Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Big Bang? 13
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).
y. “Big Bang Gone Quiet, Nature,Vol. 372, 24 November 1994, p. 304.
Michael J. Pierce et al., “The Hubble Constant and Virgo Cluster Distance from Observations of Cepheid Variables,Nature,Vol. 371, 29 September 1994, pp. 385–389.
Wendy L. Freedman et al., “Distance to the Virgo Cluster Galaxy M100 from Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Cepheids,Nature,Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, pp. 757–762.
N. R. Tanvir et al., “Determination of the Hubble Constant from Observations of Cepheid Variables in the Galaxy M96,Nature,Vol. 377, 7 September 1995, pp. 27–31.
Robert C. Kennicutt Jr., “An Old Galaxy in a Young Universe,Nature,Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 555–556.
James Dunlop, “A 3.5-Gyr-Old Galaxy at Redshift 1.55,
Nature, Vol. 381, 13 June 1996, pp. 581–584.
“It’s clear to most people that you can’t be older than your mother. Astronomers understand this, too, which is why they’re so uncomfortable these days. The oldest stars in globular clusters seem to date back 15 billion years. The universe appears to be only 9 billion to 12 billion years old. At least one of those conclusions is wrong.William J. Cook, “How Old Is the Universe?U.S. News & World Report,18–25 August 1997, p. 34.
z.“I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big-bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers.Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang Under Attack,Science Digest,May 1984, p. 84. 57a.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ho Hum
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1486349 wrote:
If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe.
This much is correct
According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.
How Old is the Universe?
When Did Life First Appear on Earth?
The earliest evidence for life found so far is in a 3.8 billion-year-old rock, the Isua sediments, found in western Greenland. The evidence for life in these rocks does not come from fossilized remains, but from a peculiar chemical signature of living organisms. These rocks were deposited on the surface of an oceanic crust on what was thought to be a deep ocean. So the Isua sediments are actually an ancient sea-floor.
When did Life first Appear on Earth?
This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories.
Says who - apart from Brown & the Bible? According to the EVIDENCE (as cited above), there is a 10 BILLION year gap (13.8 - 3.8 - elementary maths, even for you) between the Big Bang & the earliest discovered forms of life.
Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect
That might be true, if Brown could count. As he clearly can't Brown's theory is incorrect. Remember, Brown's basis for his 'evidence' is that the earth has only been here for 6000 years, whereas evolution has taken at least 3.8 billion years. Your own quote has confirmed that Brown's claim cannot possibly be true. He bases his fantasies on unfounded conjecture & calls them 'facts'.
(y). All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred (z).
On the contrary, it's the observations that affirm the probability.
You know, I had one of those "I saw this & thought of you" moments earlier today when I saw this quote on FaceBook.
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Richard P. Feynman
If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe.
This much is correct
According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.
How Old is the Universe?
When Did Life First Appear on Earth?
The earliest evidence for life found so far is in a 3.8 billion-year-old rock, the Isua sediments, found in western Greenland. The evidence for life in these rocks does not come from fossilized remains, but from a peculiar chemical signature of living organisms. These rocks were deposited on the surface of an oceanic crust on what was thought to be a deep ocean. So the Isua sediments are actually an ancient sea-floor.
When did Life first Appear on Earth?
This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories.
Says who - apart from Brown & the Bible? According to the EVIDENCE (as cited above), there is a 10 BILLION year gap (13.8 - 3.8 - elementary maths, even for you) between the Big Bang & the earliest discovered forms of life.
Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect
That might be true, if Brown could count. As he clearly can't Brown's theory is incorrect. Remember, Brown's basis for his 'evidence' is that the earth has only been here for 6000 years, whereas evolution has taken at least 3.8 billion years. Your own quote has confirmed that Brown's claim cannot possibly be true. He bases his fantasies on unfounded conjecture & calls them 'facts'.
(y). All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred (z).
On the contrary, it's the observations that affirm the probability.
You know, I had one of those "I saw this & thought of you" moments earlier today when I saw this quote on FaceBook.
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Richard P. Feynman
Science Disproves Evolution
An interesting article from yesterday. More evidence of how Scientists are "Disproving" evolution:
Scientists Release 'Tree Of Life' For 2.3 Million Species: What This Reveals About Evolution : SCIENCE : Tech Times
Scientists Release 'Tree Of Life' For 2.3 Million Species: What This Reveals About Evolution : SCIENCE : Tech Times
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1486539 wrote: An interesting article from yesterday. More evidence of how Scientists are "Disproving" evolution:
Scientists Release 'Tree Of Life' For 2.3 Million Species: What This Reveals About Evolution : SCIENCE : Tech Times
Is the evolutionary tree turning into a creationist orchard?
by Pierre Jerlström
Introduction
Evolutionists often infer that all organisms are related based on similarities at the physiological and anatomical level and, more recently, on ribosomal RNA (rRNA) homology at the gene level. Eldredge has highlighted this in his statement: ‘ ¦ the major prediction of evolutionary theory is that there is one single nested pattern of resemblance linking all organisms’.1 As a result, there has been an attempt to group all life into one phylogenetic or family tree. But the large gaps between many supposed relatives have been a constant headache.
The recent elucidation of the complete genome sequences of 20 microorganisms has given fresh hope that this new data will help to reduce the gaps and strengthen the rRNA tree of life. But the data is instead proving to be a Trojan horse, as sequence comparison between homologous genes is yielding unexpected relatives and evolutionary lines, and different trees from the one originally predicted.2
Revised evolutionary model
Contrary ideas about phylogeny.
A. Original evolutionary tree, which postulates that all today’s species are descended from one common ancestor (after Wieland, concept by Wise).
B. Revised evolutionary tree, depicting horizontal transfer among branches and a community of ancestral cells (after Doolittle).
C. The Creationist orchard. Diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (baramins) (after Wieland, concept by Wise).
A. Original evolutionary tree, which postulates that all today’s species are descended from one common ancestor (after Wieland, concept by Wise).
B. Revised evolutionary tree, depicting horizontal transfer among branches and a community of ancestral cells (after Doolittle).
C. The Creationist orchard. Diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (baramins) (after Wieland, concept by Wise).
In order to accommodate the new data, a new model for the evolutionary tree of life has been proposed which embraces the endosymbiont hypothesis (see below) and horizontal/lateral gene transfer (HT; gene exchange between unrelated microorganisms). Also, instead of one single organism at the root of the tree, a community of primitive cells is now believed to be the common ancestor:
‘It was communal, a loosely knit, diverse conglomeration of primitive cells that evolved as a unit, ¦ and became the three primary lines of descent [archaea, bacteria and eukarya].’
As a result, the once simple tree with a single trunk, rooted to a hypothetical 3.5 billion year old, ancient prokaryote, has become a tangled brier (see trees A and B in diagram), causing much frustration and discouragement.
‘There’s so much lateral transfer that even the concept of the tree is debatable.’
‘It is as if we have failed at the task that Darwin set for us: delineating the unique structure of the tree of life.’
But what is the scientific evidence for the involvement of the endosymbiont hypothesis and HT, two main tenets of this new model, in evolution?
Problems with the endosymbiont hypothesis
In the original endosymbiont model, an ‘ancient’ eukaryote with a nucleus supposedly evolved from an archaea-like prokaryote. It later engulfed an ancient prokaryote and a cyanobacterium (at separate times) that became mutually advantageous with the eukaryote host and developed into a mitochondrion and a chloroplast, respectively.
This simplistic original model has now been challenged, since ‘Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere.’
To try to solve this dilemma, two prominent phylogenetic theorists have proposed that an unknown and now extinct fourth domain of organisms transferred those genes horizontally into the eukaryotic nuclear genome.6 But there is no evidence for such a fourth domain of organisms, and this new idea unfortunately appears to be another ‘just so’ addition to help patch up an ailing hypothesis.
As shown in the following examples, current evidence also conflicts with the stepwise evolution from prokaryote to primitive eukaryote and then to eukaryote, proposed by the endosymbiont model:
‘Mitochondrion-free’ eukaryotes were believed to be descendants of ancient proto-eukaryotes, but mitochondrial genes have now been discovered in the eukaryotes’ nuclear genomes.
A preserved protistan (single celled eukaryote) apparently dated to 1.4 billion years old appears to have had well-developed organelles, confirming the lack of evolutionary development of these structures and that fully functional organelles were always present in eukaryotes.
Horizontal transfer (HT)
Bacteria have three main modes of exchanging DNA:
Conjugation is used for exchanging plasmids. Plasmids are extrachromosomal, circular DNA molecules that carry not only genes needed for their own replication and transfer, but genes coding for proteins that protect bacteria, e.g. metabolic enzymes that break down toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls, antibiotics, etc.
The plasmid-containing donor cell uses a pilus, an appendage that attaches to a recipient cell with a pilus receptor, to pull the cells together—some bacteria use chemicals called clumping factors instead of pili. A bridge, or pore, forms between the two cells and a copy of the plasmid is transferred. After transfer, the cells separate. It is possible, although quite rare, to transfer an entire chromosome by this process.
Bacteria can also pick up free DNA from their surroundings by transformation. For this to occur, cells must have specialised surface proteins to bind and to internalise the DNA. Transformation, however, is very rare in bacteria.
The third mode of exchange—transduction—involves bacterial viruses (bacteriophages). After a virus has injected itself into the host cell, it uses the cell’s DNA replication machinery to make many copies of itself. The cell eventually bursts, and the released virus particles are then able to infect other cells. Normally, viral DNA is packaged into the new virus particles, but sometimes some virus particles instead acquire bacterial host DNA. It is these particles that are used to deliver whole plasmids, as well as pieces of bacterial chromosome, to other bacterial cells.
As a result, the once simple tree with a single trunk, rooted to a single 3.5 billion year old ancient prokaryote, has become a tangled brier ¦
Although these modes of genetic exchange are known to occur within bacterial species, it is believed that they are also involved in the HT of genetic material between unrelated microorganisms. The most quoted example is that of drug resistant pathogenic bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus (golden staph), which appear to have arisen from the exchange of plasmids, carrying multiple antibiotic resistance genes, between different bacterial species in the human body. It is important to note, however, that this exchange simply involves the sharing of genes already present in bacteria, and does not result in the appearance of complex, new genetic information. When the selective conditions are removed, the acquired genetic information becomes redundant and is eventually discarded by the cells to enable them to survive among the faster-growing wild-type bacteria. This is hardly an ‘uphill’ evolutionary process leading to the formation of complex organs and structures.
What is overlooked then, is that bacteria live in a variety of environments (such as soil, water and inside plants and animals) and have the growth dynamics and the capability, as single cells, for genetic exchange, which they require to survive and adapt to changes in their environments. This merely shows the in-built, creative design in bacteria that allows them to occupy the bottom of the food cycling chains in a range of ecosystems. But it does not support microbe-to-man evolution.
[continue]
Scientists Release 'Tree Of Life' For 2.3 Million Species: What This Reveals About Evolution : SCIENCE : Tech Times
Is the evolutionary tree turning into a creationist orchard?
by Pierre Jerlström
Introduction
Evolutionists often infer that all organisms are related based on similarities at the physiological and anatomical level and, more recently, on ribosomal RNA (rRNA) homology at the gene level. Eldredge has highlighted this in his statement: ‘ ¦ the major prediction of evolutionary theory is that there is one single nested pattern of resemblance linking all organisms’.1 As a result, there has been an attempt to group all life into one phylogenetic or family tree. But the large gaps between many supposed relatives have been a constant headache.
The recent elucidation of the complete genome sequences of 20 microorganisms has given fresh hope that this new data will help to reduce the gaps and strengthen the rRNA tree of life. But the data is instead proving to be a Trojan horse, as sequence comparison between homologous genes is yielding unexpected relatives and evolutionary lines, and different trees from the one originally predicted.2
Revised evolutionary model
Contrary ideas about phylogeny.
A. Original evolutionary tree, which postulates that all today’s species are descended from one common ancestor (after Wieland, concept by Wise).
B. Revised evolutionary tree, depicting horizontal transfer among branches and a community of ancestral cells (after Doolittle).
C. The Creationist orchard. Diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (baramins) (after Wieland, concept by Wise).
A. Original evolutionary tree, which postulates that all today’s species are descended from one common ancestor (after Wieland, concept by Wise).
B. Revised evolutionary tree, depicting horizontal transfer among branches and a community of ancestral cells (after Doolittle).
C. The Creationist orchard. Diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (baramins) (after Wieland, concept by Wise).
In order to accommodate the new data, a new model for the evolutionary tree of life has been proposed which embraces the endosymbiont hypothesis (see below) and horizontal/lateral gene transfer (HT; gene exchange between unrelated microorganisms). Also, instead of one single organism at the root of the tree, a community of primitive cells is now believed to be the common ancestor:
‘It was communal, a loosely knit, diverse conglomeration of primitive cells that evolved as a unit, ¦ and became the three primary lines of descent [archaea, bacteria and eukarya].’
As a result, the once simple tree with a single trunk, rooted to a hypothetical 3.5 billion year old, ancient prokaryote, has become a tangled brier (see trees A and B in diagram), causing much frustration and discouragement.
‘There’s so much lateral transfer that even the concept of the tree is debatable.’
‘It is as if we have failed at the task that Darwin set for us: delineating the unique structure of the tree of life.’
But what is the scientific evidence for the involvement of the endosymbiont hypothesis and HT, two main tenets of this new model, in evolution?
Problems with the endosymbiont hypothesis
In the original endosymbiont model, an ‘ancient’ eukaryote with a nucleus supposedly evolved from an archaea-like prokaryote. It later engulfed an ancient prokaryote and a cyanobacterium (at separate times) that became mutually advantageous with the eukaryote host and developed into a mitochondrion and a chloroplast, respectively.
This simplistic original model has now been challenged, since ‘Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere.’
To try to solve this dilemma, two prominent phylogenetic theorists have proposed that an unknown and now extinct fourth domain of organisms transferred those genes horizontally into the eukaryotic nuclear genome.6 But there is no evidence for such a fourth domain of organisms, and this new idea unfortunately appears to be another ‘just so’ addition to help patch up an ailing hypothesis.
As shown in the following examples, current evidence also conflicts with the stepwise evolution from prokaryote to primitive eukaryote and then to eukaryote, proposed by the endosymbiont model:
‘Mitochondrion-free’ eukaryotes were believed to be descendants of ancient proto-eukaryotes, but mitochondrial genes have now been discovered in the eukaryotes’ nuclear genomes.
A preserved protistan (single celled eukaryote) apparently dated to 1.4 billion years old appears to have had well-developed organelles, confirming the lack of evolutionary development of these structures and that fully functional organelles were always present in eukaryotes.
Horizontal transfer (HT)
Bacteria have three main modes of exchanging DNA:
Conjugation is used for exchanging plasmids. Plasmids are extrachromosomal, circular DNA molecules that carry not only genes needed for their own replication and transfer, but genes coding for proteins that protect bacteria, e.g. metabolic enzymes that break down toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls, antibiotics, etc.
The plasmid-containing donor cell uses a pilus, an appendage that attaches to a recipient cell with a pilus receptor, to pull the cells together—some bacteria use chemicals called clumping factors instead of pili. A bridge, or pore, forms between the two cells and a copy of the plasmid is transferred. After transfer, the cells separate. It is possible, although quite rare, to transfer an entire chromosome by this process.
Bacteria can also pick up free DNA from their surroundings by transformation. For this to occur, cells must have specialised surface proteins to bind and to internalise the DNA. Transformation, however, is very rare in bacteria.
The third mode of exchange—transduction—involves bacterial viruses (bacteriophages). After a virus has injected itself into the host cell, it uses the cell’s DNA replication machinery to make many copies of itself. The cell eventually bursts, and the released virus particles are then able to infect other cells. Normally, viral DNA is packaged into the new virus particles, but sometimes some virus particles instead acquire bacterial host DNA. It is these particles that are used to deliver whole plasmids, as well as pieces of bacterial chromosome, to other bacterial cells.
As a result, the once simple tree with a single trunk, rooted to a single 3.5 billion year old ancient prokaryote, has become a tangled brier ¦
Although these modes of genetic exchange are known to occur within bacterial species, it is believed that they are also involved in the HT of genetic material between unrelated microorganisms. The most quoted example is that of drug resistant pathogenic bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus (golden staph), which appear to have arisen from the exchange of plasmids, carrying multiple antibiotic resistance genes, between different bacterial species in the human body. It is important to note, however, that this exchange simply involves the sharing of genes already present in bacteria, and does not result in the appearance of complex, new genetic information. When the selective conditions are removed, the acquired genetic information becomes redundant and is eventually discarded by the cells to enable them to survive among the faster-growing wild-type bacteria. This is hardly an ‘uphill’ evolutionary process leading to the formation of complex organs and structures.
What is overlooked then, is that bacteria live in a variety of environments (such as soil, water and inside plants and animals) and have the growth dynamics and the capability, as single cells, for genetic exchange, which they require to survive and adapt to changes in their environments. This merely shows the in-built, creative design in bacteria that allows them to occupy the bottom of the food cycling chains in a range of ecosystems. But it does not support microbe-to-man evolution.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Is the evolutionary tree turning into a creationist orchard?
by Pierre Jerlström
[continued]
The creationist orchard
As the evolutionary’ picture of origins is still unclear, scientists are hoping that analysis of additional genomic sequences and molecular phylogeny will bring some new light. However, they admit that, ‘Now new hypotheses, having final forms we cannot yet guess, are called for.’
Comparisons of the DNA sequence data from the recently sequenced genomes, which have been determined by testable and repeatable scientific means, conflict with Darwin’s single evolutionary tree of life. As a result, polyphyly, in one sense the opposite of evolution or common ancestry, has been embraced in the form of HT and a community of ancestral cells. This is not surprising, as ReMine predicted that evolutionary ideology is bound to naturalism and simply ‘accommodates’ all evidence to fit reworked evolutionary models, thus showing that it is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific according to science philosopher Carl Popper’s primary criterion. He even predicted that evolutionists would increasingly resort to such lateral transfer.
If we tease apart the evolutionary brier and remove the hypothesised evolutionary HT ‘links’ between the branches, we obtain separate trees with individual trunks and roots. This is highly reminiscent of the creationist ‘orchard’, a biblical model for the origin and diversity of all life (see tree C in diagram) which was predicted by the scientific creation movement at its inception. In the creationist orchard, the trunk of each tree represents an original created kind or baramin, and the branches correspond to the diversity within a kind due to (limited) speciation, as for example, seen in the dog/wolf/jackal/coyote kind.
Conclusion
The creationist orchard agrees with the current genome sequence data, since anatomical, physiological and/or genetic similarities between kinds/baramins do not represent phylogeny but a designer. Evolutionary reasoning, on the other hand, cannot unravel the tangled phylogenetic brier and is unable to understand the true origin and diversity of created life, because its premises of naturalism and materialism axiomatically exclude the original work of a divine Creator.
The introduction of HT, the opposite of evolution or common ancestry, into the revised evolutionary model, clearly shows that nested hierarchy/phylogeny was never a prediction of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory simply keeps changing its ‘goalposts’ to produce reworked models that suit the current scientific beliefs.
Is the evolutionary tree changing into a creationist orchard? - creation.com
by Pierre Jerlström
[continued]
The creationist orchard
As the evolutionary’ picture of origins is still unclear, scientists are hoping that analysis of additional genomic sequences and molecular phylogeny will bring some new light. However, they admit that, ‘Now new hypotheses, having final forms we cannot yet guess, are called for.’
Comparisons of the DNA sequence data from the recently sequenced genomes, which have been determined by testable and repeatable scientific means, conflict with Darwin’s single evolutionary tree of life. As a result, polyphyly, in one sense the opposite of evolution or common ancestry, has been embraced in the form of HT and a community of ancestral cells. This is not surprising, as ReMine predicted that evolutionary ideology is bound to naturalism and simply ‘accommodates’ all evidence to fit reworked evolutionary models, thus showing that it is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific according to science philosopher Carl Popper’s primary criterion. He even predicted that evolutionists would increasingly resort to such lateral transfer.
If we tease apart the evolutionary brier and remove the hypothesised evolutionary HT ‘links’ between the branches, we obtain separate trees with individual trunks and roots. This is highly reminiscent of the creationist ‘orchard’, a biblical model for the origin and diversity of all life (see tree C in diagram) which was predicted by the scientific creation movement at its inception. In the creationist orchard, the trunk of each tree represents an original created kind or baramin, and the branches correspond to the diversity within a kind due to (limited) speciation, as for example, seen in the dog/wolf/jackal/coyote kind.
Conclusion
The creationist orchard agrees with the current genome sequence data, since anatomical, physiological and/or genetic similarities between kinds/baramins do not represent phylogeny but a designer. Evolutionary reasoning, on the other hand, cannot unravel the tangled phylogenetic brier and is unable to understand the true origin and diversity of created life, because its premises of naturalism and materialism axiomatically exclude the original work of a divine Creator.
The introduction of HT, the opposite of evolution or common ancestry, into the revised evolutionary model, clearly shows that nested hierarchy/phylogeny was never a prediction of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory simply keeps changing its ‘goalposts’ to produce reworked models that suit the current scientific beliefs.
Is the evolutionary tree changing into a creationist orchard? - creation.com
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Why am I not surprised? Provide the evidence to prove evolution, from a plethora of Scientific sources, backed up evidence to back up their evidence, formed by a multitude of Universities, each working from their own objective viewpoint, each coming to the same conclusions, based on the demonstrable evidence, and Pahu replies by pasting the same old Creationist crap, denying the existence of such evidence.
None of the evidence disproves Darwin's original concept - far from it - it supports it. Also, bear in mind that Darwin himself was dubious about what he had discovered, being a Religious person himself, but also being a Scientist he had to accept the evidence of his own eyes & formed his groundbreaking theory on the basis of that evidence. His initial theory cannot be taken as the be all & end all of everything. He even doubted himself, and the amount of evidence was still very limited & so bound to be flawed in part. However, the seed that he planted has proved to be worthy of flourishing and has since nearly 200 years of progress to verify his initial findings & to prove that he had the right idea. Remember, Darwin didn't have the concept of DNA, but it has in latter years proved to substantiate his theories.
If Evolution did not exist there would be one of 2 things.
1. A static number of species unchanged since the beginning of life - less, in fact because, according to the Bible every species upon the earth would have had to be able to fit into the Ark & survive for 40 day & 40 nights. If the carnivores didn't feed on the herbivores they would have surely starved and if they did, then the herbivores wouldn't have survived.
2. By continual mutation there would be no individual species, as over time each one would have become unique.
Darwin's primary theory was that of Survival of the Fittest, Those most suited to their environment (flora or fauna) would flourish & live to pass on their genes to future generations, adapting to their changing environment more & more with each successive generation. This is why there is so much danger of introducing species to a closed, non-native environment - such as with Australia & rabbits, or UK with Grey Squirrels, or Japanese Knotweed. They all flourish to the detriment of native species. The dinosaurs died out because their reptilian, cold blooded bodies could not cope with the Nuclear Winter, which only the earlier warm blooded creatures survived.
The evidence to support evolution is overwhelming, while there is absolutely none to refute it, other than unfounded claims based on the supposed existence of some imaginary Deity, which is apparently the Magic Bullet to answer all questions they don't want to be faced with.
None of the evidence disproves Darwin's original concept - far from it - it supports it. Also, bear in mind that Darwin himself was dubious about what he had discovered, being a Religious person himself, but also being a Scientist he had to accept the evidence of his own eyes & formed his groundbreaking theory on the basis of that evidence. His initial theory cannot be taken as the be all & end all of everything. He even doubted himself, and the amount of evidence was still very limited & so bound to be flawed in part. However, the seed that he planted has proved to be worthy of flourishing and has since nearly 200 years of progress to verify his initial findings & to prove that he had the right idea. Remember, Darwin didn't have the concept of DNA, but it has in latter years proved to substantiate his theories.
If Evolution did not exist there would be one of 2 things.
1. A static number of species unchanged since the beginning of life - less, in fact because, according to the Bible every species upon the earth would have had to be able to fit into the Ark & survive for 40 day & 40 nights. If the carnivores didn't feed on the herbivores they would have surely starved and if they did, then the herbivores wouldn't have survived.
2. By continual mutation there would be no individual species, as over time each one would have become unique.
Darwin's primary theory was that of Survival of the Fittest, Those most suited to their environment (flora or fauna) would flourish & live to pass on their genes to future generations, adapting to their changing environment more & more with each successive generation. This is why there is so much danger of introducing species to a closed, non-native environment - such as with Australia & rabbits, or UK with Grey Squirrels, or Japanese Knotweed. They all flourish to the detriment of native species. The dinosaurs died out because their reptilian, cold blooded bodies could not cope with the Nuclear Winter, which only the earlier warm blooded creatures survived.
The evidence to support evolution is overwhelming, while there is absolutely none to refute it, other than unfounded claims based on the supposed existence of some imaginary Deity, which is apparently the Magic Bullet to answer all questions they don't want to be faced with.
Science Disproves Evolution
Wise Words:
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1486601 wrote: Why am I not surprised? Provide the evidence to prove evolution, from a plethora of Scientific sources, backed up evidence to back up their evidence, formed by a multitude of Universities, each working from their own objective viewpoint, each coming to the same conclusions, based on the demonstrable evidence, and Pahu replies by pasting the same old Creationist crap, denying the existence of such evidence.
There is no evidence for evolution and much against it. Here are the facts:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
[continue]
There is no evidence for evolution and much against it. Here are the facts:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION
[continued]
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
[continued]
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1486601 wrote:
If Evolution did not exist there would be one of 2 things.
1. A static number of species unchanged since the beginning of life - less, in fact because, according to the Bible every species upon the earth would have had to be able to fit into the Ark & survive for 40 day & 40 nights. If the carnivores didn't feed on the herbivores they would have surely starved and if they did, then the herbivores wouldn't have survived.
Different kinds have remained the same from the beginning. There are numerous species of dogs but they are the same kind. That means there were no more than 1000 kinds or families on the ark. They were on the ark about a year according to the Bible. Before the Flood there is Biblical evidence they all were herbivores. Also, since God was in charge of the project, He would have made arrangements for their survival.
If Evolution did not exist there would be one of 2 things.
1. A static number of species unchanged since the beginning of life - less, in fact because, according to the Bible every species upon the earth would have had to be able to fit into the Ark & survive for 40 day & 40 nights. If the carnivores didn't feed on the herbivores they would have surely starved and if they did, then the herbivores wouldn't have survived.
Different kinds have remained the same from the beginning. There are numerous species of dogs but they are the same kind. That means there were no more than 1000 kinds or families on the ark. They were on the ark about a year according to the Bible. Before the Flood there is Biblical evidence they all were herbivores. Also, since God was in charge of the project, He would have made arrangements for their survival.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1486601 wrote:
Darwin's primary theory was that of Survival of the Fittest, Those most suited to their environment (flora or fauna) would flourish & live to pass on their genes to future generations, adapting to their changing environment more & more with each successive generation.
Natural selection or survival of the fittest does not create new traits in organisms: it only favors the spreading of advantageous pre-existing traits, and disfavors the spreading of disadvantageous pre-existing traits.
Darwin's primary theory was that of Survival of the Fittest, Those most suited to their environment (flora or fauna) would flourish & live to pass on their genes to future generations, adapting to their changing environment more & more with each successive generation.
Natural selection or survival of the fittest does not create new traits in organisms: it only favors the spreading of advantageous pre-existing traits, and disfavors the spreading of disadvantageous pre-existing traits.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1486601 wrote:
The evidence to support evolution is overwhelming, while there is absolutely none to refute it, other than unfounded claims based on the supposed existence of some imaginary Deity, which is apparently the Magic Bullet to answer all questions they don't want to be faced with.
As I have shared, scientists say there is no evidence supporting evolution.
The existence of God is no more imaginary than the universe. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural.
The evidence to support evolution is overwhelming, while there is absolutely none to refute it, other than unfounded claims based on the supposed existence of some imaginary Deity, which is apparently the Magic Bullet to answer all questions they don't want to be faced with.
As I have shared, scientists say there is no evidence supporting evolution.
The existence of God is no more imaginary than the universe. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
no evolution theory is just wishful thinking.
Science Disproves Evolution
I'm not even going to bother going into the same old pasting - there's nothing new there. However, I will comment on the highlight piece of text that demonstrates the ignorance of the writer:
The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
If you look at the very definition of Scientific Theory, it's the other way round. The facts come first. Then comes the Theory, based on those facts. If those facts didn't exist, and further facts being discovered all the time to support the theory, then we would still be believing in the Fairy Tale of talking snakes & the entire universe, the world, and all the life on it being created magically in the space of 6 days a little more than 5000 years ago. Even Darwin found the concept difficult to believe as it went against everything he had been taught was so, but he was a scientist & couldn't ignore the evidence before him. Of course he wasn't right on everything. No-one could expect him to be. Early scientists believed there were only 4 Elements - Fire, Water, Air & Earth - none of which are elements at all. Centuries later more Scientists began to learn more & discovered more about the world around them, but there would still be those that would insist on sticking to the erroneous belief that they were the only 4 elements & that everything was made from them.
The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
If you look at the very definition of Scientific Theory, it's the other way round. The facts come first. Then comes the Theory, based on those facts. If those facts didn't exist, and further facts being discovered all the time to support the theory, then we would still be believing in the Fairy Tale of talking snakes & the entire universe, the world, and all the life on it being created magically in the space of 6 days a little more than 5000 years ago. Even Darwin found the concept difficult to believe as it went against everything he had been taught was so, but he was a scientist & couldn't ignore the evidence before him. Of course he wasn't right on everything. No-one could expect him to be. Early scientists believed there were only 4 Elements - Fire, Water, Air & Earth - none of which are elements at all. Centuries later more Scientists began to learn more & discovered more about the world around them, but there would still be those that would insist on sticking to the erroneous belief that they were the only 4 elements & that everything was made from them.
Science Disproves Evolution
Don't forget the flat earth society. LOL. Good post.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1486668 wrote: I'm not even going to bother going into the same old pasting - there's nothing new there. However, I will comment on the highlight piece of text that demonstrates the ignorance of the writer:
The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
If you look at the very definition of Scientific Theory, it's the other way round. The facts come first. Then comes the Theory, based on those facts.
That is the way modern scientific method works. In the case of evolution, though, science must be made to fit the myth, which hasn't been done.
If those facts didn't exist, and further facts being discovered all the time to support the theory...
What facts support evolution?
...then we would still be believing in the Fairy Tale of talking snakes & the entire universe, the world, and all the life on it being created magically in the space of 6 days a little more than 5000 years ago.
Why do you believe the Bible is a fairy tale. The writers were able to reveal scientific facts that have just recently been discovered and they also accurately predicted the future. Here are the facts:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
http://www.campuslight.org/wvu/Evidence ... pter5.html Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
If you look at the very definition of Scientific Theory, it's the other way round. The facts come first. Then comes the Theory, based on those facts.
That is the way modern scientific method works. In the case of evolution, though, science must be made to fit the myth, which hasn't been done.
If those facts didn't exist, and further facts being discovered all the time to support the theory...
What facts support evolution?
...then we would still be believing in the Fairy Tale of talking snakes & the entire universe, the world, and all the life on it being created magically in the space of 6 days a little more than 5000 years ago.
Why do you believe the Bible is a fairy tale. The writers were able to reveal scientific facts that have just recently been discovered and they also accurately predicted the future. Here are the facts:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
http://www.campuslight.org/wvu/Evidence ... pter5.html Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1486670 wrote: Don't forget the flat earth society. LOL. Good post.
Did Bible writers believe the Earth was flat?
No, this false idea is not taught in Scripture.
Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “language of appearance, just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly.
In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.
A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end. A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.
Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round or “sphere.
“The Earth a Sphere—Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating round the earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it: ‘He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing’ (Job 26:7). (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)]
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.
The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth.
Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth “within 50 miles of the present estimate. [Encyclopedia Brittanica]
The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it.
The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus.
The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In that day, then in verse 34, “In that night. This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously.
It is also interesting to note that there are 16 scriptures which refer to God stretching out the heavens. These are remarkable confirmations that the Bible is true, as we know today that the heavens are rapidly expanding.
“When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.
More information
Who invented the concept of a flat Earth? Answer
But, doesn't the Bible refer to “the four corners of the earth. How can a spherical earth have corners? Answer
GALILEO—What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church? Answer
LESSONS FROM GALILEO—What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo? Answer
Astronomy questions-and-answers index
The Universe Confirms the Bible by Dr. Jason Lisle, Answers in Genesis (ChristianAnswers team member)
Did Bible writers believe the Earth was flat? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Did Bible writers believe the Earth was flat?
No, this false idea is not taught in Scripture.
Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “language of appearance, just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly.
In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.
A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end. A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.
Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round or “sphere.
“The Earth a Sphere—Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating round the earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it: ‘He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing’ (Job 26:7). (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)]
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.
The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth.
Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth “within 50 miles of the present estimate. [Encyclopedia Brittanica]
The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it.
The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus.
The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In that day, then in verse 34, “In that night. This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously.
It is also interesting to note that there are 16 scriptures which refer to God stretching out the heavens. These are remarkable confirmations that the Bible is true, as we know today that the heavens are rapidly expanding.
“When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.
More information
Who invented the concept of a flat Earth? Answer
But, doesn't the Bible refer to “the four corners of the earth. How can a spherical earth have corners? Answer
GALILEO—What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church? Answer
LESSONS FROM GALILEO—What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo? Answer
Astronomy questions-and-answers index
The Universe Confirms the Bible by Dr. Jason Lisle, Answers in Genesis (ChristianAnswers team member)
Did Bible writers believe the Earth was flat? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu, the only evidence you are showing is how narrow your field of knowledge is and how blinkered you are to any evidence that any reputable scientist would know and what we can read in reputable, peer reviewed journals. A refusal to accept what 99.99 percent of people accept.
I think the term is Cognitive dissonance.
All you ever do is repeat the same old same old. Be careful you don't dissapear in ever decreasing circles
I think the term is Cognitive dissonance.
All you ever do is repeat the same old same old. Be careful you don't dissapear in ever decreasing circles
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1486677 wrote: Pahu, the only evidence you are showing is how narrow your field of knowledge is and how blinkered you are to any evidence that any reputable scientist would know and what we can read in reputable, peer reviewed journals. A refusal to accept what 99.99 percent of people accept.
I think the term is Cognitive dissonance.
All you ever do is repeat the same old same old. Be careful you don't dissapear in ever decreasing circles
Why are you unable to refute the same old information I am sharing?
I think the term is Cognitive dissonance.
All you ever do is repeat the same old same old. Be careful you don't dissapear in ever decreasing circles
Why are you unable to refute the same old information I am sharing?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1486678 wrote: Why are you unable to refute the same old information I am sharing?
Oh but we all have. Since the thread started. Its your refusal to see round the blinkers and past Mr Brown's drivel. Your views are matched only by the flat earthers in terms of number of believers . Any self respecting person with a desire for knowledge would seek knowledge from any source they could and not just stick with a single book that reinforces the myth that 99.99 of us reject
Oh but we all have. Since the thread started. Its your refusal to see round the blinkers and past Mr Brown's drivel. Your views are matched only by the flat earthers in terms of number of believers . Any self respecting person with a desire for knowledge would seek knowledge from any source they could and not just stick with a single book that reinforces the myth that 99.99 of us reject
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1486678 wrote: Why are you unable to refute the same old information I am sharing?
So, we're making some progress.
Theory
Definition of theory in English:
noun (plural theories)
1 A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution
theory - definition of theory in English from the Oxford dictionary
Note the key phrases "Based on general principles". Independent of the thing to be explained. - Or do you dispute the OED as well?
Scientific Theory:
I see the numbers 2, 4, 6 8. I formulate a theory that these numbers have a pattern of incrementing in multiples of 2. Based on this theory I can predict that the next number in the series is likely to be 10.
Christian Science Theory:
I see the numbers 2, 4, 6 8. There are no other numbers. There is no pattern. These are the random numbers that God ordained at the beginning of the world. The number 8 is a falsehood because the Bible only ever made mention of there being 7 days because this was the last day - the day upon which He rested. There is no evidence for the existence of the number 8. It therefore doesn't exist.
So, we're making some progress.
Theory
Definition of theory in English:
noun (plural theories)
1 A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution
theory - definition of theory in English from the Oxford dictionary
Note the key phrases "Based on general principles". Independent of the thing to be explained. - Or do you dispute the OED as well?
Scientific Theory:
I see the numbers 2, 4, 6 8. I formulate a theory that these numbers have a pattern of incrementing in multiples of 2. Based on this theory I can predict that the next number in the series is likely to be 10.
Christian Science Theory:
I see the numbers 2, 4, 6 8. There are no other numbers. There is no pattern. These are the random numbers that God ordained at the beginning of the world. The number 8 is a falsehood because the Bible only ever made mention of there being 7 days because this was the last day - the day upon which He rested. There is no evidence for the existence of the number 8. It therefore doesn't exist.
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1486679 wrote: Oh but we all have. Since the thread started. Its your refusal to see round the blinkers and past Mr Brown's drivel. Your views are matched only by the flat earthers in terms of number of believers . Any self respecting person with a desire for knowledge would seek knowledge from any source they could and not just stick with a single book that reinforces the myth that 99.99 of us reject
What drivel? Perhaps the reason you reject the facts is because they refute your preconceptions. Why do you suppose scientists confirm Brown's conclusions? Here are a few 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, 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
What drivel? Perhaps the reason you reject the facts is because they refute your preconceptions. Why do you suppose scientists confirm Brown's conclusions? Here are a few 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, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu, you have boringly said all that before. Try not to keep repeating yourself - you offer nothing new to a thread like that !
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1486680 wrote: So, we're making some progress.
theory - definition of theory in English from the Oxford dictionary
Note the key phrases "Based on general principles". Independent of the thing to be explained. - Or do you dispute the OED as well?
Scientific Theory:
I see the numbers 2, 4, 6 8. I formulate a theory that these numbers have a pattern of incrementing in multiples of 2. Based on this theory I can predict that the next number in the series is likely to be 10.
Christian Science Theory:
I see the numbers 2, 4, 6 8. There are no other numbers. There is no pattern. These are the random numbers that God ordained at the beginning of the world. The number 8 is a falsehood because the Bible only ever made mention of there being 7 days because this was the last day - the day upon which He rested. There is no evidence for the existence of the number 8. It therefore doesn't exist.
Very funny. Isn't it interesting the whole world has a seven day week? Here is evidence the Bible is accurate:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
http://www.campuslight.org/wvu/Evidence ... pter5.html Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
theory - definition of theory in English from the Oxford dictionary
Note the key phrases "Based on general principles". Independent of the thing to be explained. - Or do you dispute the OED as well?
Scientific Theory:
I see the numbers 2, 4, 6 8. I formulate a theory that these numbers have a pattern of incrementing in multiples of 2. Based on this theory I can predict that the next number in the series is likely to be 10.
Christian Science Theory:
I see the numbers 2, 4, 6 8. There are no other numbers. There is no pattern. These are the random numbers that God ordained at the beginning of the world. The number 8 is a falsehood because the Bible only ever made mention of there being 7 days because this was the last day - the day upon which He rested. There is no evidence for the existence of the number 8. It therefore doesn't exist.
Very funny. Isn't it interesting the whole world has a seven day week? Here is evidence the Bible is accurate:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
http://www.campuslight.org/wvu/Evidence ... pter5.html Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
G#Gill;1486701 wrote: Pahu, you have boringly said all that before. Try not to keep repeating yourself - you offer nothing new to a thread like that !
I will stop repeating the facts when you stop repeating your erroneous statements.
I will stop repeating the facts when you stop repeating your erroneous statements.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1486703 wrote: I will stop repeating the facts when you stop repeating your erroneous statements.
You've yet to offer any facts. Nothing but opinion, ad infinitum.
You've yet to offer any facts. Nothing but opinion, ad infinitum.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1486706 wrote: You've yet to offer any facts. Nothing but opinion, ad infinitum.
You erroneous opinion noted.
You erroneous opinion noted.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
A fact is something that has a physical presence. Something that can be seen, touched & recorded. Everything I have listed falls under those categories, plus I have provided multiple corroborating references, all of which are verifiable by independent sources. You, on the other hand can only come up with the same old pasting of a known charlatan. As usual you cite the same old list from Who's Who & the local newsagent's stock list. However, despite multiple challenges you have never been able to marry the lists together. The reason is obvious - because you are unable to think for yourself. All you can do is blindly follow some idiot without question. If there were any truth to his claims of these scientists confirming his claims he would not hesitate to match the names to the articles, thus supporting his claims. You have already demonstrated beyond question that on the rare occasion he does provide a direct quote from someone, when traced to its original source (which he conveniently does cite himself) we see how the words were deliberately taken out of context in order to appear as if the meaning was the exact opposite of those intended. Therefore, until such time as you can provide precise references to exactly which of the list of names were published in which publications & where, citing the actual articles the everything you / Brown claims clearly remains the blatant lie it obviously is. Not once have you come up with a genuine peer review from an independent party (ie someone who doesn't work for him at his Creationist Institute) whereas I, on the other hand, have come up with several - including some from other Creationist sites at that - who totally denounce him. Do some of your own research for a change. Find some real independent sources who support him. He claims there are hundreds out there. I have yet to see one. He is unable to refer to any because there aren't any.
Anyone with the slightest trace of intelligence, when interested in a new concept, supposedly based on such evidence would ask themselves how they came about such an idea, & question the evidence - to check it against independent sources. Consider a courtroom trial. The accused insists that he is innocent, and produces a list of names who will apparently attest to the fact that he was elsewhere at the time of the crime. Plus he provides a list of magazines, with no explanation of any relevancy & cites that as evidence of his innocence. Nothing can be found that confirms what he says about these alibis of his. However, there is an abundance of evidence to prove that he is guilty. He has already produced statements from several other supposed aliases, which it turned out had been creatively edited to make it appear as if they were saying that he had been with him, when they actually had no idea who he was. Based on this scenario, is the jury supposed to acquit him?
1. It is an impressive list of names.
2. It is an impressive list of publications.
3. Without cross referencing one with the other any claims of anything said by any of the names in any of the publications is worthless, and can only be assumed to be fraudulent.
I find it difficult to believe that eve someone of your limited intelligence can't understand that & realise that by constantly repeating the pasting that you're showing yourself up to be even more of a fool (if that's possible) every single time.
Furthermore, with Brown's lies by creatively picking from quotes, consider this. His primary agenda is supposed to be that of exalting the word of God. Is there not something in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not bear false witness"?
Anyone with the slightest trace of intelligence, when interested in a new concept, supposedly based on such evidence would ask themselves how they came about such an idea, & question the evidence - to check it against independent sources. Consider a courtroom trial. The accused insists that he is innocent, and produces a list of names who will apparently attest to the fact that he was elsewhere at the time of the crime. Plus he provides a list of magazines, with no explanation of any relevancy & cites that as evidence of his innocence. Nothing can be found that confirms what he says about these alibis of his. However, there is an abundance of evidence to prove that he is guilty. He has already produced statements from several other supposed aliases, which it turned out had been creatively edited to make it appear as if they were saying that he had been with him, when they actually had no idea who he was. Based on this scenario, is the jury supposed to acquit him?
1. It is an impressive list of names.
2. It is an impressive list of publications.
3. Without cross referencing one with the other any claims of anything said by any of the names in any of the publications is worthless, and can only be assumed to be fraudulent.
I find it difficult to believe that eve someone of your limited intelligence can't understand that & realise that by constantly repeating the pasting that you're showing yourself up to be even more of a fool (if that's possible) every single time.
Furthermore, with Brown's lies by creatively picking from quotes, consider this. His primary agenda is supposed to be that of exalting the word of God. Is there not something in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not bear false witness"?
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1486723 wrote: If there were any truth to his claims of these scientists confirming his claims he would not hesitate to match the names to the articles, thus supporting his claims.
He has.
You have already demonstrated beyond question that on the rare occasion he does provide a direct quote from someone, when traced to its original source (which he conveniently does cite himself) we see how the words were deliberately taken out of context in order to appear as if the meaning was the exact opposite of those intended.
Show us where the quotes changed the meaning of the contexts.
Therefore, until such time as you can provide precise references to exactly which of the list of names were published in which publications & where, citing the actual articles the everything you / Brown claims clearly remains the blatant lie it obviously is.
Already provided.
Not once have you come up with a genuine peer review from an independent party (ie someone who doesn't work for him at his Creationist Institute) whereas I, on the other hand, have come up with several - including some from other Creationist sites at that - who totally denounce him. Do some of your own research for a change. Find some real independent sources who support him. He claims there are hundreds out there. I have yet to see one. He is unable to refer to any because there aren't any.
None of the scientists on that list work for him. What Creationist sites totally denounce him? Here some scientists who have specifically endorsed Walt Brown:
HERE’S WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THIS EXCITING BOOK
Walt Brown’s book is the rarest of species: It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions. This book is essential for any teacher or student who is serious about resolving these issues on the basis of the evidences rather than on opinions or unsubstantiated or unverifiable hypotheses.
Dr. C. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Furman University
The subject of origins is not peripheral; it is foundational. I have spent most of my adult career in universities in the U.S. and Europe (as a Fulbright scholar), and it is clear that Christianity is losing ground on college campuses. The Christian faith is becoming unraveled with bad science. I can say without reservation that In the Beginning is the single most useful resource I know of on this subject, bar none. Walt is both diligent and creative, and you will find the arguments concise and thought provoking. The material is helpful on almost any level, and the references will be invaluable to those wishing to dig deeper. If I had to send my child off with only two books, they would be the Bible and In the Beginning.
Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, The Center for Electromechanics, University of Texas at Austin
Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.
Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College
Dr. Walt Brown uses three striking gifts in his creation science research and teaching: (1) a highly organized mind, (2) the ability to consider scientific evidence without the encumbrance of conventional paradigms, and (3) the ability to articulate the material with complete clarity. Walt is a born teacher. This enables him to develop significant new theories, such as the hydroplate theory, and to present them with remarkable clarity in both his seminars and this book. I am convinced that everyone needs to be familiar with the landmark work documented in this book.
Dr. Stanley A. Mumma, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Walt Brown’s seminal text, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood has developed into a mature exposition of an important new approach to the geological sciences. The hydroplate theory is an alternate explanation of events of the Noahic flood, present-day geological features of the world, and actual mechanisms that operated then and continue to do so now. It directly challenges the current plate tectonics model of large-scale geology, and suggests a major revamping of the geological events associated with the flood God sent upon the world in light of the clear text of Genesis. It represents, then, a serious attempt at reconstructing the science of geology from the ground up.
Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Geology: Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory, Chalcedon Report
The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.
Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ements.htm
He has.
You have already demonstrated beyond question that on the rare occasion he does provide a direct quote from someone, when traced to its original source (which he conveniently does cite himself) we see how the words were deliberately taken out of context in order to appear as if the meaning was the exact opposite of those intended.
Show us where the quotes changed the meaning of the contexts.
Therefore, until such time as you can provide precise references to exactly which of the list of names were published in which publications & where, citing the actual articles the everything you / Brown claims clearly remains the blatant lie it obviously is.
Already provided.
Not once have you come up with a genuine peer review from an independent party (ie someone who doesn't work for him at his Creationist Institute) whereas I, on the other hand, have come up with several - including some from other Creationist sites at that - who totally denounce him. Do some of your own research for a change. Find some real independent sources who support him. He claims there are hundreds out there. I have yet to see one. He is unable to refer to any because there aren't any.
None of the scientists on that list work for him. What Creationist sites totally denounce him? Here some scientists who have specifically endorsed Walt Brown:
HERE’S WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THIS EXCITING BOOK
Walt Brown’s book is the rarest of species: It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions. This book is essential for any teacher or student who is serious about resolving these issues on the basis of the evidences rather than on opinions or unsubstantiated or unverifiable hypotheses.
Dr. C. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Furman University
The subject of origins is not peripheral; it is foundational. I have spent most of my adult career in universities in the U.S. and Europe (as a Fulbright scholar), and it is clear that Christianity is losing ground on college campuses. The Christian faith is becoming unraveled with bad science. I can say without reservation that In the Beginning is the single most useful resource I know of on this subject, bar none. Walt is both diligent and creative, and you will find the arguments concise and thought provoking. The material is helpful on almost any level, and the references will be invaluable to those wishing to dig deeper. If I had to send my child off with only two books, they would be the Bible and In the Beginning.
Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, The Center for Electromechanics, University of Texas at Austin
Classic uniformitarian geology has failed to solve a number of problems in geology. By contrast, using catastrophic basic assumptions, Dr. Brown has given scientists a way of addressing many problems that is philosophically sound and scientifically acceptable to objective thinkers. Never before have I encountered a more intellectually satisfying and respectable attack on a broad spectrum of geologic and biologic problems that are laid bare in this work.
Dr. Douglas A. Block, Geology Professor, Emeritus, Rock Valley College
Dr. Walt Brown uses three striking gifts in his creation science research and teaching: (1) a highly organized mind, (2) the ability to consider scientific evidence without the encumbrance of conventional paradigms, and (3) the ability to articulate the material with complete clarity. Walt is a born teacher. This enables him to develop significant new theories, such as the hydroplate theory, and to present them with remarkable clarity in both his seminars and this book. I am convinced that everyone needs to be familiar with the landmark work documented in this book.
Dr. Stanley A. Mumma, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Walt Brown’s seminal text, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood has developed into a mature exposition of an important new approach to the geological sciences. The hydroplate theory is an alternate explanation of events of the Noahic flood, present-day geological features of the world, and actual mechanisms that operated then and continue to do so now. It directly challenges the current plate tectonics model of large-scale geology, and suggests a major revamping of the geological events associated with the flood God sent upon the world in light of the clear text of Genesis. It represents, then, a serious attempt at reconstructing the science of geology from the ground up.
Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Geology: Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory, Chalcedon Report
The subject of origins is inherently interesting to all of us, yet this topic is so broad that one can get lost in the sheer volume of information. As a biologist and a Christian, I find In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood to be the most concise, scholarly treatment of the scientific evidence supporting creation that I have ever read. This book is a must for anyone who is serious about understanding the creation/evolution debate. Science teachers, regardless of religious affinities, should also find this excellent resource a valuable addition to their reference libraries.
Terrence R. Mondy, Outstanding Biology Teacher for Illinois, 1999–2000
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ements.htm
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I won't bother going through the list of out of context quotes again. You and everyone else here know exactly what I mean. Pleading ignorance of what has previously been argued & proven beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn't change matters.
"Independent" Endorsements:
C. Stuart Patterson - Founder of Creation Study Group
Biased - Not independent.
Kent B. Davey. - Worked for Center for Scientific Creation
Employee of Walt Brown - Biased - Not Independent.
Stanley A. Mumma - Member of Center for Scientific Creation
Employee of Walt Brown - Biased - Not Independent.
Martin Selbrede - President of Chalceon - an extremist "New World" Creationist organisation.
Biased - Not independent.
Douglas A. Block - The only mention of him online seems to be that he once got agitated at some other Creationist's manuscript regarding a similar theory & got in his car to drive to teach him about Historical Geology. The Wikipedia entry on him has been inexplicably deleted.
Unknown Creationist - unacceptable source.
Terrence R. Mondy - Who the hell is he? Only mention on Google is multiple entries of Pahu's pastes here & on innumerable other sites (identical pastings), with only reference to him being this one.
Could be Pahu's alias for all I can determine - unreliable.
So, where are all these "Independent" scientists? These are the results for each & every one you've listed - none of which has been found to be anywhere near "Independent" or unbiased.
"Independent" Endorsements:
C. Stuart Patterson - Founder of Creation Study Group
Biased - Not independent.
Kent B. Davey. - Worked for Center for Scientific Creation
Employee of Walt Brown - Biased - Not Independent.
Stanley A. Mumma - Member of Center for Scientific Creation
Employee of Walt Brown - Biased - Not Independent.
Martin Selbrede - President of Chalceon - an extremist "New World" Creationist organisation.
Biased - Not independent.
Douglas A. Block - The only mention of him online seems to be that he once got agitated at some other Creationist's manuscript regarding a similar theory & got in his car to drive to teach him about Historical Geology. The Wikipedia entry on him has been inexplicably deleted.
Unknown Creationist - unacceptable source.
Terrence R. Mondy - Who the hell is he? Only mention on Google is multiple entries of Pahu's pastes here & on innumerable other sites (identical pastings), with only reference to him being this one.
Could be Pahu's alias for all I can determine - unreliable.
So, where are all these "Independent" scientists? These are the results for each & every one you've listed - none of which has been found to be anywhere near "Independent" or unbiased.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1486722 wrote: You erroneous opinion noted.
Nope. opinion on your erroneous statements
Nope. opinion on your erroneous statements
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1486744 wrote: Nope. opinion on your erroneous statements
Perhaps a legal point. Nothing he says can really be classed as HIS erroneous statements, as nothing he writes are HIS words, but copies & pastings from Walt Brown.
Perhaps a legal point. Nothing he says can really be classed as HIS erroneous statements, as nothing he writes are HIS words, but copies & pastings from Walt Brown.
Science Disproves Evolution
Heavy Elements
Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin of heavy elements. (A big bang would produce only the three lightest elements: hydrogen, helium, and lithium.) The other 100+ elements supposedly formed deep inside stars and during stellar explosions. This theory is hard to verify, because stellar interiors and explosions cannot be carefully analyzed. However, a vast region of gas containing the mass of 300,000,000,000,000 suns has been found that is quite rich in iron and other heavy elements. The number of nearby visible stars is a thousand times too small to account for the heavy elements in that huge region (a). Heavy elements are even relatively abundant in nearly empty regions of space that are farthest from stars and galaxies (b).
Most hydrogen atoms weigh one atomic mass unit, but some, called heavy hydrogen, weigh two units. If everything in the universe came from a big bang or a swirling gas cloud, heavy hydrogen should be uniformly mixed with normal hydrogen. It is not (c). Comets have twice the concentration of heavy hydrogen as oceans. Oceans have 10–50 times the concentration as the solar system and interstellar matter. [See “Heavy Hydrogen here ]
a. “Given that the cluster apparently comprises few galaxies, yet contains a large amount of iron, a new type of astronomical object is implied by our results. A revision of theoretical models of the metal [heavy element] enrichment process in galaxy clusters may therefore be required, M. Hattori et al., “A Dark Cluster of Galaxies at Redshift z=1, Nature, Vol. 388, 10 July 1997, p. 146.
b. Lennox L. Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, “Heavy-Element Enrichment in Low-Density Regions of the Intergalactic Medium, Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, pp. 44–46.
c. “In both cases, the scatter of the observed values [of heavy hydrogen] is quite large and seems to reach a factor of 10. Although it is already surprising to see such variations within ~1000 pc from the sun, this looks unbelievable within only 30 pc from the sun. [1 pc (or parsec)=3.258 light-years] A. Vidal-Madjar, “Interstellar Helium and Deuterium, Diffuse Matter in Galaxies, editors J. Audouze et al. (Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983), pp. 77–78.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
It seems to me that Spong was correct. Some folks need the Buble to be inerrant and the absolute Word of God. It is a matter of security and certainty. Where as in this world there are two certainties death and taxes. It is nothing more than a cry for security.
Science Disproves Evolution
An interesting article:
BBC - Wonder Monkey: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
BBC - Wonder Monkey: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu; wrote:
f. If water came from millions of comets or small asteroids, the same steady rain would have bombarded Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, so they would all have begun with the same water characteristics, he says. However, the waters of those four planets now have dissimilar profiles, Owen and other geochemists have found. Ibid.
The carriers elemental and isotopic characteristics would have to have been unlike those of any object that researchers have yet found in the solar system....it doesnt seem geochemically plausible... Ibid., p. 186.
[From In the Beginning by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... nces5.html]
Liquid water exists on Mars, boosting hopes for life, NASA says - CNN.com
Throws that claim out of the window doesn't it.
f. If water came from millions of comets or small asteroids, the same steady rain would have bombarded Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, so they would all have begun with the same water characteristics, he says. However, the waters of those four planets now have dissimilar profiles, Owen and other geochemists have found. Ibid.
The carriers elemental and isotopic characteristics would have to have been unlike those of any object that researchers have yet found in the solar system....it doesnt seem geochemically plausible... Ibid., p. 186.
[From In the Beginning by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... nces5.html]
Liquid water exists on Mars, boosting hopes for life, NASA says - CNN.com
Throws that claim out of the window doesn't it.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1486788 wrote: It seems to me that Spong was correct. Some folks need the Buble to be inerrant and the absolute Word of God. It is a matter of security and certainty. Where as in this world there are two certainties death and taxes. It is nothing more than a cry for security.
In your opinion.
In your opinion.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Pahu;
f. If water came from millions of comets or small asteroids, the same steady rain would have bombarded Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, so they would all have begun with the same water characteristics, he says. However, the waters of those four planets now have dissimilar profiles, Owen and other geochemists have found. Ibid.
The carrier's elemental and isotopic characteristics would have to have been unlike those of any object that researchers have yet found in the solar system....it doesn't seem geochemically plausible... Ibid., p. 186.
[From In the Beginning by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...ciences5.html]
FourPart;1486941 wrote: Liquid water exists on Mars, boosting hopes for life, NASA says - CNN.com
Throws that claim out of the window doesn't it.
Not at all. If the water tankers existed they would have saturated the other planets with the same amount of water as Earth.
f. If water came from millions of comets or small asteroids, the same steady rain would have bombarded Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, so they would all have begun with the same water characteristics, he says. However, the waters of those four planets now have dissimilar profiles, Owen and other geochemists have found. Ibid.
The carrier's elemental and isotopic characteristics would have to have been unlike those of any object that researchers have yet found in the solar system....it doesn't seem geochemically plausible... Ibid., p. 186.
[From In the Beginning by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...ciences5.html]
FourPart;1486941 wrote: Liquid water exists on Mars, boosting hopes for life, NASA says - CNN.com
Throws that claim out of the window doesn't it.
Not at all. If the water tankers existed they would have saturated the other planets with the same amount of water as Earth.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
T
Yes my opinion and supported by hundreds of others including scholars. Some people need the Bible like it was a contract. One wonders if they are going to go to court if the promises are not kept. LOL
Yes my opinion and supported by hundreds of others including scholars. Some people need the Bible like it was a contract. One wonders if they are going to go to court if the promises are not kept. LOL
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1486985 wrote: T
Yes my opinion and supported by hundreds of others including scholars. Some people need the Bible like it was a contract. One wonders if they are going to go to court if the promises are not kept. LOL
Who would be the judge? :yh_think
Yes my opinion and supported by hundreds of others including scholars. Some people need the Bible like it was a contract. One wonders if they are going to go to court if the promises are not kept. LOL
Who would be the judge? :yh_think
Science Disproves Evolution
Very interesting question. LOL And the punishment??
Science Disproves Evolution
One cannot base a judgement on one sample in one spot. Now there is indication of flowing water. Now I don't know if there is life on Mars and perhaps we will find out one day but I'm not going to hold my breath. And I'm not signing up for a one way ticket. Takes to damn long to get there. Re an earlier post denying life on Mars. Not proven and no dis proven.
Science Disproves Evolution
Interstellar Gas
Detailed analyses have long shown that neither stars nor planets could form from interstellar gas clouds (a). To do so, either by first forming dust particles (b) or by direct gravitational collapse of the gas (c), would require vastly more time than the alleged age of the universe. An obvious alternative is that stars and planets were created.
a. “The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known. In quantitative work, it has simply been assumed that the number of atoms per cm3 has somehow increased about a thousand-fold over that in a dense nebula. The two principal factors inhibiting the formation of a protostar are that the gas has a tendency to disperse before the density becomes high enough for self-gravitation to be effective, and that any initial angular momentum would cause excessively rapid rotation as the material contracts. Some mechanism must therefore be provided for gathering the material into a sufficiently small volume that self-gravitation may become effective, and the angular momentum must in some way be removed. Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 279–280.
b. Martin Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973), p. 394.
“...there is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains can condense. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Where Microbes Boldly Went, New Scientist, Vol. 91, 13 August 1981, p. 413.
c. “Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that objects called protostars are formed as condensations from the interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically, and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them. John C. Brandt, The Physics and Astronomy of the Sun and Stars (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 111.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
To answer both Pahu and Ted respectively :
Unless, of course, we are vastly under-estimating the age of the universe/multiverse? Mankind is continually making new discoveries. We used to think that the Earth was flat, then it was 'discovered' to be a sphere, with the Sun and other planets orbiting it, apparently. Then this idea was superseded by our current knowledge; Earth, and the other solar planets actually orbit the sun!
Mankind is continually updating his knowledge; a form of evolution in itself. For myself, the Mars question boils down to 2 or 3 possibilities;
1. There was intelligent life on Mars, that, for whatever reason, is now extinct, making Mars a vast hecatomb for it's lost, or MIGRATED civilization(s).
2. There is currently intelligent life on Mars, possibly living a subterranean existence, due to the harsh conditions prevailing there now.(Not all 'Martians' would have been able, or willing, to migrate).
3. We are being lied to about Mars, on a grand scale, and on every level, for whatever reason(s).
Statue on Mars? Or pareidolia?
I could list many other similar anomalies on Mars; it's extremely unlikely they're ALL pareidolia,
that's the easiest debunk going, and a 'cheap shot' to boot.
Personally, I would suggest that there's evidence of intelligent life, past OR present....
Unless, of course, we are vastly under-estimating the age of the universe/multiverse? Mankind is continually making new discoveries. We used to think that the Earth was flat, then it was 'discovered' to be a sphere, with the Sun and other planets orbiting it, apparently. Then this idea was superseded by our current knowledge; Earth, and the other solar planets actually orbit the sun!
Mankind is continually updating his knowledge; a form of evolution in itself. For myself, the Mars question boils down to 2 or 3 possibilities;
1. There was intelligent life on Mars, that, for whatever reason, is now extinct, making Mars a vast hecatomb for it's lost, or MIGRATED civilization(s).
2. There is currently intelligent life on Mars, possibly living a subterranean existence, due to the harsh conditions prevailing there now.(Not all 'Martians' would have been able, or willing, to migrate).
3. We are being lied to about Mars, on a grand scale, and on every level, for whatever reason(s).
Statue on Mars? Or pareidolia?
I could list many other similar anomalies on Mars; it's extremely unlikely they're ALL pareidolia,
that's the easiest debunk going, and a 'cheap shot' to boot.
Personally, I would suggest that there's evidence of intelligent life, past OR present....
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1487060 wrote: To answer both Pahu and Ted respectively :
Mankind is continually updating his knowledge; a form of evolution in itself. For myself, the Mars question boils down to 2 or 3 possibilities;
1. There was intelligent life on Mars, that, for whatever reason, is now extinct, making Mars a vast hecatomb for it's lost, or MIGRATED civilization(s).
2. There is currently intelligent life on Mars, possibly living a subterranean existence, due to the harsh conditions prevailing there now.(Not all 'Martians' would have been able, or willing, to migrate).
3. We are being lied to about Mars, on a grand scale, and on every level, for whatever reason(s).
You might find this interesting:
Water Activity on Mars: Landscapes and Sedimentary Strata
Despite 30 years of accumulating increasingly abundant and unequivocal geomorphological evidence, the case for past catastrophic water-related activity on Mars has remained controversial until very recently. Ingenious non-aqueous explanations had been proposed for individual Martian landforms that otherwise were strikingly similar to water-generated features on Earth. However, new developments resulting from robotic exploration of the surface of Mars have profoundly changed the consensus view, notably the nuclear physical measurement of abundant, extant, near-surface ice, and direct chemical analyses of aqueous minerals associated with sedimentary rocks.
Channels and Valleys
Previously recognized channels and valleys extensively dissect the surface of Mars. The channels are elongated troughs that display clear evidence of large-scale fluid flow across their floors and along their walls. Immense channels, with widths of tens of kilometers and lengths up to a few thousand kilometers, have features that can only be explained by cataclysmic flows of water and sediment. On Earth, such flows produced the distinctive landforms of the Channeled Scabland of the USA's Pacific Northwest. An important recent discovery is that the Martian flood channel activity involved outbursts of water with huge discharges and associated lava flows.
These huge Martian channels have now been recognized to be valleys that dissect the Martian highlands much more extensively than was apparent from earlier spacecraft-derived images. The Martian highlands consist of craters and impact basins that appear to have been extensively eroded by surface runoff processes. Large alluvial fans occur in the craters, being remarkably similar to low-relief terrestrial alluvial fans formed dominantly by fluvial processes. Furthermore, it has been discovered that the upper layers of the crust of the Martian highlands contain extensive sedimentary rocks that were deposited during intense denudation episodes. Cratering, fluvial erosion, and deposition of the sedimentary layers probably occurred contemporaneously, resulting in a complex interbedding of lava flows, igneous intrusions, sediments, buried crater forms, and erosional unconformities.
Surface Water Bodies
Evidence for past large bodies of water that covered the northern plains of Mars includes the morphological characteristics of sedimentary deposits and, more dramatically, a pattern of surrounding shorelines. These distinctive water-laid sedimentary layers, known as the Vistitas Borealis Formation, were deposited by a body of water which was approximately contemporaneous with the floods responsible for the largest outflow channels, and which covered an area of as much as three million square kilometers to average depths of hundreds of meters. The largest estimates involve as much as 20-60 million cubic kilometers of water, equivalent to 200-400 meters spread evenly over the whole planet and comparable to the inferred collective flows from the outflow channels.
Even more compelling evidence supports the former existence of numerous lakes and seas, which were temporarily extant on the surface of Mars at various times in its history. Some lakes that filled highland craters held up to several hundred thousand cubic kilometers of water over an area of about one million square kilometers, the water spilling over to feed valleys, with peak discharge flows of millions of cubic meters per second over. Fluvial deltas are commonly associated with these paleolakes. Furthermore, some complexes of alluvial channels display paleo-meander topography that suggests these were laterally accreting rivers similar to the modern Mississippi.
What then happened to the huge quantities of water responsible for generating these channelized megafloods and relatively short-lived lakes and seas? The geomorphological evidence suggests that the water, even in the "Oceanus Borealis," was not on the Martian surface for prolonged periods. Instead it resided nearly all the time, except for brief spectacular episodes, within or beneath semi-permanent, ice-rich permafrost. This ice-rich layer, about 1-2 kilometers thick in equatorial areas and 5-6 kilometers thick at the poles, is documented by a variety of geomorphological features. These include various types of flow-lobed ejecta blankets, debris flows, lobate debris aprons, and polygonally-cracked terrains. Other landforms related to volcano-ice interactions document the short periods of volcanically induced outbursts from these reservoirs of ice and underlying ground water. Following these episodes, surface water seems to have very rapidly returned to these reservoirs.
Water and Glacier Related Landforms
Mars also displays other diverse suites of globally distributed landforms that are water related. Where observed on Earth these landforms are readily recognized to be of aqueous origins, involving dynamic hydrological cycling. Perhaps the most striking of these are the numerous small gullies developed on hillslopes associated with crater rims and channel or valley walls, their morphological similarity to terrestrial counterparts suggesting formation by aqueous debris flows involving the melting of near-surface ground ice. Very distinctive debris flows occur on the debris-mantled slopes of large sand dunes, most likely produced by water-sediment mixtures.
Glaciated landscapes are some of the most important Martian landform features now documented. The growth and persistence of large glaciers required a dynamic hydrologic system that moved large quantities of water from surface-water reservoirs, such as lakes and seas, through the atmosphere to sites of precipitation. The Martian glacial landforms include erosional grooves, streamlined/sculpted hills, drumlins, horns, cirques, tunnel valleys, depositional eskers, moraines, kames, ice-marginal outwash plains, kettles, and glaciolacustrine plans. These landforms occur in spatial associations that exactly parallel terrestrial glacial geomorphological settings.
Sedimentation and Diagenesis Features
Sedimentary structures examined during recent robotic exploration of the Martian surface also provide evidence of aqueous depositional processes on Mars. The layering in the sandstone exposed in the interior wall of a crater was found on closer imaging to be millimeter-scale laminations. The sand consists of altered basaltic mud grains, so this finely laminated sandstone is reminiscent of the similar sediments that were catastrophically deposited at Mount St. Helens. Fine-scale trough or festoon cross-lamination also present confirm the action of surface water.
Hematite-rich concretions within outcrops would have formed during diagenesis in a groundwater/brine-saturated environment. Microtextural features preserved in the sandstone are also consistent with diagenetic processes commonly associated with groundwater recharge and evaporation. These include early pore-filling cement leading to primary lithification, post-concretion cement resulting from recrystallization and new growth, and millimeter-scale voids interpreted to be secondary porosity.
Conclusions and Implications
There is no longer any doubt that the surface of Mars has in the past been covered by huge volumes of water which spread over vast areas. These resulted from cataclysmic outflows, which were also responsible for catastrophic erosion of channels and valleys, on a scale far greater than anything comparable on Earth, and deposition of sedimentary strata. It appears that much of this water still resides near the Martian surface in permafrost and as ice. Mars has in the past also experienced huge volcanic eruptions and vast lava outpourings across its surface, perhaps on a greater scale than those on the earth.
There is an irony in the obvious parallels with the earth. Most geologists today vehemently oppose any suggestion that in the earth's past there were cataclysmic outbursts of water that flowed catastrophically across its surface as the global Genesis Flood, even though planet Earth is still 70% covered in water. Yet they are equally adamant that the surface of nearby planet Mars has in the past been cataclysmically covered in water, even though most of its surface is now dry. However, the evidence on both planets is the same -- landforms carved and sedimentary strata deposited catastrophically. Obviously their conclusions are based on a belief in uniformitarianism ("the present is the key to the past"), not the evidence which is consistent with the Bible.
Water Activity on Mars: Landscapes and Sedimentary Strata | The Institute for Creation Research
Mankind is continually updating his knowledge; a form of evolution in itself. For myself, the Mars question boils down to 2 or 3 possibilities;
1. There was intelligent life on Mars, that, for whatever reason, is now extinct, making Mars a vast hecatomb for it's lost, or MIGRATED civilization(s).
2. There is currently intelligent life on Mars, possibly living a subterranean existence, due to the harsh conditions prevailing there now.(Not all 'Martians' would have been able, or willing, to migrate).
3. We are being lied to about Mars, on a grand scale, and on every level, for whatever reason(s).
You might find this interesting:
Water Activity on Mars: Landscapes and Sedimentary Strata
Despite 30 years of accumulating increasingly abundant and unequivocal geomorphological evidence, the case for past catastrophic water-related activity on Mars has remained controversial until very recently. Ingenious non-aqueous explanations had been proposed for individual Martian landforms that otherwise were strikingly similar to water-generated features on Earth. However, new developments resulting from robotic exploration of the surface of Mars have profoundly changed the consensus view, notably the nuclear physical measurement of abundant, extant, near-surface ice, and direct chemical analyses of aqueous minerals associated with sedimentary rocks.
Channels and Valleys
Previously recognized channels and valleys extensively dissect the surface of Mars. The channels are elongated troughs that display clear evidence of large-scale fluid flow across their floors and along their walls. Immense channels, with widths of tens of kilometers and lengths up to a few thousand kilometers, have features that can only be explained by cataclysmic flows of water and sediment. On Earth, such flows produced the distinctive landforms of the Channeled Scabland of the USA's Pacific Northwest. An important recent discovery is that the Martian flood channel activity involved outbursts of water with huge discharges and associated lava flows.
These huge Martian channels have now been recognized to be valleys that dissect the Martian highlands much more extensively than was apparent from earlier spacecraft-derived images. The Martian highlands consist of craters and impact basins that appear to have been extensively eroded by surface runoff processes. Large alluvial fans occur in the craters, being remarkably similar to low-relief terrestrial alluvial fans formed dominantly by fluvial processes. Furthermore, it has been discovered that the upper layers of the crust of the Martian highlands contain extensive sedimentary rocks that were deposited during intense denudation episodes. Cratering, fluvial erosion, and deposition of the sedimentary layers probably occurred contemporaneously, resulting in a complex interbedding of lava flows, igneous intrusions, sediments, buried crater forms, and erosional unconformities.
Surface Water Bodies
Evidence for past large bodies of water that covered the northern plains of Mars includes the morphological characteristics of sedimentary deposits and, more dramatically, a pattern of surrounding shorelines. These distinctive water-laid sedimentary layers, known as the Vistitas Borealis Formation, were deposited by a body of water which was approximately contemporaneous with the floods responsible for the largest outflow channels, and which covered an area of as much as three million square kilometers to average depths of hundreds of meters. The largest estimates involve as much as 20-60 million cubic kilometers of water, equivalent to 200-400 meters spread evenly over the whole planet and comparable to the inferred collective flows from the outflow channels.
Even more compelling evidence supports the former existence of numerous lakes and seas, which were temporarily extant on the surface of Mars at various times in its history. Some lakes that filled highland craters held up to several hundred thousand cubic kilometers of water over an area of about one million square kilometers, the water spilling over to feed valleys, with peak discharge flows of millions of cubic meters per second over. Fluvial deltas are commonly associated with these paleolakes. Furthermore, some complexes of alluvial channels display paleo-meander topography that suggests these were laterally accreting rivers similar to the modern Mississippi.
What then happened to the huge quantities of water responsible for generating these channelized megafloods and relatively short-lived lakes and seas? The geomorphological evidence suggests that the water, even in the "Oceanus Borealis," was not on the Martian surface for prolonged periods. Instead it resided nearly all the time, except for brief spectacular episodes, within or beneath semi-permanent, ice-rich permafrost. This ice-rich layer, about 1-2 kilometers thick in equatorial areas and 5-6 kilometers thick at the poles, is documented by a variety of geomorphological features. These include various types of flow-lobed ejecta blankets, debris flows, lobate debris aprons, and polygonally-cracked terrains. Other landforms related to volcano-ice interactions document the short periods of volcanically induced outbursts from these reservoirs of ice and underlying ground water. Following these episodes, surface water seems to have very rapidly returned to these reservoirs.
Water and Glacier Related Landforms
Mars also displays other diverse suites of globally distributed landforms that are water related. Where observed on Earth these landforms are readily recognized to be of aqueous origins, involving dynamic hydrological cycling. Perhaps the most striking of these are the numerous small gullies developed on hillslopes associated with crater rims and channel or valley walls, their morphological similarity to terrestrial counterparts suggesting formation by aqueous debris flows involving the melting of near-surface ground ice. Very distinctive debris flows occur on the debris-mantled slopes of large sand dunes, most likely produced by water-sediment mixtures.
Glaciated landscapes are some of the most important Martian landform features now documented. The growth and persistence of large glaciers required a dynamic hydrologic system that moved large quantities of water from surface-water reservoirs, such as lakes and seas, through the atmosphere to sites of precipitation. The Martian glacial landforms include erosional grooves, streamlined/sculpted hills, drumlins, horns, cirques, tunnel valleys, depositional eskers, moraines, kames, ice-marginal outwash plains, kettles, and glaciolacustrine plans. These landforms occur in spatial associations that exactly parallel terrestrial glacial geomorphological settings.
Sedimentation and Diagenesis Features
Sedimentary structures examined during recent robotic exploration of the Martian surface also provide evidence of aqueous depositional processes on Mars. The layering in the sandstone exposed in the interior wall of a crater was found on closer imaging to be millimeter-scale laminations. The sand consists of altered basaltic mud grains, so this finely laminated sandstone is reminiscent of the similar sediments that were catastrophically deposited at Mount St. Helens. Fine-scale trough or festoon cross-lamination also present confirm the action of surface water.
Hematite-rich concretions within outcrops would have formed during diagenesis in a groundwater/brine-saturated environment. Microtextural features preserved in the sandstone are also consistent with diagenetic processes commonly associated with groundwater recharge and evaporation. These include early pore-filling cement leading to primary lithification, post-concretion cement resulting from recrystallization and new growth, and millimeter-scale voids interpreted to be secondary porosity.
Conclusions and Implications
There is no longer any doubt that the surface of Mars has in the past been covered by huge volumes of water which spread over vast areas. These resulted from cataclysmic outflows, which were also responsible for catastrophic erosion of channels and valleys, on a scale far greater than anything comparable on Earth, and deposition of sedimentary strata. It appears that much of this water still resides near the Martian surface in permafrost and as ice. Mars has in the past also experienced huge volcanic eruptions and vast lava outpourings across its surface, perhaps on a greater scale than those on the earth.
There is an irony in the obvious parallels with the earth. Most geologists today vehemently oppose any suggestion that in the earth's past there were cataclysmic outbursts of water that flowed catastrophically across its surface as the global Genesis Flood, even though planet Earth is still 70% covered in water. Yet they are equally adamant that the surface of nearby planet Mars has in the past been cataclysmically covered in water, even though most of its surface is now dry. However, the evidence on both planets is the same -- landforms carved and sedimentary strata deposited catastrophically. Obviously their conclusions are based on a belief in uniformitarianism ("the present is the key to the past"), not the evidence which is consistent with the Bible.
Water Activity on Mars: Landscapes and Sedimentary Strata | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Where there's water there's often life... Mars appears to have possibly suffered a catastrophic 'out-gassing' at some stage in it's history, though this is by no means certain. I'm sure that there are many remarkable discoveries awaiting us....
My Cousin (of all people!) was wondering why NASA would bother sending research teams to Mars, with all the impedimenta associated with life-support, when there are highly competent mobile labs already there, unless there are interesting areas that Curiosity can't get to; or they have detected remains inaccessible to Curiosity. Or the most tantalising of all; they have found evidence of intelligent life (as indicated in the many anomalous pictures taken by the Mars Rovers);-past OR present!
Thanks for the article, Pahu. It was indeed interesting.
My Cousin (of all people!) was wondering why NASA would bother sending research teams to Mars, with all the impedimenta associated with life-support, when there are highly competent mobile labs already there, unless there are interesting areas that Curiosity can't get to; or they have detected remains inaccessible to Curiosity. Or the most tantalising of all; they have found evidence of intelligent life (as indicated in the many anomalous pictures taken by the Mars Rovers);-past OR present!
Thanks for the article, Pahu. It was indeed interesting.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
I'd like to think there really was intelligent life on Mars to explain the 'statue' or the 'Sphinx', but I'm afraid that I still remain unconvinced, as we, as humans, have evolved to recognise faces in random patterns - e.g. The Man in the Moon. However, it could also be considered the other way round - what if extra-terrestrial colonists saw these natural patterns in the landscape of Mars as they passed it en route to Earth & were inspired by that to come up with the design for the Egyptian Sphinx.
As for Pahu - having now been proved wrong about there not being any water on Mars - your primary reason for denying the merest possibility for any form of life there either now or in the past, you now argue that there should be just as much water there as here. Not a bit of it. If you are surrounded by dartboards & you throw a handful of darts directed straight ahead, does that mean that every one of those dartboards should receive an equal number of darts? Comets frequently arrive in clusters heading in a straight line, diverted only by the attraction of any gravitational force they happen upon. It could be that Earth was like the central dartboard, thus getting hit by most of the darts, with Mars, our nearest neighbour, picking up a few of the outlying ones. Furthermore, by your claims of there not being any surface water, therefore no water existing you are also totally discounting Brown's supposed Hydroplate Hypothesis, as there could equally be just as much, if not more, water than the earth, only beneath the surface, as he claims (albeit without any evidence to substantiate it) was the case with the earth. Furthermore, as with many bedrocks on earth - particularly igneous based ones, such as pumice, they can be totally absorbent, as a sponge, thus allowing for the possibility of subterranean oceans.
So far, water has only been found. It has yet to be sampled & undergone microscopic scrutiny, but I, personally, have no doubt they will find, at the very least, traces of algae of some sort.
As for Pahu - having now been proved wrong about there not being any water on Mars - your primary reason for denying the merest possibility for any form of life there either now or in the past, you now argue that there should be just as much water there as here. Not a bit of it. If you are surrounded by dartboards & you throw a handful of darts directed straight ahead, does that mean that every one of those dartboards should receive an equal number of darts? Comets frequently arrive in clusters heading in a straight line, diverted only by the attraction of any gravitational force they happen upon. It could be that Earth was like the central dartboard, thus getting hit by most of the darts, with Mars, our nearest neighbour, picking up a few of the outlying ones. Furthermore, by your claims of there not being any surface water, therefore no water existing you are also totally discounting Brown's supposed Hydroplate Hypothesis, as there could equally be just as much, if not more, water than the earth, only beneath the surface, as he claims (albeit without any evidence to substantiate it) was the case with the earth. Furthermore, as with many bedrocks on earth - particularly igneous based ones, such as pumice, they can be totally absorbent, as a sponge, thus allowing for the possibility of subterranean oceans.
So far, water has only been found. It has yet to be sampled & undergone microscopic scrutiny, but I, personally, have no doubt they will find, at the very least, traces of algae of some sort.
Science Disproves Evolution
Unfortunately, your post seems to indicate that you still consider the Mars 'Sphinx', the Mars 'face' and various other 'statues' pareidolia; would you consider the huge statues and the Sphinx in Egypt as pareidolia also? To me, they are clearly artificial, not some vague 'man-in-the-moon' face, though they ARE ancient, as you would expect them to be, if they are relics of a long-extinct civilization. Why should Mars not have had intelligent life aeons ago, if water was abundant, and the atmosphere a good mix of life-sustaining gasses?
Nevertheless, we are all perfectly entitled to our points of view, and it is my hope that conclusive proof of:
1. Life on Mars will emerge.
2. Intelligent life on Mars, past OR present will emerge.
I feel that we are at 'the tip of the iceberg' in regard to discoveries on Mars. I eagerly await further discoveries in this field!
Nevertheless, we are all perfectly entitled to our points of view, and it is my hope that conclusive proof of:
1. Life on Mars will emerge.
2. Intelligent life on Mars, past OR present will emerge.
I feel that we are at 'the tip of the iceberg' in regard to discoveries on Mars. I eagerly await further discoveries in this field!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.