[continued]
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]
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[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.
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.
[continue]
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.
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.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[continued]
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
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
LarsMac;1490667 wrote: Exactly. So the ones with the Samurai face were the ones that reproduced the most, therefore becoming more common.
That is Evolution, in a nutshell.
Nonsense! The only crabs left were the Samurai after the fishermen got rid of the other crabs.
That is Evolution, in a nutshell.
Nonsense! The only crabs left were the Samurai after the fishermen got rid of the other crabs.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490673 wrote: Nonsense! The only crabs left were the Samurai after the fishermen got rid of the other crabs.
You, obviously, were not paying attention.
You, obviously, were not paying attention.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Once again Pahu is confusing Evolution with Creation, despite my having provided him with the dictionary definition. Evolution is to do with the CHANGE of something that already EXISTS. As for a bacteria found to have existed thousands of years ago - so what? What does that prove? Take 3 siblings, Alan, Brian & Charlie - for the sake of argument, all of them white. Alan gets married to an African girl & have a bunch of children who in turn go on to have mixed marriages, etc. Brian marries a Chinese girl, and go on to have children who also go on to have mixed marriages, etc. Charlie, on the other hand, marries another white girl, and their children also marry whites. Within a matter of just 3 generations you have already 'evolved' a number of various ethnic origins, but the white one still remains unchanged. It's like a tree. Branches stem from the trunk. Smaller branches stem from those branches, and twigs from them. In some plants it has been known for different sides of the tree to have different types of flower, yet it can't be denied that they all share a common root.
Pigs are genetically compatible with humans, which is why they use pig heart valves to transplant into humans - because the DNA is so similar.
You claim that nearly all mutations are detrimental. Perhaps they are, and those are the ones that don't survive to reproduce. The ones that are beneficial thrive to pass on their genes. That is what the survival of the fittest is all about.
You say there is no fossil evidence of a cross species between Dinosaur & Bird. Well, what about the Archaeopteryx? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)
Brown refers to "Reputable Scientists" denying the existence of evolution, yet in every quote he gives they are accepting the existence, but trying to put a negative spin on it. The cannot deny its existence because it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to exist. urthermore, most of the "Reputable Scientists" have their origins in his very own Creation Institute, where they are paid to come up with the results he wants them to.
Once again, though, get your terminology right.
Creation - From the word "Create" - a tailor Creates a suit.
Evolution - From the word "Evolve" (meaning "Change") Fashion evolves over the years.
The person who changes their clothes are not the same people who make them.
To use the argument that "Science Disproves Evolution" is like saying fashion never changes, nor has it ever changed. Just as your argument regarding the TB bacteria, you could use the argument that you can still find fig leaves still growing that prove that argument.
It is said that every snowflake is unique. This can't be proven, as we can't get to study every snowflake, but using the snowflake as an example, with all those seemingly unique patterns, do you deny that they have the same chemical structure - water? And do you deny that every water molecule has the same atomic structure of 2 Hydrogen atoms to 1 Oxygen atom? And are not Hydrogen & Oxygen gases? Different 'sorts' to liquids? If you freeze the gases then leave them to thaw they revert back to gas, whereas is you leave a snowflake to thaw it only reverts back to water, but if you let it recrystallize into a snowflake once again, it will have an entirely different structure that the first time round. Your arguments deny this.
Pigs are genetically compatible with humans, which is why they use pig heart valves to transplant into humans - because the DNA is so similar.
You claim that nearly all mutations are detrimental. Perhaps they are, and those are the ones that don't survive to reproduce. The ones that are beneficial thrive to pass on their genes. That is what the survival of the fittest is all about.
You say there is no fossil evidence of a cross species between Dinosaur & Bird. Well, what about the Archaeopteryx? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)
Brown refers to "Reputable Scientists" denying the existence of evolution, yet in every quote he gives they are accepting the existence, but trying to put a negative spin on it. The cannot deny its existence because it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to exist. urthermore, most of the "Reputable Scientists" have their origins in his very own Creation Institute, where they are paid to come up with the results he wants them to.
Once again, though, get your terminology right.
Creation - From the word "Create" - a tailor Creates a suit.
Evolution - From the word "Evolve" (meaning "Change") Fashion evolves over the years.
The person who changes their clothes are not the same people who make them.
To use the argument that "Science Disproves Evolution" is like saying fashion never changes, nor has it ever changed. Just as your argument regarding the TB bacteria, you could use the argument that you can still find fig leaves still growing that prove that argument.
It is said that every snowflake is unique. This can't be proven, as we can't get to study every snowflake, but using the snowflake as an example, with all those seemingly unique patterns, do you deny that they have the same chemical structure - water? And do you deny that every water molecule has the same atomic structure of 2 Hydrogen atoms to 1 Oxygen atom? And are not Hydrogen & Oxygen gases? Different 'sorts' to liquids? If you freeze the gases then leave them to thaw they revert back to gas, whereas is you leave a snowflake to thaw it only reverts back to water, but if you let it recrystallize into a snowflake once again, it will have an entirely different structure that the first time round. Your arguments deny this.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490681 wrote: Once again Pahu is confusing Evolution with Creation, despite my having provided him with the dictionary definition. Evolution is to do with the CHANGE of something that already EXISTS.
Here is another dictionary definition of evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. There is no evidence this has ever happened.
As for a bacteria found to have existed thousands of years ago - so what? What does that prove?
For one thing it proves evolution never happened since they stay the same.
Pigs are genetically compatible with humans, which is why they use pig heart valves to transplant into humans - because the DNA is so similar.
That does not prove a common ancestor.
You claim that nearly all mutations are detrimental. Perhaps they are, and those are the ones that don't survive to reproduce. The ones that are beneficial thrive to pass on their genes. That is what the survival of the fittest is all about.
There are no beneficial mutations. In neo-Darwinian theory, mutations are uniquely biological events that provide the engine of natural variation for all the diversity of life. However, recent discoveries show that mutation is the purely physical result of the universal mechanical damage that interferes with all molecular machinery.
Mutations are evolutions end - creation.com
You say there is no fossil evidence of a cross species between Dinosaur & Bird. Well, what about the Archaeopteryx? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)
Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.3 Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.
Refuting Evolution chapter 4: Bird evolution? - creation.com
Brown refers to "Reputable Scientists" denying the existence of evolution, yet in every quote he gives they are accepting the existence, but trying to put a negative spin on it.
Most of the scientists Brown quotes believe evolution is true.
The cannot deny its existence because it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to exist.
As I have shown, science disproves evolution.
urthermore, most of the "Reputable Scientists" have their origins in his very own Creation Institute, where they are paid to come up with the results he wants them to.
False. No scientists are on Brown's payroll.
Once again, though, get your terminology right.
Creation - From the word "Create" - a tailor Creates a suit.
Evolution - From the word "Evolve" (meaning "Change") Fashion evolves over the years.
The person who changes their clothes are not the same people who make them.
To use the argument that "Science Disproves Evolution" is like saying fashion never changes, nor has it ever changed. Just as your argument regarding the TB bacteria, you could use the argument that you can still find fig leaves still growing that prove that argument.
Creation is the action or process of bringing something into existence. In the case of the universe, it was brought into existence from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural proving the existence of God.
It is said that every snowflake is unique. This can't be proven, as we can't get to study every snowflake, but using the snowflake as an example, with all those seemingly unique patterns, do you deny that they have the same chemical structure - water? And do you deny that every water molecule has the same atomic structure of 2 Hydrogen atoms to 1 Oxygen atom? And are not Hydrogen & Oxygen gases? Different 'sorts' to liquids? If you freeze the gases then leave them to thaw they revert back to gas, whereas is you leave a snowflake to thaw it only reverts back to water, but if you let it recrystallize into a snowflake once again, it will have an entirely different structure that the first time round. Your arguments deny this.
How do my arguments deny that?
Here is another dictionary definition of evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. There is no evidence this has ever happened.
As for a bacteria found to have existed thousands of years ago - so what? What does that prove?
For one thing it proves evolution never happened since they stay the same.
Pigs are genetically compatible with humans, which is why they use pig heart valves to transplant into humans - because the DNA is so similar.
That does not prove a common ancestor.
You claim that nearly all mutations are detrimental. Perhaps they are, and those are the ones that don't survive to reproduce. The ones that are beneficial thrive to pass on their genes. That is what the survival of the fittest is all about.
There are no beneficial mutations. In neo-Darwinian theory, mutations are uniquely biological events that provide the engine of natural variation for all the diversity of life. However, recent discoveries show that mutation is the purely physical result of the universal mechanical damage that interferes with all molecular machinery.
Mutations are evolutions end - creation.com
You say there is no fossil evidence of a cross species between Dinosaur & Bird. Well, what about the Archaeopteryx? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)
Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.3 Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.
Refuting Evolution chapter 4: Bird evolution? - creation.com
Brown refers to "Reputable Scientists" denying the existence of evolution, yet in every quote he gives they are accepting the existence, but trying to put a negative spin on it.
Most of the scientists Brown quotes believe evolution is true.
The cannot deny its existence because it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to exist.
As I have shown, science disproves evolution.
urthermore, most of the "Reputable Scientists" have their origins in his very own Creation Institute, where they are paid to come up with the results he wants them to.
False. No scientists are on Brown's payroll.
Once again, though, get your terminology right.
Creation - From the word "Create" - a tailor Creates a suit.
Evolution - From the word "Evolve" (meaning "Change") Fashion evolves over the years.
The person who changes their clothes are not the same people who make them.
To use the argument that "Science Disproves Evolution" is like saying fashion never changes, nor has it ever changed. Just as your argument regarding the TB bacteria, you could use the argument that you can still find fig leaves still growing that prove that argument.
Creation is the action or process of bringing something into existence. In the case of the universe, it was brought into existence from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural proving the existence of God.
It is said that every snowflake is unique. This can't be proven, as we can't get to study every snowflake, but using the snowflake as an example, with all those seemingly unique patterns, do you deny that they have the same chemical structure - water? And do you deny that every water molecule has the same atomic structure of 2 Hydrogen atoms to 1 Oxygen atom? And are not Hydrogen & Oxygen gases? Different 'sorts' to liquids? If you freeze the gases then leave them to thaw they revert back to gas, whereas is you leave a snowflake to thaw it only reverts back to water, but if you let it recrystallize into a snowflake once again, it will have an entirely different structure that the first time round. Your arguments deny this.
How do my arguments deny that?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I'm convinced Pahu wont watch this. It would be far too painful. Besides, he didn't have anything to say about the last few I posted which would suggest he either didn't bother or that doing so would false him to ask himself too many questions and ultimately, not like the answers.
I'm not suggesting, by any means that I understand all that is being discussed in the video but the basic premise is that, it's arrogant to dismiss the evidence of quantum mechanics and all the science that goes with it, using a cursory, passing knowledge of it because it doesnt suit the pseudo-science that you use to justify creationism.
Pahu still hasn't answered my question about Browns relevance and respect in the real scientific community beyond that of the Young Earth Creationists and how his degree stands up to scrutiny. How much has he (or any creationist scientist for that matter) been cited and published in peer reviewed publications that would earn respect among the scientific community. It has been suggested that the answer is infinitesimal.
Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, Pahu has a history of avoiding the difficult questions, despite much prompting. The only response he can ever make is a sustained barrage of reposts
I'm not suggesting, by any means that I understand all that is being discussed in the video but the basic premise is that, it's arrogant to dismiss the evidence of quantum mechanics and all the science that goes with it, using a cursory, passing knowledge of it because it doesnt suit the pseudo-science that you use to justify creationism.
Pahu still hasn't answered my question about Browns relevance and respect in the real scientific community beyond that of the Young Earth Creationists and how his degree stands up to scrutiny. How much has he (or any creationist scientist for that matter) been cited and published in peer reviewed publications that would earn respect among the scientific community. It has been suggested that the answer is infinitesimal.
Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, Pahu has a history of avoiding the difficult questions, despite much prompting. The only response he can ever make is a sustained barrage of reposts
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
"When you twist and distort the science that you pretend to understand in order to justify your vile and selfish agenda...."
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
....and it continues. Episode 3 of why Creationists are arrogant.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
The thing about science is that it works. It consistently produces reliable results that have revolutionised our species in a way that no other way of thinking ever has.
Science is not perfect. It is a self correcting enterprise but it is ruled by some of the most rigorous standards possible.
Science is not perfect. It is a self correcting enterprise but it is ruled by some of the most rigorous standards possible.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
....creationists involvement in discorse with the scientific community is not likely to be motivated by a desire to learn rather than a desire to rationalise that which they have already accepted as unquestionable truth
Creationist build their case by using the opposite of the scientific method. They begin with their conclusion, then look for evidence that supports their claim and assert their explanation of the evidence is superior to the scientific community
And how embarrassing was the crocoduck ? I cringed at that one
Creationist build their case by using the opposite of the scientific method. They begin with their conclusion, then look for evidence that supports their claim and assert their explanation of the evidence is superior to the scientific community
And how embarrassing was the crocoduck ? I cringed at that one
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490527 wrote:
Brown has never been debunked or refuted.
Never? Just a few examples... (even ONE would be enough to prove your statement of "Never" wrong).
A Peer Review of Brown's work...
An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE
And another...
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
More rebuttal...
More on Walter Brown's debate offer
More rebuttals...
Creation Science Rebuttals, Center for Scientific Creationism, Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model
And more, in the Who's Who of Loons...
Encyclopedia of American Loons: #537: Walt Brown
More debunking...
Center for Scientific Creation
And more...
Answers to Creationist 20 Questions
And more...
Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
Now, in as few words as possible (no more than, say, about 10 words), without pasting from Brown (this has to be a test of your OWN understanding of the English Language), and without trying to argue the case one way or the other, I have 2 VERY simple tasks for you to do.
1. Define the meaning of "Evolve".
2. Define the meaning of "Create".
Now say what one has to do with the other.
Brown has never been debunked or refuted.
Never? Just a few examples... (even ONE would be enough to prove your statement of "Never" wrong).
A Peer Review of Brown's work...
An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE
And another...
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
More rebuttal...
More on Walter Brown's debate offer
More rebuttals...
Creation Science Rebuttals, Center for Scientific Creationism, Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model
And more, in the Who's Who of Loons...
Encyclopedia of American Loons: #537: Walt Brown
More debunking...
Center for Scientific Creation
And more...
Answers to Creationist 20 Questions
And more...
Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
Now, in as few words as possible (no more than, say, about 10 words), without pasting from Brown (this has to be a test of your OWN understanding of the English Language), and without trying to argue the case one way or the other, I have 2 VERY simple tasks for you to do.
1. Define the meaning of "Evolve".
2. Define the meaning of "Create".
Now say what one has to do with the other.
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1490699 wrote:
I'm not suggesting, by any means that I understand all that is being discussed in the video but the basic premise is that, it's arrogant to dismiss the evidence of quantum mechanics and all the science that goes with it, using a cursory, passing knowledge of it because it doesnt suit the pseudo-science that you use to justify creationism.
QUANTUM SOMETHING from NOTHING?
Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:
“¦ spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition¦Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation¦Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.
But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’
Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.
Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.
If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.
Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.
IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?
A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.
But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:
“The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.
Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.
A FINAL THOUGHT
The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.
Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.
Who created God? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Pahu still hasn't answered my question about Browns relevance and respect in the real scientific community beyond that of the Young Earth Creationists and how his degree stands up to scrutiny. How much has he (or any creationist scientist for that matter) been cited and published in peer reviewed publications that would earn respect among the scientific community. It has been suggested that the answer is infinitesimal.
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
I'm not suggesting, by any means that I understand all that is being discussed in the video but the basic premise is that, it's arrogant to dismiss the evidence of quantum mechanics and all the science that goes with it, using a cursory, passing knowledge of it because it doesnt suit the pseudo-science that you use to justify creationism.
QUANTUM SOMETHING from NOTHING?
Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:
“¦ spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition¦Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation¦Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.
But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’
Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.
Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.
If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.
Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.
IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?
A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.
But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:
“The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.
Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.
A FINAL THOUGHT
The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.
Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.
Who created God? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Pahu still hasn't answered my question about Browns relevance and respect in the real scientific community beyond that of the Young Earth Creationists and how his degree stands up to scrutiny. How much has he (or any creationist scientist for that matter) been cited and published in peer reviewed publications that would earn respect among the scientific community. It has been suggested that the answer is infinitesimal.
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Evolutionists build their case by using the opposite of the scientific method. They begin with their conclusion, then look for evidence that supports their claim and assert their explanation of the evidence is superior to the scientific community.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490707 wrote: Never? Just a few examples... (even ONE would be enough to prove your statement of "Never" wrong).
A Peer Review of Brown's work...
An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE
And another...
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
More rebuttal...
More on Walter Brown's debate offer
More rebuttals...
Creation Science Rebuttals, Center for Scientific Creationism, Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model
And more, in the Who's Who of Loons...
Encyclopedia of American Loons: #537: Walt Brown
More debunking...
Center for Scientific Creation
And more...
Answers to Creationist 20 Questions
And more...
Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
None of which refutes Brown.
Now, in as few words as possible (no more than, say, about 10 words), without pasting from Brown (this has to be a test of your OWN understanding of the English Language), and without trying to argue the case one way or the other, I have 2 VERY simple tasks for you to do.
1. Define the meaning of "Evolve".
2. Define the meaning of "Create".
Now say what one has to do with the other.
1. Evolve is to develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form or (with reference to an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations, especially as a result of natural selection.
2. To create is to bring (something) into existence.
The two are contradictory.
Evolution teaches origins by natural mindless causes. This has never been observed.
Creation teaches origins by intelligent design. This is observed.
A Peer Review of Brown's work...
An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE
And another...
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
More rebuttal...
More on Walter Brown's debate offer
More rebuttals...
Creation Science Rebuttals, Center for Scientific Creationism, Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model
And more, in the Who's Who of Loons...
Encyclopedia of American Loons: #537: Walt Brown
More debunking...
Center for Scientific Creation
And more...
Answers to Creationist 20 Questions
And more...
Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
None of which refutes Brown.
Now, in as few words as possible (no more than, say, about 10 words), without pasting from Brown (this has to be a test of your OWN understanding of the English Language), and without trying to argue the case one way or the other, I have 2 VERY simple tasks for you to do.
1. Define the meaning of "Evolve".
2. Define the meaning of "Create".
Now say what one has to do with the other.
1. Evolve is to develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form or (with reference to an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations, especially as a result of natural selection.
2. To create is to bring (something) into existence.
The two are contradictory.
Evolution teaches origins by natural mindless causes. This has never been observed.
Creation teaches origins by intelligent design. This is observed.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
As usual Pahu dodged the important parts of the question, choosing the mass pasting as a response.
You clearly didnt watch the videos.
I want publications and citations in peer reviewed papers, Like Russell Humphries Phd in the video. What a poor show !
You clearly didnt watch the videos.
I want publications and citations in peer reviewed papers, Like Russell Humphries Phd in the video. What a poor show !
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490664 wrote: Nope, the fishermen simply weeded out all the crabs that didn't look like Samurai.
Resulting a speeded up version of evolution. The mutated crabs that looked more like a Samurai survived and had more babies that looked like themselves. Natural selection at it's finest!
Resulting a speeded up version of evolution. The mutated crabs that looked more like a Samurai survived and had more babies that looked like themselves. Natural selection at it's finest!
Science Disproves Evolution
Quoted by Fourpart
Never? Just a few examples... (even ONE would be enough to prove your statement of "Never" wrong).
A Peer Review of Brown's work...
An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE
And another...
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
More rebuttal...
More on Walter Brown's debate offer
More rebuttals...
Creation Science Rebuttals, Center for Scientific Creationism, Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model
And more, in the Who's Who of Loons...
Encyclopedia of American Loons: #537: Walt Brown
More debunking...
Center for Scientific Creation
And more...
Answers to Creationist 20 Questions
And more...
Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
Quoted by Pahu
None of which refutes Brown
Really ?? I grabbed one at random and this was the conclusion.....
I have addressed here only a few of Walter Brown's 120 "categories" of evidence challenging evolution, but the results do not inspire confidence in the reliability of the rest. I suspect that the results obtained from investigating the rest would be similar to those obtained from examining these few. Indeed, books such as A. N. Strahler's monumental Science and Earth History (1987) have already demonstrated this. Under close scrutiny, it is doubtful that more than a dozen of Brown's claims would remain, and these would simply constitute a catalogue of some current controversies in science.
- page 33 -
There appears to be a more serious problem, however, with Brown's research and possibly with his entire attitude toward science. In my initial five-page criticism of Brown's work, I referred to Brown's list of sixteen allegedly "unexplainable features" of Earth and stated that, according to a graduate student of Arizona State University's geology department, all sixteen of these features are not only explainable but have well-known and commonly accepted explanations. Yet, as one can clearly see from Brown's response, he has rejected the possibility of explanations sight unseen. Given such lack of interest on Brown's part, there seems to be little hope that the quality of his research will improve significantly in the near future.
An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE
There's none so blind as those who don't want to see
Never? Just a few examples... (even ONE would be enough to prove your statement of "Never" wrong).
A Peer Review of Brown's work...
An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE
And another...
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
More rebuttal...
More on Walter Brown's debate offer
More rebuttals...
Creation Science Rebuttals, Center for Scientific Creationism, Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model
And more, in the Who's Who of Loons...
Encyclopedia of American Loons: #537: Walt Brown
More debunking...
Center for Scientific Creation
And more...
Answers to Creationist 20 Questions
And more...
Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therapy dismissed by other flood proponents
Quoted by Pahu
None of which refutes Brown
Really ?? I grabbed one at random and this was the conclusion.....
I have addressed here only a few of Walter Brown's 120 "categories" of evidence challenging evolution, but the results do not inspire confidence in the reliability of the rest. I suspect that the results obtained from investigating the rest would be similar to those obtained from examining these few. Indeed, books such as A. N. Strahler's monumental Science and Earth History (1987) have already demonstrated this. Under close scrutiny, it is doubtful that more than a dozen of Brown's claims would remain, and these would simply constitute a catalogue of some current controversies in science.
- page 33 -
There appears to be a more serious problem, however, with Brown's research and possibly with his entire attitude toward science. In my initial five-page criticism of Brown's work, I referred to Brown's list of sixteen allegedly "unexplainable features" of Earth and stated that, according to a graduate student of Arizona State University's geology department, all sixteen of these features are not only explainable but have well-known and commonly accepted explanations. Yet, as one can clearly see from Brown's response, he has rejected the possibility of explanations sight unseen. Given such lack of interest on Brown's part, there seems to be little hope that the quality of his research will improve significantly in the near future.
An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE
There's none so blind as those who don't want to see
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
"The evolution of complex life on other worlds is rare in frequency but large in absolute number," according to new research from a team led by Louis Irwin—from the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso. Their findings are based on the first plausible "assessment of complex life in the Universe using empirical data."
The team developed Biological Complexity Index (BCI), designed to provide a quantitative estimate of the relative probability that complex, macro-organismic life forms could have emerged on other worlds. Their calculation in the Milky Way alone is mind-bending: 100 million worlds in our home galaxy may harbor complex alien life. And the Milky Way is one of some 500 billion galaxies in the Universe.
So how do you fit this into your narrow world view, Pahu?
Or do you believe there is no life other than mankind in the entire Universe? (I would find that just plain silly.)
The team developed Biological Complexity Index (BCI), designed to provide a quantitative estimate of the relative probability that complex, macro-organismic life forms could have emerged on other worlds. Their calculation in the Milky Way alone is mind-bending: 100 million worlds in our home galaxy may harbor complex alien life. And the Milky Way is one of some 500 billion galaxies in the Universe.
So how do you fit this into your narrow world view, Pahu?
Or do you believe there is no life other than mankind in the entire Universe? (I would find that just plain silly.)
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490729 wrote: 1. Evolve is to develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form or (with reference to an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations, especially as a result of natural selection.
2. To create is to bring (something) into existence.
The two are contradictory.
Evolution teaches origins by natural mindless causes. This has never been observed.
Creation teaches origins by intelligent design. This is observed.
And you were doing so well. The definitions were correct. As for contradicting each other - they do nothing of the sort. They are totally different entities. Creation, as you rightly say, the initial act of bringing something into existence, regardless of whatever means you believe it to be. You believe it to be by some imaginary God. I believe the more Scientific approach of the Big Bang. That much I think we can accept as fact, as it is simply a statement of 2 opinions.
Evolution, as you rightly say, is to develop gradually. This means that in order to evolve something has to exist in the first place. Evolution is not about Creation
Creation is the act of bringing something into being (by whatever means you believe).
Evolution is what happens to that something afterwards.
To say that the 2 are contradictory is like you saying "Fred baked a cake", then my saying "Bert ate the cake", then your arguing that my statement is contradictory to Fred baking (creating) the cake. Fred cannot eat (evolve) the cake without the cake first existing. Why can't you understand that? Where is the contradiction?
As for the links not refuting Brown - try reading them.
2. To create is to bring (something) into existence.
The two are contradictory.
Evolution teaches origins by natural mindless causes. This has never been observed.
Creation teaches origins by intelligent design. This is observed.
And you were doing so well. The definitions were correct. As for contradicting each other - they do nothing of the sort. They are totally different entities. Creation, as you rightly say, the initial act of bringing something into existence, regardless of whatever means you believe it to be. You believe it to be by some imaginary God. I believe the more Scientific approach of the Big Bang. That much I think we can accept as fact, as it is simply a statement of 2 opinions.
Evolution, as you rightly say, is to develop gradually. This means that in order to evolve something has to exist in the first place. Evolution is not about Creation
Creation is the act of bringing something into being (by whatever means you believe).
Evolution is what happens to that something afterwards.
To say that the 2 are contradictory is like you saying "Fred baked a cake", then my saying "Bert ate the cake", then your arguing that my statement is contradictory to Fred baking (creating) the cake. Fred cannot eat (evolve) the cake without the cake first existing. Why can't you understand that? Where is the contradiction?
As for the links not refuting Brown - try reading them.
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1490739 wrote: Quoted by Fourpart
Really ?? I grabbed one at random and this was the conclusion.....
I have addressed here only a few of Walter Brown's 120 "categories" of evidence challenging evolution, but the results do not inspire confidence in the reliability of the rest. I suspect that the results obtained from investigating the rest would be similar to those obtained from examining these few. Indeed, books such as A. N. Strahler's monumental Science and Earth History (1987) have already demonstrated this. Under close scrutiny, it is doubtful that more than a dozen of Brown's claims would remain, and these would simply constitute a catalogue of some current controversies in science.
- page 33 -
There appears to be a more serious problem, however, with Brown's research and possibly with his entire attitude toward science. In my initial five-page criticism of Brown's work, I referred to Brown's list of sixteen allegedly "unexplainable features" of Earth and stated that, according to a graduate student of Arizona State University's geology department, all sixteen of these features are not only explainable but have well-known and commonly accepted explanations. Yet, as one can clearly see from Brown's response, he has rejected the possibility of explanations sight unseen. Given such lack of interest on Brown's part, there seems to be little hope that the quality of his research will improve significantly in the near future.
There's none so blind as those who don't want to see
Amen! The science explaining those 16 features (actually 25) is flawed. Here is Brown's correction:
The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under earth’s crust. Standard “textbook explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined.
The Grand Canyon (pages 207–240)
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Earth’s Major Components
Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 153–188)
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Major Mountain Ranges
Frozen Mammoths (pages 257–287)
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 191–204)
Limestone (pages 249–254)
Metamorphic Rock
Plateaus
The Moho and Black Smokers
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets (pages 291–325)
Asteroids, Meteoroids and TNOs (pages 327–360)
Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 367–416)
Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of trillions of hydrogen bombs.1 The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.
But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water (which will soon be explained) ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain earth’s major features.
Figure 43: World Ocean Floor. Notice the characteristic margins of each continent. Seaward from each ocean beach is a shallow, gradually sloping continental shelf, then a relatively steep drop, called the continental slope. This strange pattern is worldwide. Why? For a better look at the typical shape of this margin, see Figure 46 on page 115. Also notice the different characteristics of (1) continents and ocean basins, and (2) the Atlantic and Pacific Basins. Ninety East Ridge is so named because it lies almost exactly along 90°E longitude. Its straight, 3,000-mile length, and curious north-south orientation aimed at the Himalayas are important clues to past events on earth. (Note: As one moves toward polar regions on this type of map projection, east-west distances are stretched and do not reflect true distances.)
Why does the Mid-Oceanic Ridge intersects itself in the Indian Ocean (shown by the black circle). Ask yourself how seafloor spreading could work there—moving away from that intersection point in four perpendicular directions. Answer: It can’t.As will be explained with many more examples in this and the next chapter, seafloor spreading is a myth. That alone falsifies plate tectonics. The hydroplate theory provides a simple explanation for that intersection point and the Mid-Oceanic Ridge.
Figure 44: “Unlevel Sea Level. An amazing technological development reveals details on ocean floors. In 1983, the U.S. Navy’s SEASAT satellite measured with a radar altimeter the satellite’s distance above the ocean surface with an accuracy of several inches! “Sea level is far from level. Instead, the ocean surface “humps up over mountains on the ocean floor and is depressed over trenches. The gravitational attraction of the Hawaiian Islands, for example, pulls the surrounding water toward it. This raises sea level there about 80 feet higher than it would be otherwise. The satellite’s data have been color coded to make this spectacular “picture of the ocean surface. Darker areas show depressions in sea level. Notice that the ocean surface is depressed over long scars, called fracture zones, running generally perpendicular to the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Which theory explains this—the plate tectonic theory or the hydroplate theory? Also consider the nearly intersecting fracture zones in the South Pacific. Which theory explains them?
This technique for showing features on the ocean floor has steadily improved since 1983. Today, ridges and fracture zones can be seen in places that are inconsistent with the plate tectonic interpretation. For example a crooked fracture zone can be traced from South America to Africa, and oceanic ridges are found in the Gulf of Mexico. As you will see, both are consistent with the hydroplate theory.4
Plate tectonics, currently the most widely taught theory in the earth sciences, has many little-known problems. According to this theory, earth’s crust is composed of many plates,2 each 30–60 miles thick. They move relative to each other, about an inch per year—at the rate a fingernail grows. Continents and oceans ride on top of these plates. Some continents, such as North America, are on more than one plate. For example, different parts of North America, separated by the San Andreas Fault running up through western California, are sliding past each other. (A fault is a large fracture in the earth along which slippage has occurred.) Supposedly, material deep inside the earth is rising toward the crest of the entire Mid-Oceanic Ridge. From there, the material divides and moves horizontally in opposite directions away from the ridge. This claimed motion, called seafloor spreading, is similar to that of two conveyor belts rising together from under a floor and then moving along the floor in opposite directions. If plate tectonics happens on earth, why is it not seen on other planets?3
Crisis in Earth Science. The most perplexing question in the earth sciences today is barely mentioned in classrooms and textbooks: What force moves plates over the globe?
The single most difficult question that faces the theory of plate tectonics today is the same question that led to the downfall of Wegener’s theory of continental drift almost three-quarters of a century ago. That is, what is the mechanism that drives the plate tectonic machine?5
The hydroplate theory gives a surprisingly simple answer that will be clear by the end of the next chapter. It involves gravity, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, earth’s core, and water—lots of it. Be patient, and read the next 65 pages carefully.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
Really ?? I grabbed one at random and this was the conclusion.....
I have addressed here only a few of Walter Brown's 120 "categories" of evidence challenging evolution, but the results do not inspire confidence in the reliability of the rest. I suspect that the results obtained from investigating the rest would be similar to those obtained from examining these few. Indeed, books such as A. N. Strahler's monumental Science and Earth History (1987) have already demonstrated this. Under close scrutiny, it is doubtful that more than a dozen of Brown's claims would remain, and these would simply constitute a catalogue of some current controversies in science.
- page 33 -
There appears to be a more serious problem, however, with Brown's research and possibly with his entire attitude toward science. In my initial five-page criticism of Brown's work, I referred to Brown's list of sixteen allegedly "unexplainable features" of Earth and stated that, according to a graduate student of Arizona State University's geology department, all sixteen of these features are not only explainable but have well-known and commonly accepted explanations. Yet, as one can clearly see from Brown's response, he has rejected the possibility of explanations sight unseen. Given such lack of interest on Brown's part, there seems to be little hope that the quality of his research will improve significantly in the near future.
There's none so blind as those who don't want to see
Amen! The science explaining those 16 features (actually 25) is flawed. Here is Brown's correction:
The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under earth’s crust. Standard “textbook explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined.
The Grand Canyon (pages 207–240)
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Earth’s Major Components
Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 153–188)
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Major Mountain Ranges
Frozen Mammoths (pages 257–287)
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 191–204)
Limestone (pages 249–254)
Metamorphic Rock
Plateaus
The Moho and Black Smokers
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets (pages 291–325)
Asteroids, Meteoroids and TNOs (pages 327–360)
Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 367–416)
Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of trillions of hydrogen bombs.1 The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.
But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water (which will soon be explained) ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain earth’s major features.
Figure 43: World Ocean Floor. Notice the characteristic margins of each continent. Seaward from each ocean beach is a shallow, gradually sloping continental shelf, then a relatively steep drop, called the continental slope. This strange pattern is worldwide. Why? For a better look at the typical shape of this margin, see Figure 46 on page 115. Also notice the different characteristics of (1) continents and ocean basins, and (2) the Atlantic and Pacific Basins. Ninety East Ridge is so named because it lies almost exactly along 90°E longitude. Its straight, 3,000-mile length, and curious north-south orientation aimed at the Himalayas are important clues to past events on earth. (Note: As one moves toward polar regions on this type of map projection, east-west distances are stretched and do not reflect true distances.)
Why does the Mid-Oceanic Ridge intersects itself in the Indian Ocean (shown by the black circle). Ask yourself how seafloor spreading could work there—moving away from that intersection point in four perpendicular directions. Answer: It can’t.As will be explained with many more examples in this and the next chapter, seafloor spreading is a myth. That alone falsifies plate tectonics. The hydroplate theory provides a simple explanation for that intersection point and the Mid-Oceanic Ridge.
Figure 44: “Unlevel Sea Level. An amazing technological development reveals details on ocean floors. In 1983, the U.S. Navy’s SEASAT satellite measured with a radar altimeter the satellite’s distance above the ocean surface with an accuracy of several inches! “Sea level is far from level. Instead, the ocean surface “humps up over mountains on the ocean floor and is depressed over trenches. The gravitational attraction of the Hawaiian Islands, for example, pulls the surrounding water toward it. This raises sea level there about 80 feet higher than it would be otherwise. The satellite’s data have been color coded to make this spectacular “picture of the ocean surface. Darker areas show depressions in sea level. Notice that the ocean surface is depressed over long scars, called fracture zones, running generally perpendicular to the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Which theory explains this—the plate tectonic theory or the hydroplate theory? Also consider the nearly intersecting fracture zones in the South Pacific. Which theory explains them?
This technique for showing features on the ocean floor has steadily improved since 1983. Today, ridges and fracture zones can be seen in places that are inconsistent with the plate tectonic interpretation. For example a crooked fracture zone can be traced from South America to Africa, and oceanic ridges are found in the Gulf of Mexico. As you will see, both are consistent with the hydroplate theory.4
Plate tectonics, currently the most widely taught theory in the earth sciences, has many little-known problems. According to this theory, earth’s crust is composed of many plates,2 each 30–60 miles thick. They move relative to each other, about an inch per year—at the rate a fingernail grows. Continents and oceans ride on top of these plates. Some continents, such as North America, are on more than one plate. For example, different parts of North America, separated by the San Andreas Fault running up through western California, are sliding past each other. (A fault is a large fracture in the earth along which slippage has occurred.) Supposedly, material deep inside the earth is rising toward the crest of the entire Mid-Oceanic Ridge. From there, the material divides and moves horizontally in opposite directions away from the ridge. This claimed motion, called seafloor spreading, is similar to that of two conveyor belts rising together from under a floor and then moving along the floor in opposite directions. If plate tectonics happens on earth, why is it not seen on other planets?3
Crisis in Earth Science. The most perplexing question in the earth sciences today is barely mentioned in classrooms and textbooks: What force moves plates over the globe?
The single most difficult question that faces the theory of plate tectonics today is the same question that led to the downfall of Wegener’s theory of continental drift almost three-quarters of a century ago. That is, what is the mechanism that drives the plate tectonic machine?5
The hydroplate theory gives a surprisingly simple answer that will be clear by the end of the next chapter. It involves gravity, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, earth’s core, and water—lots of it. Be patient, and read the next 65 pages carefully.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1490740 wrote: "The evolution of complex life on other worlds is rare in frequency but large in absolute number," according to new research from a team led by Louis Irwin—from the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso. Their findings are based on the first plausible "assessment of complex life in the Universe using empirical data."
The team developed Biological Complexity Index (BCI), designed to provide a quantitative estimate of the relative probability that complex, macro-organismic life forms could have emerged on other worlds. Their calculation in the Milky Way alone is mind-bending: 100 million worlds in our home galaxy may harbor complex alien life. And the Milky Way is one of some 500 billion galaxies in the Universe.
So how do you fit this into your narrow world view, Pahu?
Or do you believe there is no life other than mankind in the entire Universe? (I would find that just plain silly.)
Those figures are evidence free speculation based on a belief in the scientifically disproved notion of evolution.
There is no evidence life exists anywhere else in the universe.
The team developed Biological Complexity Index (BCI), designed to provide a quantitative estimate of the relative probability that complex, macro-organismic life forms could have emerged on other worlds. Their calculation in the Milky Way alone is mind-bending: 100 million worlds in our home galaxy may harbor complex alien life. And the Milky Way is one of some 500 billion galaxies in the Universe.
So how do you fit this into your narrow world view, Pahu?
Or do you believe there is no life other than mankind in the entire Universe? (I would find that just plain silly.)
Those figures are evidence free speculation based on a belief in the scientifically disproved notion of evolution.
There is no evidence life exists anywhere else in the universe.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490751 wrote: And you were doing so well. The definitions were correct. As for contradicting each other - they do nothing of the sort. They are totally different entities. Creation, as you rightly say, the initial act of bringing something into existence, regardless of whatever means you believe it to be. You believe it to be by some imaginary God. I believe the more Scientific approach of the Big Bang. That much I think we can accept as fact, as it is simply a statement of 2 opinions.
Evolution teaches a natural, mindless cause of origins, which has never been observed. Creation teaches the cause of origins is Intelligent Design, which is observed and proves God is not imaginary. The two teachings cannot both be true. They contradict.
Scientists are beginning to doubt the Big Bang ever happened. Here are the facts:
Big Bang?
Dark Thoughts
Missing Mass. Between 1969 and 1998, virtually all big bang theorists said that the rapidly expanding universe must have enough mass to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter would not have come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass was always 10–20% of the needed amount. They reasoned that since the big bang theory was correct, the missing mass had to exist.u
Dark Matter. One would expect that the rotational velocities of stars around the center of a spiral galaxy would decrease the farther a star is from that center. However, since 1933, it has been known that those velocities are roughly constant beyond the galaxy’s central bulge. (This discovery gives great insight into how and when the universe began, but contradicts the way big-bang advocates think galaxies formed.) To explain these almost constant velocities, those advocates have told us since 1975 that (1) an invisible form of matter, called “dark matter, must surround and permeate galaxies, and (2) five times more dark matter than normal matter should even be in the room where you are sitting. No direct measurements show that dark matter exists.v
Dark Energy. Big bang theorists have struck again by devising something new and imaginary to prop up their theory. Prior to 1998, the big bang theory predicted that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. Then in 1998, a shocking discovery was made and confirmed. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating!a Therefore, to protect the big bang theory, something again had to be invented. Some energy source that overpowers gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. That energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy. Again, an important discovery that gives insight into how the universe actually began was effectively lost by a faulty explanation: dark energy.
“Dark matter was created to make spiral galaxies spin correctly after a big bang. “Missing mass was created to hold the universe together, and “dark energy was created to push (actually accelerate) the universe apart. None of these have been seen or measured,v even with the world’s best telescopes and sophisticated experiments. However, we are told that 95% of the universe is invisible—either dark matter (25%) or dark energy (70%). As respected cosmologist, Jim Peebles, admitted, “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical.w Other authorities have said that “dark matter and “dark energy “serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.u Few realize that these mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory. It is much like the supposed “missing link that should exist between apes and man if man evolved from some apelike animal. Direct evidence does not exist.
History records other shocking discoveries that caused astronomers to assume aspects of the universe that they could not see or measure—a common practice in cosmology. Planets appeared to sometimes move backwards. This led to the belief, from A.D. 150 to 1543, that planets must revolve about the earth on epicycles—wheels that carried planets and rode on the circumferences of other wheels. As more was learned about planetary motion, more epicycles were required to support that theory. Those cosmologists said, “After all, those wheels must be there, because that would explain the strange movements of planets. Without direct observations or measurements, such beliefs are completely unscientific. History is repeating itself with “missing mass, “dark matter, “dark energy—and an often uncritical public. Notice that these strange ideas make no predictions, a sure sign that they are scientifically weak.
Instead of cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with authoritative sounding statements about things for which no direct evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang theory is faulty? Yes, but big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, funding, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists.
Below are listed some evidences that are contrary to the big bang theory. “Chemical Evolution Theory on page 381 describes four errors in the big bang theory that required major revisions since 1946. Each revision rejected what had been assumed without direct evidence and taught for years until calculations showed those assumptions were false. Pages 366–416 explain why the 68 heaviest chemical elements would not form after a big bang. Pages 422–434 lay out the clear evidence for the correct expansion, or “stretching out, of the universe.
The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,a was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.
Redshift. The redshift of starlight is interpreted as a Doppler effect;b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.c Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws. Furthermore, these galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating. [See “Dark Thoughts on page 34.]
Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. [See "Connected Galaxies" and Galaxy Clusters on page 43.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.d Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.e Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.f
Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.g Much remains to be learned about redshifts.
CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.h
Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.i Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not produce the CMB.j [See pages 440–442.]
Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.k Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)l and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older starsm contradict the big bang theory.
A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist only of those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none have been found.n
Two Lithium Problems. The total amount of lithium seen in and outside our galaxy is only a third of what the big bang theory predicts.o Also, “old stars contain one-quarter to one-half as much lithium-7 (made of three protons and four neutrons) as theory predicts and contain 1,000 times more lithium-6 (three protons and three neutrons) than expected [by the big bang theory].p
Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies or quasars at such great distances, but they are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies on page 429.] Nor should a big bang produce rotating bodiesq such as galaxies and galaxy clusters. Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.r
For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.s (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of this antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.t
Also, if a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape the trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg that existed before a big bang?x
If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect.y All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.z
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 56.** Big Bang?
Evolution teaches a natural, mindless cause of origins, which has never been observed. Creation teaches the cause of origins is Intelligent Design, which is observed and proves God is not imaginary. The two teachings cannot both be true. They contradict.
Scientists are beginning to doubt the Big Bang ever happened. Here are the facts:
Big Bang?
Dark Thoughts
Missing Mass. Between 1969 and 1998, virtually all big bang theorists said that the rapidly expanding universe must have enough mass to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter would not have come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass was always 10–20% of the needed amount. They reasoned that since the big bang theory was correct, the missing mass had to exist.u
Dark Matter. One would expect that the rotational velocities of stars around the center of a spiral galaxy would decrease the farther a star is from that center. However, since 1933, it has been known that those velocities are roughly constant beyond the galaxy’s central bulge. (This discovery gives great insight into how and when the universe began, but contradicts the way big-bang advocates think galaxies formed.) To explain these almost constant velocities, those advocates have told us since 1975 that (1) an invisible form of matter, called “dark matter, must surround and permeate galaxies, and (2) five times more dark matter than normal matter should even be in the room where you are sitting. No direct measurements show that dark matter exists.v
Dark Energy. Big bang theorists have struck again by devising something new and imaginary to prop up their theory. Prior to 1998, the big bang theory predicted that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown upward must slow as it moves away from Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. Then in 1998, a shocking discovery was made and confirmed. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating!a Therefore, to protect the big bang theory, something again had to be invented. Some energy source that overpowers gravity must continually accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. That energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy. Again, an important discovery that gives insight into how the universe actually began was effectively lost by a faulty explanation: dark energy.
“Dark matter was created to make spiral galaxies spin correctly after a big bang. “Missing mass was created to hold the universe together, and “dark energy was created to push (actually accelerate) the universe apart. None of these have been seen or measured,v even with the world’s best telescopes and sophisticated experiments. However, we are told that 95% of the universe is invisible—either dark matter (25%) or dark energy (70%). As respected cosmologist, Jim Peebles, admitted, “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical.w Other authorities have said that “dark matter and “dark energy “serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance.u Few realize that these mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory. It is much like the supposed “missing link that should exist between apes and man if man evolved from some apelike animal. Direct evidence does not exist.
History records other shocking discoveries that caused astronomers to assume aspects of the universe that they could not see or measure—a common practice in cosmology. Planets appeared to sometimes move backwards. This led to the belief, from A.D. 150 to 1543, that planets must revolve about the earth on epicycles—wheels that carried planets and rode on the circumferences of other wheels. As more was learned about planetary motion, more epicycles were required to support that theory. Those cosmologists said, “After all, those wheels must be there, because that would explain the strange movements of planets. Without direct observations or measurements, such beliefs are completely unscientific. History is repeating itself with “missing mass, “dark matter, “dark energy—and an often uncritical public. Notice that these strange ideas make no predictions, a sure sign that they are scientifically weak.
Instead of cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with authoritative sounding statements about things for which no direct evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang theory is faulty? Yes, but big bang theorists want to maintain their reputations, careers, funding, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists.
Below are listed some evidences that are contrary to the big bang theory. “Chemical Evolution Theory on page 381 describes four errors in the big bang theory that required major revisions since 1946. Each revision rejected what had been assumed without direct evidence and taught for years until calculations showed those assumptions were false. Pages 366–416 explain why the 68 heaviest chemical elements would not form after a big bang. Pages 422–434 lay out the clear evidence for the correct expansion, or “stretching out, of the universe.
The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,a was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.
Redshift. The redshift of starlight is interpreted as a Doppler effect;b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.c Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws. Furthermore, these galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating. [See “Dark Thoughts on page 34.]
Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. [See "Connected Galaxies" and Galaxy Clusters on page 43.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.d Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.e Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.f
Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.g Much remains to be learned about redshifts.
CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.h
Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.i Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not produce the CMB.j [See pages 440–442.]
Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.k Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)l and the presence of beryllium and boron in “older starsm contradict the big bang theory.
A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist only of those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none have been found.n
Two Lithium Problems. The total amount of lithium seen in and outside our galaxy is only a third of what the big bang theory predicts.o Also, “old stars contain one-quarter to one-half as much lithium-7 (made of three protons and four neutrons) as theory predicts and contain 1,000 times more lithium-6 (three protons and three neutrons) than expected [by the big bang theory].p
Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies or quasars at such great distances, but they are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies on page 429.] Nor should a big bang produce rotating bodiesq such as galaxies and galaxy clusters. Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.r
For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.s (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of this antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.t
Also, if a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape the trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg that existed before a big bang?x
If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect.y All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.z
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 56.** Big Bang?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490778 wrote: Amen! The science explaining those 16 features (actually 25) is flawed. Here is Brown's correction:
That is a beauty. Now you have the concept of linear time wrong. The rebuttal of Brown's book comes AFTER it is written. You cannot cite a correction from the book AFTER the rebuttal has been written. The rebuttal showed how Brown was wrong. in the original.
Brown came first with his errors.
Rebuttal & revelation of errors followed.
Any additional Counter Rebuttals would be the next to follow - a repeat of the original error is NOT a Counter Rebuttal it is merely a Pahu special by continually pasting the error in the vain hope that someday it will cease to be wrong - Like pasting the statement that Black is White enough time that eventually it will be true that Black is White and that everyone else who argues that Black is Black and/or White is White is mistaken, because Pahu keeps pasting it.
That is a beauty. Now you have the concept of linear time wrong. The rebuttal of Brown's book comes AFTER it is written. You cannot cite a correction from the book AFTER the rebuttal has been written. The rebuttal showed how Brown was wrong. in the original.
Brown came first with his errors.
Rebuttal & revelation of errors followed.
Any additional Counter Rebuttals would be the next to follow - a repeat of the original error is NOT a Counter Rebuttal it is merely a Pahu special by continually pasting the error in the vain hope that someday it will cease to be wrong - Like pasting the statement that Black is White enough time that eventually it will be true that Black is White and that everyone else who argues that Black is Black and/or White is White is mistaken, because Pahu keeps pasting it.
Science Disproves Evolution
So I was right then. You didn't watch the videos for the proof that Creationist Scientists know little of the science that they preach. They are bottom of the class with little or no respect.
So I was right then. You are clearly unable to answer the questions put forward by several members, instead choosing to post-bomb the same stuff in response.
Fail !
So I was right then. You are clearly unable to answer the questions put forward by several members, instead choosing to post-bomb the same stuff in response.
Fail !
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490785 wrote: That is a beauty. Now you have the concept of linear time wrong. The rebuttal of Brown's book comes AFTER it is written. You cannot cite a correction from the book AFTER the rebuttal has been written. The rebuttal showed how Brown was wrong. in the original.
Brown came first with his errors.
Rebuttal & revelation of errors followed.
Any additional Counter Rebuttals would be the next to follow - a repeat of the original error is NOT a Counter Rebuttal it is merely a Pahu special by continually pasting the error in the vain hope that someday it will cease to be wrong - Like pasting the statement that Black is White enough time that eventually it will be true that Black is White and that everyone else who argues that Black is Black and/or White is White is mistaken, because Pahu keeps pasting it.
Wrong! The rebuttal, not refutation, was about the contents of the book, which refutes those rebuttals. The facts presented are not an error. Please show us where they are in error.
Brown came first with his errors.
Rebuttal & revelation of errors followed.
Any additional Counter Rebuttals would be the next to follow - a repeat of the original error is NOT a Counter Rebuttal it is merely a Pahu special by continually pasting the error in the vain hope that someday it will cease to be wrong - Like pasting the statement that Black is White enough time that eventually it will be true that Black is White and that everyone else who argues that Black is Black and/or White is White is mistaken, because Pahu keeps pasting it.
Wrong! The rebuttal, not refutation, was about the contents of the book, which refutes those rebuttals. The facts presented are not an error. Please show us where they are in error.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1490786 wrote: So I was right then. You didn't watch the videos for the proof that Creationist Scientists know little of the science that they preach. They are bottom of the class with little or no respect.
So I was right then. You are clearly unable to answer the questions put forward by several members, instead choosing to post-bomb the same stuff in response.
Fail !
There is no proof creationist scientists do not understand the science they teach.
So I was right then. You are clearly unable to answer the questions put forward by several members, instead choosing to post-bomb the same stuff in response.
Fail !
There is no proof creationist scientists do not understand the science they teach.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490789 wrote: There is no proof creationist scientists do not understand the science they teach.
The video, if you had watched (probably far too uncomfortable) would clearly show they are seriously lacking.
Plus dont get a buffoon to hold up a picture of a "crockoduck" in front of an audience during a debate. That REALLY is a bottom of the class cringing moment. But....if thats the best creationists can do .....
The video, if you had watched (probably far too uncomfortable) would clearly show they are seriously lacking.
Plus dont get a buffoon to hold up a picture of a "crockoduck" in front of an audience during a debate. That REALLY is a bottom of the class cringing moment. But....if thats the best creationists can do .....
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
He clearly shows that he doesn't understand what he's talking about. He just believes all the smoke & mirrors that Brown comes up with. He asks where Brown is in error, yet every one of my links goes into depth explaining that & demonstrating just that. He (and Brown) still confuse "Evolution" with "Creation". Two totally different subjects, but he seems to think they are contradictory. Pahu's logic = "You can't have an Elephant & a Rock. They are contradictory".
Just as your videos demonstrate, Creationists come up with invented words & terms which are, at best, ambiguous, and when challenged to define their parameters they change the subject (or in Pahu's case, paste another [repeated] chapter of Brown's twaddle) in order to divert attention from the fact that they have no idea of what they're actually talking about. I found it comical that the exact same words used in the videos were exactly the same ones that Pahu's / Brown's (for they are one & the same) arguments are centred around, which tends to prove the case.
Just as your videos demonstrate, Creationists come up with invented words & terms which are, at best, ambiguous, and when challenged to define their parameters they change the subject (or in Pahu's case, paste another [repeated] chapter of Brown's twaddle) in order to divert attention from the fact that they have no idea of what they're actually talking about. I found it comical that the exact same words used in the videos were exactly the same ones that Pahu's / Brown's (for they are one & the same) arguments are centred around, which tends to prove the case.
Science Disproves Evolution
Fourparts second link that Pahu clearly didn't read is an extensive debunking of Brown's " Flood Model " and concludes....Walter Brown's hydroplate Flood model is an imaginative but woefully deficient model of earth history, flying in the face of many lines of evidence from geology, paleontology, biology, cosmology, and physics. It has not been published in rigorous peer-reviewed papers, and is not supported by any conventional scientists, or even most young-earth creationists with backgrounds in relevant fields.
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
Another states.....Although Brown is confident that many publishers would be interested in publishing such a debate, this is highly unlikely. My understanding is that creation/evolution books are of limited general interest and do not sell well. One potential debater contacted over 100 publishers and found only four that expressed any interest. Three of them soon pulled out, and the fourth was vetoed by Brown.
If a publisher was interested in publishing a comprehensive creation/evolution debate book, why on earth would they want to choose Brown as the creationist spokesman? Brown is not a particularly prominent person in the creation/evolution controversy. He has published little except for multiple editions of his book In the Beginning. He is a loner who doesn't belong to any of the major creationist organizations, doesn't publish even in creationist journals, and has no track record of effective debating on the internet. I suspect very few creationists would choose Brown to be their representative in a published debate. The fact that Brown would doubtless want to promote his hydroplate theory makes him an even less attractive choice, since the hydroplate theory has almost no acceptance even among other creationists.
More on Walter Brown's debate offer
I'm afraid he's alone, even amongst Creationists
Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water
Another states.....Although Brown is confident that many publishers would be interested in publishing such a debate, this is highly unlikely. My understanding is that creation/evolution books are of limited general interest and do not sell well. One potential debater contacted over 100 publishers and found only four that expressed any interest. Three of them soon pulled out, and the fourth was vetoed by Brown.
If a publisher was interested in publishing a comprehensive creation/evolution debate book, why on earth would they want to choose Brown as the creationist spokesman? Brown is not a particularly prominent person in the creation/evolution controversy. He has published little except for multiple editions of his book In the Beginning. He is a loner who doesn't belong to any of the major creationist organizations, doesn't publish even in creationist journals, and has no track record of effective debating on the internet. I suspect very few creationists would choose Brown to be their representative in a published debate. The fact that Brown would doubtless want to promote his hydroplate theory makes him an even less attractive choice, since the hydroplate theory has almost no acceptance even among other creationists.
More on Walter Brown's debate offer
I'm afraid he's alone, even amongst Creationists
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Index Fossils 2
Evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular (b), many discoveries, such as living coelacanths, were unexpected. [See Out-of-Sequence Fossils on page 12 ]
b. “It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain. R. H. Rastall, “Geology, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10, 1954, p. 168.
“Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument? Larry Azar, “Biologists, Help! BioScience, Vol.*28, November 1978, p.*714.
“A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it? *“... the fossils do not form the kind of pattern that would be predicted using a simple NeoDarwinian model. * Thomas S. Kemp, “A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record, New Scientist, Vol.*108, 5 December 1985, p. 66.
“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism. J.*E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy, American Journal of Science, Vol.*276, January 1976, p.*47.
“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.* Ibid., p.*53.
Although O’Rourke attempts to justify the practices of stratigraphers, he recognizes the inherent problems associated with such circular reasoning.
“But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the non-repeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis. *Kitts, p.*466.
“It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology. Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993), p.*98.
“The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity.* David M. Raup, “Geology and Creationism, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol.*54, March 1983, p.*21.
In a taped, transcribed, and approved 1979 interview with Dr.*Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland asked Fisher how he dated certain fossils. Answer: “By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found. When Sunderland asked if this was not circular reasoning, Fisher replied, “Of course; how else are you going to do it? “The Geologic Column: Its Basis and Who Constructed It, Bible-Science News Letter, December 1986, p.*6.
“The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity. Bobb Schaeffer, Max K. Hecht, and Niles Eldredge, “Phylogeny and Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology, Vol.*6 (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1972), p.*39.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Do you ever actually really think about any of this? Or do you just mindlessly accept all the stuff in Mr Brown's book?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1490845 wrote: Do you ever actually really think about any of this? Or do you just mindlessly accept all the stuff in Mr Brown's book?
I think his actions speak for themselves. When presented with the proof that disagrees with him he just replies with another (repeated) pasting from Brown - nothing new, because he has only ever come up with a single book, and that entire book (and probably all of it's multiple versions) has been copied & pasted here multiple times (that much has just been demonstrated as his sulking response to the evidence laid out before him that his Lord & Master, the Almighty God, Dolt Brown, has been rebutted & debunked on many occasions, despite his claim that he has "never" been so.
He argues against the existence of evolution, without even understanding the meaning of evolution (confusing it with creation), whilst at the same time acknowledging it does exist - although he likes to make the distinction between between Macro-Evolution & Micro-Evolution (terms, incidentally, which are an invention of Creationists). Either way, be it Micro or Macro, they are variations on a theme, and that common theme is Evolution, and even by accepting one or the other, that is an acceptance that it exists. Therefore his argument that it has been proved not to exist doesn't hold water.
He argues that Evolution is just a theory. Of course it is. He just doesn't seem to understand what a scientific theory is. Electricity is just a theory. Atoms are just a theory. Gravity is just a theory. Do they not exist, just because they are just theories.
We have all seen examples of genetically modified mice with ears growing out of their backs. Are these naturally occurring? Of course not. Therefore, by Pahu's dichotomy logic, if they are not natural, then they must be supernatural. Behold the 2nd coming of the Messiah Mouse.
I think his actions speak for themselves. When presented with the proof that disagrees with him he just replies with another (repeated) pasting from Brown - nothing new, because he has only ever come up with a single book, and that entire book (and probably all of it's multiple versions) has been copied & pasted here multiple times (that much has just been demonstrated as his sulking response to the evidence laid out before him that his Lord & Master, the Almighty God, Dolt Brown, has been rebutted & debunked on many occasions, despite his claim that he has "never" been so.
He argues against the existence of evolution, without even understanding the meaning of evolution (confusing it with creation), whilst at the same time acknowledging it does exist - although he likes to make the distinction between between Macro-Evolution & Micro-Evolution (terms, incidentally, which are an invention of Creationists). Either way, be it Micro or Macro, they are variations on a theme, and that common theme is Evolution, and even by accepting one or the other, that is an acceptance that it exists. Therefore his argument that it has been proved not to exist doesn't hold water.
He argues that Evolution is just a theory. Of course it is. He just doesn't seem to understand what a scientific theory is. Electricity is just a theory. Atoms are just a theory. Gravity is just a theory. Do they not exist, just because they are just theories.
We have all seen examples of genetically modified mice with ears growing out of their backs. Are these naturally occurring? Of course not. Therefore, by Pahu's dichotomy logic, if they are not natural, then they must be supernatural. Behold the 2nd coming of the Messiah Mouse.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490856 wrote:
He argues against the existence of evolution, without even understanding the meaning of evolution (confusing it with creation), whilst at the same time acknowledging it does exist - although he likes to make the distinction between between Macro-Evolution & Micro-Evolution (terms, incidentally, which are an invention of Creationists). Either way, be it Micro or Macro, they are variations on a theme, and that common theme is Evolution, and even by accepting one or the other, that is an acceptance that it exists. Therefore his argument that it has been proved not to exist doesn't hold water.
Figure 3: Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ences.html
He argues against the existence of evolution, without even understanding the meaning of evolution (confusing it with creation), whilst at the same time acknowledging it does exist - although he likes to make the distinction between between Macro-Evolution & Micro-Evolution (terms, incidentally, which are an invention of Creationists). Either way, be it Micro or Macro, they are variations on a theme, and that common theme is Evolution, and even by accepting one or the other, that is an acceptance that it exists. Therefore his argument that it has been proved not to exist doesn't hold water.
Figure 3: Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ences.html
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.
This is not a claim of the so-called "Evolutionists" in the world. This is some trumped up notion of Anti-science Creationists who have created a definition of their very own, which can then shoot down as false.
Many species have evolved over time without increasing complexity, beneficial or otherwise. They simply adapt to changes in their environment, and eventually became something quite different.
This is not a claim of the so-called "Evolutionists" in the world. This is some trumped up notion of Anti-science Creationists who have created a definition of their very own, which can then shoot down as false.
Many species have evolved over time without increasing complexity, beneficial or otherwise. They simply adapt to changes in their environment, and eventually became something quite different.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.
LarsMac;1490884 wrote: This is not a claim of the so-called "Evolutionists" in the world. This is some trumped up notion of Anti-science Creationists who have created a definition of their very own, which can then shoot down as false.
That is exactly what evolution claims.
Many species have evolved over time without increasing complexity, beneficial or otherwise. They simply adapt to changes in their environment, and eventually became something quite different.
Evolution has never been observed. Creation has!
LarsMac;1490884 wrote: This is not a claim of the so-called "Evolutionists" in the world. This is some trumped up notion of Anti-science Creationists who have created a definition of their very own, which can then shoot down as false.
That is exactly what evolution claims.
Many species have evolved over time without increasing complexity, beneficial or otherwise. They simply adapt to changes in their environment, and eventually became something quite different.
Evolution has never been observed. Creation has!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490885 wrote: It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.
That is exactly what evolution claims.
Evolution has never been observed. Creation has!
There we go, bang on queue. Incapable of free thought. Shackled to the debunked dogma of Brown's trash. Unable to look or listen for himself for fear of finding the uncomfortable truth.
Go to default answer. Safest option. Re-paste. Then the other posters might forget the questions posed.
Pahu we are still awaiting an honest response to our questions. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Putting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala won't work.
That is exactly what evolution claims.
Evolution has never been observed. Creation has!
There we go, bang on queue. Incapable of free thought. Shackled to the debunked dogma of Brown's trash. Unable to look or listen for himself for fear of finding the uncomfortable truth.
Go to default answer. Safest option. Re-paste. Then the other posters might forget the questions posed.
Pahu we are still awaiting an honest response to our questions. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Putting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala won't work.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote Originally Posted by Pahu:
It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.
That is exactly what evolution claims.
Evolution has never been observed. Creation has!
Snowfire;1490888 wrote: There we go, bang on queue. Incapable of free thought. Shackled to the debunked dogma of Brown's trash. Unable to look or listen for himself for fear of finding the uncomfortable truth.
Why are you accusing me of doing what you are doing: " Unable to look or listen for himself for fear of finding the uncomfortable truth." You accuse Brown of teaching debunked dogma, but where is your evidence? How is what I have quoted debunked dogma?
Pahu we are still awaiting an honest response to our questions. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Putting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala won't work.
What questions? Why not try taking your fingers out of your ears, singing lalalala and answering my questions?
It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.
That is exactly what evolution claims.
Evolution has never been observed. Creation has!
Snowfire;1490888 wrote: There we go, bang on queue. Incapable of free thought. Shackled to the debunked dogma of Brown's trash. Unable to look or listen for himself for fear of finding the uncomfortable truth.
Why are you accusing me of doing what you are doing: " Unable to look or listen for himself for fear of finding the uncomfortable truth." You accuse Brown of teaching debunked dogma, but where is your evidence? How is what I have quoted debunked dogma?
Pahu we are still awaiting an honest response to our questions. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Putting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala won't work.
What questions? Why not try taking your fingers out of your ears, singing lalalala and answering my questions?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Precisely my point....What questions ? You've just chosen to ignore them in the hope they will go away.
Do you study anything beyond the realms of Brown's scribblings ?
We've given you plenty of links to the debunking.....which of course you refuted. You clearly didn't watch the videos....uncomfortable no doubt...which would have further shown the whole creationism, not least, Brown's version as bunkum from start to finish.
My question was of the veracity of Brown's science as perceived by the other 99.9% of scientists who completely refute all of it. Where are his peer reviewed publications, where are they cited ?
You and the handful of Brown's follower's already decided the result and made the bad science that you use, fit it to suit. Real science does it the other way round.
Brown and his theory are a fraud. We know it. Science knows it. You are as viable in the scientific world as the flat earthers. You and the handful are isolated completely by the fake science.
Get ready for the pasting everyone or the usual mimicking of comments. Or maybe just an ignoring of it all in the hopes it'll go away.
Do you study anything beyond the realms of Brown's scribblings ?
We've given you plenty of links to the debunking.....which of course you refuted. You clearly didn't watch the videos....uncomfortable no doubt...which would have further shown the whole creationism, not least, Brown's version as bunkum from start to finish.
My question was of the veracity of Brown's science as perceived by the other 99.9% of scientists who completely refute all of it. Where are his peer reviewed publications, where are they cited ?
You and the handful of Brown's follower's already decided the result and made the bad science that you use, fit it to suit. Real science does it the other way round.
Brown and his theory are a fraud. We know it. Science knows it. You are as viable in the scientific world as the flat earthers. You and the handful are isolated completely by the fake science.
Get ready for the pasting everyone or the usual mimicking of comments. Or maybe just an ignoring of it all in the hopes it'll go away.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Evolution has, and is being observed. It is an ongoing thing.
Creationism, which has nothing at all to do with Evolution in the first place, is a totally different subject. However, your claim that Creation has been observed is clearly false. The obvious question is, Who by? Even according to your Bible the Creation happened before there was anyone to witness it, so just who observed it?
Now, as I have previously specified, which STILL seem to be unable to understand, Evolution is about the change of something that already exists. How does that have anything at all to do with creation? A sculptor can be said to create a statue. Technically that is false. He evolves the statue. Even Michelangelo said that the statue was already there - all he need to do was to take away the unwanted pieces. The rock from which the statue is sculpted is already there. It has already been created. The act of sculpting it is that of changing it. That is the evolution side of things. So what does the sculpting have to do with the creation of the rock?
Every time you try to argue against the scientifically proven case for Evolution you continually show that you don't know what you're talking about by arguing the case for Creation instead.
There are plenty of Religious Scientists out there who fully agree with Evolution. They are not atheists - the Pope, for instance, believes in Evolution (or do you consider him to be an atheist as well). The difference is that they consider Evolution to be part of God's plan. Obviously I don't agree with that concept either, but at least they agree with something that has been proven to exist & accept it as such.
Also, as I have said before, Macro-Evolution & Micro-Evolution are terms invented by Creationists who feel threatened by Science (although they have no need to, as it has nothing to do with Creationism anyway) as a get out when they have to admit that Evolution is real - so that they can go on to argue by saying, "Yes, it exists, but..." - just as you / Brown are so fond of doing.
Creationism, which has nothing at all to do with Evolution in the first place, is a totally different subject. However, your claim that Creation has been observed is clearly false. The obvious question is, Who by? Even according to your Bible the Creation happened before there was anyone to witness it, so just who observed it?
Now, as I have previously specified, which STILL seem to be unable to understand, Evolution is about the change of something that already exists. How does that have anything at all to do with creation? A sculptor can be said to create a statue. Technically that is false. He evolves the statue. Even Michelangelo said that the statue was already there - all he need to do was to take away the unwanted pieces. The rock from which the statue is sculpted is already there. It has already been created. The act of sculpting it is that of changing it. That is the evolution side of things. So what does the sculpting have to do with the creation of the rock?
Every time you try to argue against the scientifically proven case for Evolution you continually show that you don't know what you're talking about by arguing the case for Creation instead.
There are plenty of Religious Scientists out there who fully agree with Evolution. They are not atheists - the Pope, for instance, believes in Evolution (or do you consider him to be an atheist as well). The difference is that they consider Evolution to be part of God's plan. Obviously I don't agree with that concept either, but at least they agree with something that has been proven to exist & accept it as such.
Also, as I have said before, Macro-Evolution & Micro-Evolution are terms invented by Creationists who feel threatened by Science (although they have no need to, as it has nothing to do with Creationism anyway) as a get out when they have to admit that Evolution is real - so that they can go on to argue by saying, "Yes, it exists, but..." - just as you / Brown are so fond of doing.
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1490890 wrote:
My question was of the veracity of Brown's science as perceived by the other 99.9% of scientists who completely refute all of it.
That figure is not true. You just made it up. It is true most scientists do not accept the hydroplate fact---yet. But they do accept and confirm most of his other conclusions. Here are most of them:
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, Henry H. Hsieh 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
Where are his peer reviewed publications, where are they cited ?
Scientists should want their conclusions critiqued, or refereed, by their peers (peer review). Researchers who believe their work is important should try to publish that work. However, leading science journals will not accept papers published elsewhere. (That stipulation alone eliminates any portion of this book from consideration.) Seldom would a science journal publish a paper more than 6 pages in length. (That also prevents the hydroplate theory, pages 110–416, from being published in a journal.)
I certainly want my ideas tested and have frequently initiated and appreciated cordial, factual exchanges with scientists who are not creationists. But in a journal, who does the evaluation, and is there an unbiased process in which a writer who advances creation or the flood can challenge an evolutionist reviewer’s disagreement? Leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists, so evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent? Why would that opponent publish your case?
To level the playing field, I have had on the table, since 1980, a written-debate offer for any qualified evolutionist or team of evolutionists who disagree with what I have written. A neutral editor, acting as judge, would ensure the debate rules were followed; the jury would be all readers. Both sides would have the right to publish the complete debate if a large publisher chose not to.
Evolutionists have known of this offer for many years. It was published in the anticreation journal, Creation/Evolution , in 1990. The offer was even placed on the worldwide web in 1995. So far, no evolutionist has accepted. A few initially agreed but soon dropped out, because they were unwilling to limit the exchange to science; they wanted to include (and probably ridicule) religious views. Another debate offer that, if accepted, could be heard (or read from a transcript) by the public over the Internet; it is explained on page 558. Can you find a taker for either debate? Until someone accepts the written debate and as long as my good health continues, both offers will remain.
You and the handful of Brown's follower's already decided the result and made the bad science that you use, fit it to suit. Real science does it the other way round.
Wrong! Show us where creationists have decided the result and made the bad science fit it to suit. Evolutionists do that, not creationists.
Brown and his theory are a fraud. We know it. Science knows it.
Show us evidence supporting your assertion.
You are as viable in the scientific world as the flat earthers. You and the handful are isolated completely by the fake science.
That assertion describes evolutionists, not creationists who always use the facts of science to confirm their conclusions.
My question was of the veracity of Brown's science as perceived by the other 99.9% of scientists who completely refute all of it.
That figure is not true. You just made it up. It is true most scientists do not accept the hydroplate fact---yet. But they do accept and confirm most of his other conclusions. Here are most of them:
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, Henry H. Hsieh 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
Where are his peer reviewed publications, where are they cited ?
Scientists should want their conclusions critiqued, or refereed, by their peers (peer review). Researchers who believe their work is important should try to publish that work. However, leading science journals will not accept papers published elsewhere. (That stipulation alone eliminates any portion of this book from consideration.) Seldom would a science journal publish a paper more than 6 pages in length. (That also prevents the hydroplate theory, pages 110–416, from being published in a journal.)
I certainly want my ideas tested and have frequently initiated and appreciated cordial, factual exchanges with scientists who are not creationists. But in a journal, who does the evaluation, and is there an unbiased process in which a writer who advances creation or the flood can challenge an evolutionist reviewer’s disagreement? Leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists, so evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent? Why would that opponent publish your case?
To level the playing field, I have had on the table, since 1980, a written-debate offer for any qualified evolutionist or team of evolutionists who disagree with what I have written. A neutral editor, acting as judge, would ensure the debate rules were followed; the jury would be all readers. Both sides would have the right to publish the complete debate if a large publisher chose not to.
Evolutionists have known of this offer for many years. It was published in the anticreation journal, Creation/Evolution , in 1990. The offer was even placed on the worldwide web in 1995. So far, no evolutionist has accepted. A few initially agreed but soon dropped out, because they were unwilling to limit the exchange to science; they wanted to include (and probably ridicule) religious views. Another debate offer that, if accepted, could be heard (or read from a transcript) by the public over the Internet; it is explained on page 558. Can you find a taker for either debate? Until someone accepts the written debate and as long as my good health continues, both offers will remain.
You and the handful of Brown's follower's already decided the result and made the bad science that you use, fit it to suit. Real science does it the other way round.
Wrong! Show us where creationists have decided the result and made the bad science fit it to suit. Evolutionists do that, not creationists.
Brown and his theory are a fraud. We know it. Science knows it.
Show us evidence supporting your assertion.
You are as viable in the scientific world as the flat earthers. You and the handful are isolated completely by the fake science.
That assertion describes evolutionists, not creationists who always use the facts of science to confirm their conclusions.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490904 wrote: That figure is not true. You just made it up. It is true most scientists do not accept the hydroplate fact---yet. But they do accept and confirm most of his other conclusions. Here are most of them:
Yes that figure was my assumption but I reckon I'm pretty accurate. If you take the generally accepted estimate that only 1% of scientists believe in Creationism, then consider that a large majority of Creationists do not believe in Brown's Hydroplate theory, then the figure isn't far off at all.
Yes that figure was my assumption but I reckon I'm pretty accurate. If you take the generally accepted estimate that only 1% of scientists believe in Creationism, then consider that a large majority of Creationists do not believe in Brown's Hydroplate theory, then the figure isn't far off at all.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Well, that figure seems to be pretty accurate.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Seems I'm better at guestimating than Brown is at actual science.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Seems I'm better at guestimating than Brown is at actual science.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490904 wrote: That figure is not true. You just made it up. It is true most scientists do not accept the hydroplate fact---yet. But they do accept and confirm most of his other conclusions. Here are most of them:
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, ..... et al
We all know the famous irrelevant lists, so I'll not bother quoting the usual pasted twaddle. It's the same list that you are incapable of providing any relationship between the 2. It is a list of names (known or not) and a list of publications, to be found in any newsagents shopping list, but without any cross reference between them both lists are less than meaningless.
Scientists should want their conclusions critiqued, or refereed, by their peers (peer review). Researchers who believe their work is important should try to publish that work. However, leading science journals will not accept papers published elsewhere. (That stipulation alone eliminates any portion of this book from consideration.) Seldom would a science journal publish a paper more than 6 pages in length. (That also prevents the hydroplate theory, pages 110–416, from being published in a journal.)
I certainly want my ideas tested and have frequently initiated and appreciated cordial, factual exchanges with scientists who are not creationists. But in a journal, who does the evaluation, and is there an unbiased process in which a writer who advances creation or the flood can challenge an evolutionist reviewer’s disagreement? Leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists, so evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent? Why would that opponent publish your case?
To level the playing field, I have had on the table, since 1980, a written-debate offer for any qualified evolutionist or team of evolutionists who disagree with what I have written. A neutral editor, acting as judge, would ensure the debate rules were followed; the jury would be all readers. Both sides would have the right to publish the complete debate if a large publisher chose not to.
Evolutionists have known of this offer for many years. It was published in the anticreation journal, Creation/Evolution , in 1990. The offer was even placed on the worldwide web in 1995. So far, no evolutionist has accepted. A few initially agreed but soon dropped out, because they were unwilling to limit the exchange to science; they wanted to include (and probably ridicule) religious views. Another debate offer that, if accepted, could be heard (or read from a transcript) by the public over the Internet; it is explained on page 558. Can you find a taker for either debate? Until someone accepts the written debate and as long as my good health continues, both offers will remain.
You don't have a very good memory do you? Scientists have invited him to participate in open debate. Brown refuses, or lays down ground rules that bias towards him, then, when anyone accepts those rules, he changes his rules & then refuses point blank to participate in any such debate (something which I have previously provided copies of the communications in this thread). He doesn't want a debate, he wants a platform because he knows that he wouldn't stand a chance in a debate.
Wrong! Show us where creationists have decided the result and made the bad science fit it to suit. Evolutionists do that, not creationists.
Try "In The Beginning", by some prick by the name of Dolt Brown. A perfect example.
Show us evidence supporting your assertion.
You simply haven't look at ANY of the links I provided, have you? Therein lies a host of evidence.
That assertion describes evolutionists, not creationists who always use the facts of science to confirm their conclusions.
And there you have it. That is how Cherry Picking works. "That dog is black (scientific fact) - therefore all dogs are black".
Earlier you denied that the conclusion precedes the facts. Now you are stating the exact opposite. Scientists form their conclusions based on the evidence before them. The evidence comes FIRST.
And once again, throughout this post you have continually placed Evolution & Creationism as opposing points, when they are, in fact, 2 totally different subjects. One has nothing to do with the other, apart from the fact that Creationists fear it simply because it is Scientific & incites people to think for themselves about the rationale behind other superstitious claims.
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, ..... et al
We all know the famous irrelevant lists, so I'll not bother quoting the usual pasted twaddle. It's the same list that you are incapable of providing any relationship between the 2. It is a list of names (known or not) and a list of publications, to be found in any newsagents shopping list, but without any cross reference between them both lists are less than meaningless.
Scientists should want their conclusions critiqued, or refereed, by their peers (peer review). Researchers who believe their work is important should try to publish that work. However, leading science journals will not accept papers published elsewhere. (That stipulation alone eliminates any portion of this book from consideration.) Seldom would a science journal publish a paper more than 6 pages in length. (That also prevents the hydroplate theory, pages 110–416, from being published in a journal.)
I certainly want my ideas tested and have frequently initiated and appreciated cordial, factual exchanges with scientists who are not creationists. But in a journal, who does the evaluation, and is there an unbiased process in which a writer who advances creation or the flood can challenge an evolutionist reviewer’s disagreement? Leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists, so evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent? Why would that opponent publish your case?
To level the playing field, I have had on the table, since 1980, a written-debate offer for any qualified evolutionist or team of evolutionists who disagree with what I have written. A neutral editor, acting as judge, would ensure the debate rules were followed; the jury would be all readers. Both sides would have the right to publish the complete debate if a large publisher chose not to.
Evolutionists have known of this offer for many years. It was published in the anticreation journal, Creation/Evolution , in 1990. The offer was even placed on the worldwide web in 1995. So far, no evolutionist has accepted. A few initially agreed but soon dropped out, because they were unwilling to limit the exchange to science; they wanted to include (and probably ridicule) religious views. Another debate offer that, if accepted, could be heard (or read from a transcript) by the public over the Internet; it is explained on page 558. Can you find a taker for either debate? Until someone accepts the written debate and as long as my good health continues, both offers will remain.
You don't have a very good memory do you? Scientists have invited him to participate in open debate. Brown refuses, or lays down ground rules that bias towards him, then, when anyone accepts those rules, he changes his rules & then refuses point blank to participate in any such debate (something which I have previously provided copies of the communications in this thread). He doesn't want a debate, he wants a platform because he knows that he wouldn't stand a chance in a debate.
Wrong! Show us where creationists have decided the result and made the bad science fit it to suit. Evolutionists do that, not creationists.
Try "In The Beginning", by some prick by the name of Dolt Brown. A perfect example.
Show us evidence supporting your assertion.
You simply haven't look at ANY of the links I provided, have you? Therein lies a host of evidence.
That assertion describes evolutionists, not creationists who always use the facts of science to confirm their conclusions.
And there you have it. That is how Cherry Picking works. "That dog is black (scientific fact) - therefore all dogs are black".
Earlier you denied that the conclusion precedes the facts. Now you are stating the exact opposite. Scientists form their conclusions based on the evidence before them. The evidence comes FIRST.
And once again, throughout this post you have continually placed Evolution & Creationism as opposing points, when they are, in fact, 2 totally different subjects. One has nothing to do with the other, apart from the fact that Creationists fear it simply because it is Scientific & incites people to think for themselves about the rationale behind other superstitious claims.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490912 wrote: We all know the famous irrelevant lists, so I'll not bother quoting the usual pasted twaddle. It's the same list that you are incapable of providing any relationship between the 2. It is a list of names (known or not) and a list of publications, to be found in any newsagents shopping list, but without any cross reference between them both lists are less than meaningless.
You don't have a very good memory do you? Scientists have invited him to participate in open debate. Brown refuses, or lays down ground rules that bias towards him, then, when anyone accepts those rules, he changes his rules & then refuses point blank to participate in any such debate (something which I have previously provided copies of the communications in this thread). He doesn't want a debate, he wants a platform because he knows that he wouldn't stand a chance in a debate.
Try "In The Beginning", by some prick by the name of Dolt Brown. A perfect example.
You simply haven't look at ANY of the links I provided, have you? Therein lies a host of evidence.
And there you have it. That is how Cherry Picking works. "That dog is black (scientific fact) - therefore all dogs are black".
Earlier you denied that the conclusion precedes the facts. Now you are stating the exact opposite. Scientists form their conclusions based on the evidence before them. The evidence comes FIRST.
And once again, throughout this post you have continually placed Evolution & Creationism as opposing points, when they are, in fact, 2 totally different subjects. One has nothing to do with the other, apart from the fact that Creationists fear it simply because it is Scientific & incites people to think for themselves about the rationale behind other superstitious claims.
Well, you finally made an accurate statement. Evolution and Creationism are indeed two different subjects, which is why they are apposing points. Evolution teaches the unscientific notion that everything came about by natural, mindless forces. This notion has never been observed and has been disproved by science.
Creation teaches everything came about by Intelligent Design. This fact agrees with the facts of science.
You don't have a very good memory do you? Scientists have invited him to participate in open debate. Brown refuses, or lays down ground rules that bias towards him, then, when anyone accepts those rules, he changes his rules & then refuses point blank to participate in any such debate (something which I have previously provided copies of the communications in this thread). He doesn't want a debate, he wants a platform because he knows that he wouldn't stand a chance in a debate.
Try "In The Beginning", by some prick by the name of Dolt Brown. A perfect example.
You simply haven't look at ANY of the links I provided, have you? Therein lies a host of evidence.
And there you have it. That is how Cherry Picking works. "That dog is black (scientific fact) - therefore all dogs are black".
Earlier you denied that the conclusion precedes the facts. Now you are stating the exact opposite. Scientists form their conclusions based on the evidence before them. The evidence comes FIRST.
And once again, throughout this post you have continually placed Evolution & Creationism as opposing points, when they are, in fact, 2 totally different subjects. One has nothing to do with the other, apart from the fact that Creationists fear it simply because it is Scientific & incites people to think for themselves about the rationale behind other superstitious claims.
Well, you finally made an accurate statement. Evolution and Creationism are indeed two different subjects, which is why they are apposing points. Evolution teaches the unscientific notion that everything came about by natural, mindless forces. This notion has never been observed and has been disproved by science.
Creation teaches everything came about by Intelligent Design. This fact agrees with the facts of science.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1490927 wrote: Well, you finally made an accurate statement. Evolution and Creationism are indeed two different subjects, which is why they are apposing points. Evolution teaches the unscientific notion that everything came about by natural, mindless forces. This notion has never been observed and has been disproved by science.
No it doesn't. It doesn't teach that anything came about from anything. It demonstrates how things have changed. Things change. Things have always changed. They are still changing & will continue to change. Both you & Brown (same thing, I know) have even admitted this much. The changed observed are BASED on science. It is therefore impossible for it to be proved wrong BY science.
Creation teaches everything came about by Intelligent Design. This fact agrees with the facts of science.
Correct, except for the "Facts of science" bit. There are absolutely no scientific facts to support Intelligent Design / Creationism. You have been challenged over & over again to provide any, and all you have ever come up with are the pasted dreamings of Brown, which have been debunked multiple times, and your famous lists of meaningless names & publications - neither of which demonstrate any facts whatsoever.
So - which chapter are you about to paste next? You cannot come up with any supporting facts for yourself, as that would involve some degree of independent thought. All you can do is paste the wild, unfounded claims of Brown.
No it doesn't. It doesn't teach that anything came about from anything. It demonstrates how things have changed. Things change. Things have always changed. They are still changing & will continue to change. Both you & Brown (same thing, I know) have even admitted this much. The changed observed are BASED on science. It is therefore impossible for it to be proved wrong BY science.
Creation teaches everything came about by Intelligent Design. This fact agrees with the facts of science.
Correct, except for the "Facts of science" bit. There are absolutely no scientific facts to support Intelligent Design / Creationism. You have been challenged over & over again to provide any, and all you have ever come up with are the pasted dreamings of Brown, which have been debunked multiple times, and your famous lists of meaningless names & publications - neither of which demonstrate any facts whatsoever.
So - which chapter are you about to paste next? You cannot come up with any supporting facts for yourself, as that would involve some degree of independent thought. All you can do is paste the wild, unfounded claims of Brown.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490928 wrote: No it doesn't. It doesn't teach that anything came about from anything. It demonstrates how things have changed. Things change. Things have always changed. They are still changing & will continue to change. Both you & Brown (same thing, I know) have even admitted this much. The changed observed are BASED on science. It is therefore impossible for it to be proved wrong BY science.
Yes, change is a fact of life as long as you are not claiming change from one kind of animal into another kind of animal as evolution claims.
Creation teaches everything came about by Intelligent Design. This fact agrees with the facts of science.
Correct, except for the "Facts of science" bit. There are absolutely no scientific facts to support Intelligent Design / Creationism. You have been challenged over & over again to provide any, and all you have ever come up with are the pasted dreamings of Brown, which have been debunked multiple times, and your famous lists of meaningless names & publications - neither of which demonstrate any facts whatsoever.
Actually, Intelligent Design is scientific. Here are the facts:
Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?
The Short Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.
The Long Answer:
Intelligent design uses the scientific method to detect design. The following is a description of the scientific method:
Basic Intelligent Design:
i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.
ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.
iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.
iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.
FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?
Yes, change is a fact of life as long as you are not claiming change from one kind of animal into another kind of animal as evolution claims.
Creation teaches everything came about by Intelligent Design. This fact agrees with the facts of science.
Correct, except for the "Facts of science" bit. There are absolutely no scientific facts to support Intelligent Design / Creationism. You have been challenged over & over again to provide any, and all you have ever come up with are the pasted dreamings of Brown, which have been debunked multiple times, and your famous lists of meaningless names & publications - neither of which demonstrate any facts whatsoever.
Actually, Intelligent Design is scientific. Here are the facts:
Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?
The Short Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.
The Long Answer:
Intelligent design uses the scientific method to detect design. The following is a description of the scientific method:
Basic Intelligent Design:
i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.
ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.
iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.
iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.
FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Just as predicted you once again revert to pasting - never any of your own arguments - just someone else's falsehoods. The very first phrase clearly demonstrates how it is wrong. After that one need continue no further.
scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
Now, if that were truly Scientific, it would be "Observation that something produces complex & specified information". By starting with the assumption of it being Intelligent Design proves the fact that it is just a preconception with no supporting evidence whatsoever, and nothing to do with a Scientific approach at all. Is a snowflake formed by Intelligent Design, or is it just a random event brought about by atmospheric conditions?
scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
Now, if that were truly Scientific, it would be "Observation that something produces complex & specified information". By starting with the assumption of it being Intelligent Design proves the fact that it is just a preconception with no supporting evidence whatsoever, and nothing to do with a Scientific approach at all. Is a snowflake formed by Intelligent Design, or is it just a random event brought about by atmospheric conditions?
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1490930 wrote: Just as predicted you once again revert to pasting - never any of your own arguments - just someone else's falsehoods. The very first phrase clearly demonstrates how it is wrong. After that one need continue no further.
Now, if that were truly Scientific, it would be "Observation that something produces complex & specified information". By starting with the assumption of it being Intelligent Design proves the fact that it is just a preconception with no supporting evidence whatsoever, and nothing to do with a Scientific approach at all. Is a snowflake formed by Intelligent Design, or is it just a random event brought about by atmospheric conditions?
Isn't that your assumption? A snowflake is the result of natural causes but a watch is the result of intelligent design. Then there is design in nature:
[continue]
Now, if that were truly Scientific, it would be "Observation that something produces complex & specified information". By starting with the assumption of it being Intelligent Design proves the fact that it is just a preconception with no supporting evidence whatsoever, and nothing to do with a Scientific approach at all. Is a snowflake formed by Intelligent Design, or is it just a random event brought about by atmospheric conditions?
Isn't that your assumption? A snowflake is the result of natural causes but a watch is the result of intelligent design. Then there is design in nature:
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.