be right all the time. Just put forward an opinion of your own once in a while - not Brown's - yours, and explain why you have that opinion. That is the basis of a forum. If you were to do so people might even start to take your seriously.
BTW - they're not his theories - they're Dolt Brown's theories, unfounded & bizarre as they may be.
Just what part do I find rubbish? How about the bits between the very first word & the very last one? You keep posting that meaningless list of names & publications, once again copied from that stupid book without any reference to connect the two of them. The names are meaningless, as they are names that could just as easily be taken from the phone book at random. The publications are meaningless - they could be picked up at any newsagent. Not once, despite frequent challenges for you to do so, have you ever provided a direct link to any of these wild claims being affirmed. The reason why not? Because you can't. You can't affirm something that doesn't exist. Furthermore, as your only source of input is as pastings from Brown's ramblings, I very much doubt you have any idea exactly what is supposed to have been said by who or where, as Brown himself doesn't give such information, and that is all you know. The nearest you have been is your supposed quote from a reputable physicist, namely Stephen Hawking, which you clearly only took at face value without taking any steps to check things for yourself, as I have on many occasions - including this particular example. The quote, as we have all seen, was a partial phrase, from a much longer statement which put the meaning to be the total opposite of what Brown wwas trying to make out it meant. A quotation of words when taken out of context is nothing short of a blatant lie. As you are aware, this is not my opinion that it was taken out of context, I proved it by providing the rest of the statement. You see, I did MY homework. I did independant research into your / Brown's wild claims & on every time have found the to be utterly false - not just an opinion based on physical evidence, but repeatedly based on a speculative premise which he continues to make up & use as 'facts'.
Everything you have posted in this thread thus far is based on perpetual pasting, spamming Brown's nonsense. You have put in absolutely no input or discussion into the thread whatsoever. Your answer to anything & everything is to paste the same old stuff over & over again, as if by pasting it more & more, then somehow it will magically become true. I've got news for you - it doesn't. It just reinforces how ridiculous the concept really is. You clearly don't understand anything of what Brown claims, otherwise you would be able to discuss the matter for yourself in a semi-intelligent manner. You don't. You can't. You are asked questions to quantify the ambiguous claims. Your response is always the same - you merely paste it again... and again... and again.
Paste-hu. You are not the object of hate. You are the object of ridicule, and you are the only one who can change that. Put the pastes aside & start to discuss the matter for yourself. Try to think for yourself. You don't even have to be right all the time. Just put forward an opinion of your own once in a while - not Brown's - yours, and explain why you have that opinion. That is the basis of a forum. If you were to do so people might even start to take your seriously.
Science Disproves Evolution
You called him an idiot? "I just like to play with the idiot. No hate whatsoever."
Yeah, well done.
You can't help being angry.
Yeah, well done.
You can't help being angry.
My Journal of a New Endeavor
Science Disproves Evolution
halfway;1479824 wrote: Actually, the predisposition to the issue shown is the "same old babbling" without any consideration or further study. These articles and examples show a system of "play along to get along sheep mentality".
Whatever floats your boat my friend.
Ah, I see you, Halfway. FourPart calls Pahu an idiot, so you infer that I'm a sheep. I have stated only what I feel to be true, namely, that Pahu's posts fly in the face of the increasing body of scientific, rational,credible evidence.
I think the only sheep is ewe!
Whatever floats your boat my friend.
Ah, I see you, Halfway. FourPart calls Pahu an idiot, so you infer that I'm a sheep. I have stated only what I feel to be true, namely, that Pahu's posts fly in the face of the increasing body of scientific, rational,credible evidence.
I think the only sheep is ewe!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
halfway;1479866 wrote: You called him an idiot? "I just like to play with the idiot. No hate whatsoever."
Yeah, well done.
You can't help being angry.
You couldn't be more wrong. Anyone who knows me in these forums will probably know of my mate, Ebe, who is a total idiot. Yes, he can be really frustrating at times. Yes, he is a total IDIOT, but I love him, nonetheless. There - I've called him an idiot. Does that, then, mean that I hate him? In the same way don't try to infer the things I mean by your own narrow aspect of personality interpretation, coming on with the High & Mighty condescending that you seem to be adopting.
Your profile doesn't say where you are, but I would lay odds that you're American, whereas I'm English.
Yeah, well done.
You can't help being angry.
You couldn't be more wrong. Anyone who knows me in these forums will probably know of my mate, Ebe, who is a total idiot. Yes, he can be really frustrating at times. Yes, he is a total IDIOT, but I love him, nonetheless. There - I've called him an idiot. Does that, then, mean that I hate him? In the same way don't try to infer the things I mean by your own narrow aspect of personality interpretation, coming on with the High & Mighty condescending that you seem to be adopting.
Your profile doesn't say where you are, but I would lay odds that you're American, whereas I'm English.
Science Disproves Evolution
halfway;1479843 wrote: Apparently to offend?
Well, then, you're not doing a very good job of it, lately.
(Which is probably a good thing.)
Well, then, you're not doing a very good job of it, lately.
(Which is probably a good thing.)
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Faint Young Sun
If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.5 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25–30% less heat during its first 600 million years than it radiates today (a). (A drop in the Sun’s radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.) Had this happened anytime in the past, let alone for 600 million years, the ice’s mirror like surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun’s radiation into outer space, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If it had, all agree that life could not have evolved.
Evolutionists first tried to solve this “faint young Sun†problem by assuming Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it (b). Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age†(c).
A second approach assumes that Earth’s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases, and at high concentrations methane produces a haze that would have cooled Earth’s surface rather than warming it (d). Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic (e).
A third approach assumes that Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable (f).
Evolutionists have never explained in any of these approaches how such drastic changes could occur in almost perfect step with the slow increase in the Sun’s radiation. Until some evidence supports such “special pleadings,†it does not appear that the Sun evolved (g).
If the Sun, a typical and well-studied star, did not evolve, then why presume other stars did?
a. Gregory S. Jenkins et al., “Precambrian Climate: The Effects of Land Area and Earth’s Rotation Rate,†Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, 20 May 1993, pp. 8785–8791.
This paper acknowledges that if the Earth rotated almost twice as fast as it does today, this problem would be lessened—but not solved. Still required are a flooded Earth and an atmosphere with 30–300 times more carbon dioxide than today.
b. Let’s assume an old Earth and at least a fifth of the atmospheric carbon dioxide needed to prevent a runaway ice age had been present throughout the Earth’s first 2,750,000,000 years. That carbon dioxide would have combined with weathered rocks to produce large amounts of the mineral siderite (FeCO3). Siderite is missing from ancient soils, showing that the concentrations of carbon dioxide needed to prevent a frozen Earth were never present. [See Rob Rye et al., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations before 2.2 Billion Years Ago,†Nature, Vol. 378, 7 December 1995, pp. 603–605.]
“There is no direct evidence to show that carbon dioxide levels were ever a thousand times higher.†Gregory Jenkins, as quoted by Tim Folger, “The Fast Young Earth,†Discover, November 1993, p. 32.
c. William R. Kuhn, “Avoiding a Permanent Ice Age,†Nature, Vol. 359, 17 September 1992, p. 196.
d. “The methane greenhouse effect is limited, however, because organic haze starts to form [chemically] at CH4/CO2 ratios higher than ~0.1, and this creates an anti-greenhouse effect that cools the surface if the haze becomes too thick.†James F. Kasting, “Faint Young Sun Redux,†Nature, Vol. 464, 1 April 2010, p. 688.
e. In 1972, Carl Sagan and George H. Mullen first proposed that the early Earth had lots of heat-trapping methane and ammonia. They had no evidence for early methane and ammonia; they simply were looking for something that might have warmed the Earth, so there would have been no runaway deep freeze and life could have evolved. At the time of Sagan’s death (1996), he was still looking.
f. “Despite all of these proposed warming mechanisms, there are still reasons to think that the faint young Sun problem is not yet solved. Ice albedo feedback has been neglected in all of these one-dimensional climate calculations.†Kasting, p. 688.
g. For a frank admission of these and other “special pleadings,†see Carl Sagan and Christopher Chyba, “The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases,†Science, Vol. 276, 23 May 1997, pp. 1217–1221.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Same old, same old. Not worthy of reading or commenting on.
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
pahu;1346204 wrote:
eighteen factors disproving evolution
evolution flunks the science test
irreducible complexity—— biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.
instantaneous complexity—— each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.
mathematically impossible—— mathematicians have found that the likelihood of dna, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.
science vs evolution 28
love it!!!!!!!
eighteen factors disproving evolution
evolution flunks the science test
irreducible complexity—— biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.
instantaneous complexity—— each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.
mathematically impossible—— mathematicians have found that the likelihood of dna, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.
science vs evolution 28
love it!!!!!!!
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1480401 wrote: love it!!!!!!!
Except that none of it is true. They are just a list of unfounded erroneous statements. Although clearly in the Pahu style of copying & pasting. Needless to say, when I followed the links I found that the source for the 'facts' came from some Creationist website which have a habit of making up such falsehoods without any foundation to their claims & putting forward notions that either ignore or misunderstand elemental truths. For example, one of the examples it gives is that of an Iron Age hammer that hasn't rusted, despite being the handle being petrified in clay for all that time - and this is put forward as some 'evidence' of divine intervention. FACT the chemical name for Rust is Ferrous OXIDE. Oxide = Oxygen. Without Oxygen nothing can oxidise. This is also why the wood was petrified, rather than decayed. An item cannot decay if there is no Oxygen to sustain the bacteria to decay the substance in the first place. The fact is that the hammer was sealed in the clay. It is only to be expected that the metal wouldn't rust & that the handle would not decay. I wouldn't have expected anything else.
As for lifeforms being so interconnected with components that they couldn't exist without each other. What utter nonsense. The whole point of evolution is that something mutates & if the way in which it mutates is beneficial in some way it thrives to pass on its genes, while others of it's kind who have not interbred with that mutated line continue to exist perfectly well without the mutation. This has been going on ever since the very first single celled lifeform.
Mathematically impossible. Utter rubbish. First of all, all the items listed are not individual things that must be combined in order to form life. both DNA & Enzymes are made up of Amino Acids. Secondly, nothing that can happen, be it artificially or naturally can be mathematically impossible. Life exists therefore it is mathematically possible. All the chemical components are known & are known to exist in great quantities. The components are known to have physical & chemical attractions to each other, like the North & South poles of a magnet. This increases the likelihood of them meeting up. A very simple example - if you dissolve a small amount of salt in a load of water, the ratio of salt molecules to water molecules is so slight that you might believe it to be mathematically impossible for any of them to meet, let alone for anything to happen to them, other than for it to remain slightly saline water. However, if you leave it undisturbed you can be certain that the salt molecules will end up being crystallised, despite being 'mathematically impossible'. The chances of throwing a 6 on a single dice is 1 in 6. The chances of throwing a double 6 with 2 dice is 1 in 12, etc., so the more dice you have the less the likelihood of getting all 6s, by chance alone, decreases, but even then it is not IMPOSSIBLE - no more than the possibility of any other combination of numbers. However, when the dice are loaded, (ie by including chemicals that attracts each other) the probabilities change dramatically.
All 3 of your pasted statements shown to be false by simple logic.
Except that none of it is true. They are just a list of unfounded erroneous statements. Although clearly in the Pahu style of copying & pasting. Needless to say, when I followed the links I found that the source for the 'facts' came from some Creationist website which have a habit of making up such falsehoods without any foundation to their claims & putting forward notions that either ignore or misunderstand elemental truths. For example, one of the examples it gives is that of an Iron Age hammer that hasn't rusted, despite being the handle being petrified in clay for all that time - and this is put forward as some 'evidence' of divine intervention. FACT the chemical name for Rust is Ferrous OXIDE. Oxide = Oxygen. Without Oxygen nothing can oxidise. This is also why the wood was petrified, rather than decayed. An item cannot decay if there is no Oxygen to sustain the bacteria to decay the substance in the first place. The fact is that the hammer was sealed in the clay. It is only to be expected that the metal wouldn't rust & that the handle would not decay. I wouldn't have expected anything else.
As for lifeforms being so interconnected with components that they couldn't exist without each other. What utter nonsense. The whole point of evolution is that something mutates & if the way in which it mutates is beneficial in some way it thrives to pass on its genes, while others of it's kind who have not interbred with that mutated line continue to exist perfectly well without the mutation. This has been going on ever since the very first single celled lifeform.
Mathematically impossible. Utter rubbish. First of all, all the items listed are not individual things that must be combined in order to form life. both DNA & Enzymes are made up of Amino Acids. Secondly, nothing that can happen, be it artificially or naturally can be mathematically impossible. Life exists therefore it is mathematically possible. All the chemical components are known & are known to exist in great quantities. The components are known to have physical & chemical attractions to each other, like the North & South poles of a magnet. This increases the likelihood of them meeting up. A very simple example - if you dissolve a small amount of salt in a load of water, the ratio of salt molecules to water molecules is so slight that you might believe it to be mathematically impossible for any of them to meet, let alone for anything to happen to them, other than for it to remain slightly saline water. However, if you leave it undisturbed you can be certain that the salt molecules will end up being crystallised, despite being 'mathematically impossible'. The chances of throwing a 6 on a single dice is 1 in 6. The chances of throwing a double 6 with 2 dice is 1 in 12, etc., so the more dice you have the less the likelihood of getting all 6s, by chance alone, decreases, but even then it is not IMPOSSIBLE - no more than the possibility of any other combination of numbers. However, when the dice are loaded, (ie by including chemicals that attracts each other) the probabilities change dramatically.
All 3 of your pasted statements shown to be false by simple logic.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1480406 wrote:
As for lifeforms being so interconnected with components that they couldn't exist without each other. What utter nonsense. The whole point of evolution is that something mutates & if the way in which it mutates is beneficial in some way it thrives to pass on its genes, while others of it's kind who have not interbred with that mutated line continue to exist perfectly well without the mutation. This has been going on ever since the very first single celled lifeform.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS: 1
Reputable scientists tell us that, contrary to what the evolutionists say, mutations cannot produce trans-species changes. Therefore, mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Mutations: 1
Introduction: Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes
Mutations Are Extremely Rare: They almost never occur
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
One Mutation Would Cause Great Damage: It would cripple or weaken the entire system
An Organism Is Useless until It Has All Its Parts: So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing
This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS (see BOOKSTPRE). An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Mutations.
INTRODUCTION
Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes.
"The process of mutations is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."—*T. Dobzhansky, in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.
"The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson [senior paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, London], The Listener.
MUTATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE
They almost never occur.
"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations, in higher organisms, between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.
"Although mutations is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.
MUTATIONS ARE NEARLY ALWAYS HARMFUL
Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found.
"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.
"One would expect that any interference, with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 37.
"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.
"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species (1955), p. 73.
ONE MUTATION WOULD CAUSE GREAT DAMAGE
It would cripple or weaken the entire system.
"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual.
"This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.
AN ORGANISM IS USELESS UNTIL IT HAS ALL ITS PARTS
So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing.
"In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of `survival of the fittest' would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 [quoting *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer (1972)].
"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant. But this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as major ones, and occur more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.
"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biochemistry," Chapter 2, in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.
"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.
"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1
As for lifeforms being so interconnected with components that they couldn't exist without each other. What utter nonsense. The whole point of evolution is that something mutates & if the way in which it mutates is beneficial in some way it thrives to pass on its genes, while others of it's kind who have not interbred with that mutated line continue to exist perfectly well without the mutation. This has been going on ever since the very first single celled lifeform.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS: 1
Reputable scientists tell us that, contrary to what the evolutionists say, mutations cannot produce trans-species changes. Therefore, mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Mutations: 1
Introduction: Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes
Mutations Are Extremely Rare: They almost never occur
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
One Mutation Would Cause Great Damage: It would cripple or weaken the entire system
An Organism Is Useless until It Has All Its Parts: So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing
This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS (see BOOKSTPRE). An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Mutations.
INTRODUCTION
Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes.
"The process of mutations is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."—*T. Dobzhansky, in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.
"The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson [senior paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, London], The Listener.
MUTATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE
They almost never occur.
"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations, in higher organisms, between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.
"Although mutations is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.
MUTATIONS ARE NEARLY ALWAYS HARMFUL
Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found.
"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.
"One would expect that any interference, with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 37.
"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.
"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species (1955), p. 73.
ONE MUTATION WOULD CAUSE GREAT DAMAGE
It would cripple or weaken the entire system.
"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual.
"This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.
AN ORGANISM IS USELESS UNTIL IT HAS ALL ITS PARTS
So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing.
"In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of `survival of the fittest' would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 [quoting *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer (1972)].
"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant. But this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as major ones, and occur more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.
"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biochemistry," Chapter 2, in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.
"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.
"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1480186 wrote: Same old, same old. Not worthy of reading or commenting on.
Or of bothering with a new reply.
Or of bothering with a new reply.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1480422 wrote: Or of bothering with a new reply.
Can't say as I blame you! So much copy/paste, by the look of it. How much is original thought/writing, I wonder?:rolleyes:
Can't say as I blame you! So much copy/paste, by the look of it. How much is original thought/writing, I wonder?:rolleyes:
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1480428 wrote: Can't say as I blame you! So much copy/paste, by the look of it. How much is original thought/writing, I wonder?:rolleyes:
None. If there were a Creator, he certainly didn't provide him with the power of individual thought.
None. If there were a Creator, he certainly didn't provide him with the power of individual thought.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1480431 wrote: None. If there were a Creator, he certainly didn't provide him with the power of individual thought.
He's not FourPart, he's a very naughty boy!
He's not FourPart, he's a very naughty boy!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Mountains of Venus
Venus must have a strong crust to support its extremely high, dense (a) mountains. One mountain, Maat Mons, rises higher than Earth’s Mount Everest does above sea level. Because Venus is relatively near the Sun, its atmosphere is 860°F—so hot its surface rocks must be weak or “tarlike.†(Lead melts at 622°F and zinc at 787°F.) Only if Venus’ subsurface rocks are cold and strong can its mountains defy gravity. This allows us to draw two conclusions, both of which contradict major evolutionary assumptions.
First, evolutionists assume that planets grew (evolved) by the gradual accumulation of rocky debris falling in from outer space, a process called gravitational accretion. Heat generated by a planet’s worth of impacts would have left the rocky planets molten. However, Venus was never molten. Had it been, its hot atmosphere would have prevented its subsurface rocks from cooling enough to support its mountains. So, Venus did not evolve by gravitational accretion.
Secondly, evolutionists believe the entire solar system is billions of years old. If Venus were billions of years old, its atmospheric heat would have “soaked†deeply enough into the planet to weaken its subsurface rocks. If so, not only could Venus’ crust not support mountains, the hot mountains themselves could not maintain their steep slopes. Venus must be relatively young.
Figure 25: Maat Mons on Venus. If Venus’ mountains were composed of lighter material, they would “float†in the denser rock below, similar to an iceberg floating in denser liquid water. (Mountains on Earth are buoyed up, because they have a density of about 2.7 gm/cm3 and “float†in rock that is about 3.3 gm/cm3.) Data from the Magellan spacecraft that orbited and mapped Venus for several years showed that Venus’ mountains are composed of rock that is too dense to “float.†So, what supports them? It must be Venus’ strong crust—despite Venus’ extremely hot atmosphere. This implies Venus is not old and did not evolve.
(a) Richard A. Kerr, “A New Portrait of Venus: Thick-Skinned and Decrepit,†Science, Vol. 263, 11 February 1994, pp. 759–760.
[From “In the Beginning†by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1480428 wrote: Can't say as I blame you! So much copy/paste, by the look of it. How much is original thought/writing, I wonder?:rolleyes:
FourPart;1480431 wrote: None. If there were a Creator, he certainly didn't provide him with the power of individual thought.
Well, somebody thought about it enough to write it all down, but that really doesn't make it science.
FourPart;1480431 wrote: None. If there were a Creator, he certainly didn't provide him with the power of individual thought.
Well, somebody thought about it enough to write it all down, but that really doesn't make it science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1480451 wrote: Well, somebody thought about it enough to write it all down, but that really doesn't make it science.
Too right it doesn't! I certainly didn't "spring into existence full-grown"!! Even technology "evolves"...
Too right it doesn't! I certainly didn't "spring into existence full-grown"!! Even technology "evolves"...
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
So, another example of the OP's blatant lack of science, and of Mr Brown's unscientific method of picking and choosing just the words that agree with his sad point of view.
I offer the conclusion of the article that Brown took this bit from:
To Solomon and others, the new results suggest that tectonic reshaping has largely shut down, leaving little more than the occasional dribble of lava and sporadic heating at the base of the lithosphere to change the face of Venus. Venus, it seems, was condemned perhaps 500 million years ago to a premature tectonic death, when it cooled enough to form a strong outer shell that has locked in all but the most subtle signs of vitality. Whether the planet might someday come back to life when that lithosphere gets so thick and dense that it sinks into the planet's still plastic interior, no one can say. For now, Venus looks not just senescent but close to fossilized.
- Richard A. Kerr, “A New Portrait of Venus: Thick-Skinned and Decrepit,†Science, Vol. 263, 11 February 1994, pp. 759–760.
I offer the conclusion of the article that Brown took this bit from:
To Solomon and others, the new results suggest that tectonic reshaping has largely shut down, leaving little more than the occasional dribble of lava and sporadic heating at the base of the lithosphere to change the face of Venus. Venus, it seems, was condemned perhaps 500 million years ago to a premature tectonic death, when it cooled enough to form a strong outer shell that has locked in all but the most subtle signs of vitality. Whether the planet might someday come back to life when that lithosphere gets so thick and dense that it sinks into the planet's still plastic interior, no one can say. For now, Venus looks not just senescent but close to fossilized.
- Richard A. Kerr, “A New Portrait of Venus: Thick-Skinned and Decrepit,†Science, Vol. 263, 11 February 1994, pp. 759–760.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1480451 wrote: Well, somebody thought about it enough to write it all down, but that really doesn't make it science.
The real joke about it, though, is that it's not even Paste-hu that writing it down. All he's doing is copying someone else's twaddle.
Actually, if his posts aren't against the forum's spamming rules, aren't they against the Flooding ones?
(Especially since he's always going on about the Great Flood).
The real joke about it, though, is that it's not even Paste-hu that writing it down. All he's doing is copying someone else's twaddle.
Actually, if his posts aren't against the forum's spamming rules, aren't they against the Flooding ones?
(Especially since he's always going on about the Great Flood).