Page 66 of 93

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:19 pm
by Ted
Really !!!!. Whatever it is not fresh blood.. This moves to the very absurd.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:59 pm
by FourPart
Just what is it that causes organic tissue to decay? Bacteria. What happens in an environment where the bacteria cannot survive? Decay doesn't take place & fossilisation can ensue.

As I stated in my previous post, Creationists always fail to give a definition of a 'kind', but instead proceed to give examples of different 'kinds'. This is not a definition. Needless to say Pahu responded with the predicted reply by citing dogs as kinds. Once again he failed to define just what a 'kind' is. Just how different does a 'kind' have to be from another 'kind' before it may be considered a different 'kind'? Pahu has never answered that simple question.

Monkeys are primates. = A Primate 'kind'.

Apes are primates. = A Primate 'kind'.

Humans are primates = A Primate 'kind'.

Once again - at which point of transition do you accept that one 'kind' becomes another 'kind'?

Creationists tend to think of Evolution as being linear - such as a dog changing into a cat. In this belief it demonstrates that they don't even understand how Evolution works. The Creationist belief takes the view of a laterally linear approach - of one species interbreeding with another to create a 3rd, but this is not the case. Evolution works from an ancient common ancestor where one set of offspring went off to evolve in one direction, and another in another generation. Each subsequent generation continuing to diverge in similar ways. A common Creationist argument is that mutations tend to be born sterile & die off, not getting the chance to pass their genes on. While this may be so for the majority of cases, once in a while there is an exception to the rule, and this exception survives to pass on those genes, and that mutation becomes the norm for that branch of the species. And so it goes on.

Also, isn't it ironic that in your earlier post in response to mention of talking snakes you admitted that the Garden of Eden was 'symbolic', but you continue to Cherry Pick which parts are to be taken literally. I have no problems with the story of Genesis being symbolic. It's a common way of explaining something to someone by using metaphors - I use that method all the time. For example - I work on a call centre for an energy provider & when I explain that it doesn't matter which provider's key or card is used to topup a meter, I will liken the key or the card to being like a shopping basket that you fill with electricity at the shop, then empty it into the larder (the meter) when you get home. It matter's not whose name is on the basket. The fact is that there is no basket. There is physically no electricity. It is a metaphor. It is symbolic. The story of Adam & Eve is symbolic of children growing into puberty & adolescence. The Creation is simply a get out for that which is the great unknown. "God created the Heavens & the Earth" - yet it doesn't define what 'God' is. It could just as easily mean that 'God' was the term used for the Big Bang. It is a story told by men by word of mouth over thousands of generations, constantly being changed - evolving, if you will. At each telling & translation the story changes slightly. Another cult goes another direction & relates it differently & it changes again - so much to the point that the different versions don't seem to bear any relationship to each other (eg King James Version / Book of Mormon) - but they still have their common ancestor. THAT is how Evolution works.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:20 am
by Pahu
FourPart;1506594 wrote:

As I stated in my previous post, Creationists always fail to give a definition of a 'kind', but instead proceed to give examples of different 'kinds'. This is not a definition. Needless to say Pahu responded with the predicted reply by citing dogs as kinds. Once again he failed to define just what a 'kind' is. Just how different does a 'kind' have to be from another 'kind' before it may be considered a different 'kind'? Pahu has never answered that simple question.


Plants and animals were originally created with large gene pools within distinct created kinds. A large gene pool gives a created kind the genetic potential to produce a variety of types within the kind, allowing the offspring to adapt to varying ecosystems and ensure the survival of that kind of organism.

Genetic potential can best be understood by observing the large number of dog breeds. There are many shapes, sizes, and colors of dogs, illustrating the tremendous genetic potential in this kind of animal—but they all remain distinctly recognizable as dogs. Other kinds of plants and animals have similar potential to produce variety within their own created kinds.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:30 am
by Pahu
FourPart;1506594 wrote:

Creationists tend to think of Evolution as being linear - such as a dog changing into a cat. In this belief it demonstrates that they don't even understand how Evolution works.


Evolution does not work because it has been disproved by the facts of science.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:43 am
by Pahu
FourPart;1506594 wrote:

Also, isn't it ironic that in your earlier post in response to mention of talking snakes you admitted that the Garden of Eden was 'symbolic', but you continue to Cherry Pick which parts are to be taken literally.


I believe the Garden of Eden story is an allegory containing symbols. I believe it is the symbolic story of the beginning of the human condition and our fall after Genesis 1:1. I believe that before the beginning only God existed in the three persons of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

God the Son created the universe and the angels (John 1:1-3). I believe this is the story of Eden and its first inhabitants. The angels were created in the image of God. God is Spirit (John 4:24) and the angels were spirit. God has a mind and the angels had a mind. God has free will and the angels had free will.

God’s purpose for creating the angels was for companionship:

➢ “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God (Jas. 2:23).

➢ “...for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created (Rev. 4:11).

In order to have companions He had to give the angels free will. In giving them free will He had to refrain from forcing His will on them. He could not create character in the angels without violating their free will and thus defeating the very purpose for their creation—companionship. They had to develop character through the things they experienced and the choices they made. He could not build in obedience without interfering with their free will. They had to be companions with Him because that was their choice. Forced companionship is not true companionship. He could not force them to love Him. He could not force them to want to obey Him. Love and obedience had to develop in each individual through experience with Him.

In order for God to create the universe He had to establish certain laws. The physical laws that hold the creation together are based on spiritual laws. Breaking these laws is sin and results in death. These principles were taught to the angels, but truth is never really known unless it is experienced. I can hear about the pain of hunger, but until I experience hunger I will never really know that pain. The angels were taught the correct way to live. They were taught the difference between right and wrong. They were taught that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4) and the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), but since they had never experienced death they did not know what death was.

Rebellion

The angels began to go throughout creation experiencing, growing and developing character. This is the symbolism of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They had direct access to eternal life represented by the tree of life. By living in obedience to God they would have life but disobedience would bring separation and death. All they had to do was choose good and avoid evil as God defined those terms. Some of the angels began to follow a course that was contrary to God’s will. They decided they could define good and evil. This is the symbology of eating the forbidden fruit. Instead of relying on God’s definition of good and evil they chose to ignore Him and make that decision for themselves. As they moved in this direction they began to drift farther and farther away from the good that God had revealed to them. They were following a path that seemed good to them but was in opposition to what God had revealed was good. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Pr. 14:12; 16:25). More and more they were following the spirit of rebellion. They were accusing God of being in error. They thought they were right and God was wrong. This spirit of rebellion and accusation is the definition of Satan, in my opinion.

Separation

In the beginning of the Eden story, we are told that Adam was made from the dust of the ground. This sounds like the earth, but if the story is symbolic then certain earth symbols can be used symbolically. We are also told that God formed Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. I believe that when God first created the angels He created them without defining sexual attributes as Jesus suggested. Perhaps each angel possessed the spiritual equivalent of both male and female attributes in perfect balance. When God began His plan of salvation on earth He accentuated the male attribute in some and the female in others. The story of Eve coming from Adam’s rib is the story of this separation. Each individual still contains both sexual attributes, but in the male the female attribute is suppressed, and in the female the male attribute is suppressed. This is not found in Scripture in such detail, but Edgar Cayce (more about him later) made this claim in some of his readings and it makes sense to me. Jesus does seem to suggest this when He said; “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven (Mt. 22:30).

God could not allow these angels to continue their disobedience throughout His creation. As a matter of fact, they had separated themselves from God—the “Tree of Life—and were now under the death penalty as the law demanded. Since God is just He had every right to execute sentence against these rebellious angels immediately, but God is also merciful. “And the LORD passed by before him [Moses], and proclaimed, The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin¦ (Ex. 34:6,7).

The angels’ rebellion did not take God by surprise. Since He had given His angels free will, He did not know exactly what choices they would make, but He did know all the choices that were possible, including rebellion. It is not that God does not know everything there is to know about everyone and everything, but in His sovereignty He can choose to limit Himself. So He already had a plan ready in the event that path was chosen:

“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation [manner of life] received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (1 Pet. 1:18-20).

Since death was the penalty for sin, that penalty could not be changed without destroying the law and bringing down all of creation, since creation depends on God’s law for its existence. But the angels could be saved from death if someone died in their place. Someone else had to receive their punishment for them. There was only one person in all of creation who could do such a thing and that was God Himself, the one who had created everything and everyone in the first place and had established the laws that made it all work. But just paying their penalty for them would not bring about repentance on the part of the disobedient angels. First, they had to understand that their way was wrong and God’s way was right—and repent.

When the angels rebelled, they were making a statement. They were saying that God’s revelation of good and evil was incorrect and they took on themselves to define what was good and evil. This is the symbol of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden. When they began to decide for themselves what was good and evil they were eating forbidden fruit. They were saying their way was better than God’s revealed way. That attitude persists to this day among most of the people on earth, doesn’t it?

Judgment

About a third of the angels made this statement and the rest of them knew of it. If God had destroyed the rebellious angels at that point His righteousness and power would have been demonstrated and the surviving angels would have served God more out of fear than love, which was not God’s desire. Also the question would remain unanswered: was God’s way really right? Would the path the rebellious angels had taken really have ended in disaster? These questions would have remained unanswered if God had exercised His righteousness and destroyed them. Besides, God is merciful and did not want to lose a single angel. As we are told in 2 Peter 3:9; “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to us-ward [toward us], not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. God is life, not death.

Death and destruction are not part of God's nature although He will resort to such measures if necessary, after all else fails. We have a sober reminder of this fact in Isaiah 28:21; “For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim. He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work, and bring to pass His act, His strange act. In Deuteronomy 30:19,20, God seems to be pleading as He says; “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live, that thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey His voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto Him, for He is thy life, and the length of thy days¦ Jesus expressed the same feeling in Matthew 23:37 when He said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee. How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Can you hear the sobs in these statements? Down through history to this present time we witness mankind’s tendency to choose death instead of life, don’t we? The worldwide practice of murdering unborn babies is just one example. In the United States alone over 3000 babies are legally murdered every day, and most of us ignore and/or accept this fact.

Confined to Earth

And so God confined the rebellious angels to earth. When the disobedient angels arrived, they were furious at having their wings clipped, so to speak. They had literally been grabbed by the scruff of their necks and yanked out of their freewheeling roaming throughout God’s creation and confined to this tiny speck of dust called earth. I believe this is vividly and symbolically portrayed in Revelation 12:7-12.

Destruction

I believe that even though they could no longer roam freely throughout creation, they still retained some of their angelic powers. Giving full vent to their rage they literally raised hell here on earth to such an extent that they destroyed it. Volcanic dust and debris in the atmosphere was miles thick, cutting out all light. Genesis 1:2 describes the scene this way: “And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The word “was in this verse is translated from the Hebrew word “hayah which can also be translated “became and has been in over 65 Bible verses from Genesis 2:7 through Ezekiel 36:4.

After the disobedient angels had destroyed the earth with their tantrum, there was no more they could do. They had literally reached the end of their rope. Jesus may have had this period in mind in His parable of the prodigal son, when he reached the point where he was starving in the pigpen (Lk. 15:11-16). God allowed these angels to demonstrate to themselves as well as the other angels what happens when they go their own way outside of His will.

Renewal

I believe that when man first appeared on earth, he appeared in five different places as the five races. In Genesis 1:26,27 we learn:

“And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

The word “man in this passage comes from the Hebrew word “adam, and means a human being, an individual or mankind. I believe the context here calls for the translation “mankind.

Also, up to this point He said, “Let there be light...a firmament...let the earth bring forth grass...the fruit tree¦ etc. But when He created mankind He said “Let Us make man in Our image¦ God seems to be saying here that mankind is totally different from the rest of His creation.

The fall

In affect God told His fallen angels, “You say your way is better than My way. All right, we will see. I am giving you the world and all the raw material you need to experiment with your way. With your intelligence you have everything you need to create paradise or hell. We shall see how much better your way is. And so human history began on earth and mankind was given the physical version of the spiritual law that holds creation together—The Ten Commandments.

After the angels had their tantrum on earth they were the spiritual equivalent of someone who has been terribly burned in a fire, or someone who has been severely injured in an accident. God’s six days of creation were spent re-creating the earth. On the sixth day He re-created (healed) His fallen angels in His image: mind, spirit, and will; but this time adding the physical equivalent of His image, providing a physical vehicle through which they could express themselves in a physical, three dimensional world.

God then inserts a parable in a parenthesis in Genesis two and three giving a symbolic review of man’s beginning and fall and using two real people, Adam and Eve, on whom He focuses in the rest of Scripture. It is from these two that the chosen people came. This race was the vehicle for the writing of Scripture, which records for mankind God’s nature, our nature, our need for salvation, His plan of salvation and the history of His relationship with His chosen people and their neighbors. After the flood all wicked mankind was destroyed except the descendents of Adam and Eve through Noah and his family.

[From Reincarnation in the Bible? []No Results Page | Barnes & Noble�

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:54 am
by LarsMac
So, I gotta ask, then.

If you all can take off and run with all of that based of a couple of lines in the writings, then why is it so difficult to imagine that the universe has really been around for millions of years, and that humans have actually existed on Earth for much longer that 6 or 7 thousand years?

What, exactly is it that tells you that Earth has only been around for that long?

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:58 am
by Pahu
LarsMac;1506608 wrote: So, I gotta ask, then.

If you all can take off and run with all of that based of a couple of lines in the writings, then why is it so difficult to imagine that the universe has really been around for millions of years, and that humans have actually existed on Earth for much longer that 6 or 7 thousand years?

What, exactly is it that tells you that Earth has only been around for that long?


My imagination is restricted by the facts, which are:





Earth/Universe Age




Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the actual evidence.

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





Helium




One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium then enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young (a).

a. “What Happened to the Earth’s Helium? New Scientist, Vol. 24, 3 December 1964, pp. 631–632.

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10–14.

Melvin A. Cook, “Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium? Nature, Vol. 179, 26 January 1957, p. 213.

Joseph W. Chamberlain, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres (New York: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 371–372.



Lead and Helium Diffusion




Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found (a).

Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals (b). Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old (c). Furthermore, the radioactive decay that produced all that helium must have happened quite rapidly, because the helium is trapped in young zircons.

a. “Taken together, these results strongly suggest that there has been little or no differential Pb loss which can be attributed to the higher temperatures existing at greater depths. Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment, Science, 16 April 1982, p. 296.

Robert V. Gentry, “Letters, Physics Today, October 1982, pp. 13–14.

b. Robert V. Gentry, “Letters, Physics Today, April 1983, p. 13.

c. “In fact, considering the Precambrian age of the granite cores, our results show an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained at higher temperatures, and the reason for this certainly needs further investigation ... Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 9, No. 10, October 1982, p. 1130.

Robert V. Gentry, personal communication, 24 February 1984.

D. Russell Humphreys et al., “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 2003), pp. 175–195.



Excess Fluid Pressure




Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock (a). If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently (b).

a. “It is certain that at the present time large areas of the Gulf Coast are underlain by zones containing water under pressure almost high enough to float the overlying rocks. Parke A. ****ey, Calcutta R. Shriram, and William R. Paine, “Abnormal Pressures in Deep Wells of Southwestern Louisiana, Science, Vol. 160, No. 3828, 10 May 1968, p. 614.

b. “Some geologists find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years. Creationists also use this currently puzzling situation as evidence that oil was formed less than 10,000 years ago. Stansfield, p. 82. [Stansfield had no alternative explanation.]

Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, p. 341.



Volcanic Debris




Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average. At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.5 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Therefore, Earth’s sediments seem to be much younger than 4.5 billion years (a).

a. Ariel A. Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology, Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, pp. 75–76.

“It has been estimated that just four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricut�*n [a Mexican volcano that erupted in 1943] and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts. Stansfield, p. 81.



River Sediments




More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport is diminishing as looser topsoil is removed and as erosion smooths out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year. So, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old (a).

a. Stuart E. Nevins, “Evolution: The Ocean Says No! Symposium on Creation V (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), pp. 77–83.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology, pp. 69–71.



Continental Erosion




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

a. Nevins, pp. 80–81.

George C. Kennedy, “The Origin of Continents, Mountain Ranges, and Ocean Basins, American Scientist, Vol. 47, December 1959, pp. 491–504.

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology, pp. 65–67.

“North America is now being eroded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years ... Dott and Batten, p. 133.



Dissolved Metals




Rivers carry dissolved elements such as copper, gold, lead, mercury, nickel, silicon, sodium, tin, and uranium into the oceans at very rapid rates when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. In other words, far fewer than a million years’ worth of metals are dissolved in the oceans (a). There is no known means by which large amounts of these elements can come out of solution. Therefore, the oceans must be much younger than a million years.

a. “... most metals are markedly undersaturated with respect to their least soluble compounds, and the supply of metals during geological time has been more than sufficient to attain saturation. Peter G. Brewer, “Minor Elements in Sea Water, Chemical Oceanography, editors J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 427.



Shallow Meteorites




Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface (a). (Unsuccessful searches have been made for these deep—and very valuable—meteorites, including in the Grand Canyon and along conveyor belts in coal processing plants.) Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers (b).

If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found immediately above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.

Similar conclusions can be made about ancient rock slides which are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock (c).

a. Fritz Heide, Meteorites (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 119.

Peter A. Steveson, “Meteoritic Evidence for a Young Earth, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, June 1975, pp. 23–25.

“...neither tektites nor other meteorites have been found in any of the ancient geologic formations... Ralph Stair, “Tektites and the Lost Planet, The Scientific Monthly, July 1956, p. 11.

“No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column. William Henry Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 144.

“...the astronomer Olbers had noticed: that there are no ‘fossil’ meteorites known, from any period older than the middle of the Quaternary. The quantity of coal mined during the last century amounted to many billions of tons, and with it about a thousand meteorites should have been dug out, if during the time the coal deposits were formed the meteorite frequency had been the same as it is today. Equally complete is the absence of meteorites in any other geologically old material that has been excavated in the course of technical operations. F. A. Paneth, “The Frequency of Meteorite Falls throughout the Ages, Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 2, editor Arthur Beer (New York: Pergamon Press, 1956), p. 1681.

“I have interviewed the late Dr. G. P. Merrill, of the U.S. National Museum, and Dr. G. T. Prior, of the British Natural History Museum, both well-known students of meteorites, and neither man knew of a single occurrence of a meteorite in sedimentary rocks. W. A. Tarr, “Meteorites in Sedimentary Rocks? Science, Vol. 75, 1 January 1932, pp. 17–18.

“No meteorites have been found in the geological column. Stansfield, p. 81.

“In view of the connection of comets, meteors, and meteorites, the absence of meteorites in old deposits in the crust of the earth is very significant. It has been estimated that at least 500 meteorites should have been found in already worked coal seams, whereas none has been identified in strata older than the Quaternary epoch (about 1 million years ago). This suggests a very recent origin of meteorites and, by inference, of comets. N. T. Bobrovnikoff, “Comets, Astrophysics, editor J. A. Hynek (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), p. 352.

b. Hans Pettersson, “Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust, Scientific American, Vol. 202, February 1960, pp. 123–129.

c. “Examples of ancient rock slides have been identified from the geologic column in few instances. William Henry Twenhofel, Treatise on Sedimentation, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1961), p. 102.



Meteoritic Dust




Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young (a).

a. Steveson, pp. 23–25.



Rapid Cooling




If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions about the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth (a). The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.

a. Harold S. Slusher and Thomas P. Gamwell, Age of the Earth, ICR Technical Monograph No. 7 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).

Leonard R. Ingersoll et al., Heat Conduction: With Engineering, Geological and Other Applications, revised edition (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), pp. 99–107.



Moon Recession




As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first observed this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.6-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume. [For details see pages: 501-504]



Moon Dust and Debris




If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67th of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon. [For details see pages: 506-509]



Figure 31: Moon Dust and Debris. Concern that astronauts and equipment would sink into a sea of dust was so great that two missions (Ranger and Surveyor) were sent to the Moon for a closer look. The anticipated problem, which turned out not to exist, arose from the belief that the Moon is billions of years old.

a. Before instruments were sent to the Moon, Isaac Asimov made some interesting, but false, predictions. After estimating the great depths of dust that should be on the Moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by stating:

“I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight. Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year, Science Digest, January 1959, p. 36.

Lyttleton felt that the dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep. Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72.

Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [See Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585–604.]

Fears about the dust thickness were reduced when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern still remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [See transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p. 1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.]



Crater Creep




A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure, “creeps in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.

Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should occur to their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years (a). Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where gravity is greater, and temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of “creep, these bodies seem to be relatively young.



Figure 32: Young Craters. Large craters on the Moon have high, steep walls that should be slowly slumping and deep floors that should be bulging upward. Little deformation exists, so these craters appear relatively young. Similar conclusions can be drawn for Venus and Mercury.

a. Glenn R. Morton, Harold S. Slusher, and Richard E. Mandock, “The Age of Lunar Craters, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, September 1983, pp. 105–108.

The above study drew upon the work of Z. F. Danes, which was described as follows:

“The history of a circular crater in a highly viscous medium is derived from the hydrodynamic equations of motion by Z. F. Danes. The variation in shape of the crater in the course of time is expressed as a function of a time constant, T, that involves viscosity and density of the medium, acceleration of gravity, and radius of the crater lip. Correspondence between theoretical crater shapes and the observed ones is good. However the time constant, T, is surprisingly short if commonly accepted viscosity values are used. Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-A (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. A 127.

Since Danes work was published, rocks from the Moon have been returned to Earth and their viscosity has been measured. Their values fall in the range of 10^21 to 10^22 poises. According to the Geological Survey paper just quoted, “If viscosities of lunar rocks were around 10^21 to 10^22 poises, the ages of large craters would have to be only 10^4 to 10^7 years.



Hot Moon




A surprising amount of heat is flowing out of the Moon from just below its surface, and yet the Moon’s interior is relatively cold (a). Because it has not yet cooled off, the Moon is much younger than most people had guessed, or relatively recent events have altered the Moon’s heat flow (b)— or both.

a. “ a somewhat surprising outcome considering the size of the Moon and the assumption that most of its heat energy had been lost....These unexpectedly high lunar [heat flow] values seem to indicate the Moon’s interior is much hotter than most thermal models had anticipated. If the temperature gradient in the lower regolith is extrapolated to great depths, the lunar interior would appear to be at least partly molten—a condition contradicted by other evidence. Nicholas M. Short, Planetary Geology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975), p. 184.

b. The unexpectedly large heat flow may be a consequence of large impacts occurring on the lunar surface at the time of Earth’s global flood. [ See Figure 153]



Young Comets




As comets pass near the Sun, some of their mass vaporizes, producing a long tail and other debris (a). Comets also fragment frequently or crash into the Sun (b) or planets. Typical comets should disintegrate after several hundred orbits. For many comets this is less than 10,000 years. There is no evidence for a distant shell of cometary material surrounding the solar system, and there is no known way to add comets to the solar system at rates that even remotely balance their destruction. Actually, the gravity of planets tends to expel comets from the solar system rather than capture them (c). So, comets and the solar system appear to be less than 10,000 years old. [For more on comets, see: “The Origin of Comets]

a. Ron Cowen, “Comets: Mudballs of the Solar System, Science News, Vol. 141, 14 March 1992, pp. 170–171.

b. Ray Jayawardhana, “Keeping Tabs on Cometary Breakups, Science, Vol. 264, 13 May 1994, p. 907.

c. “Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence. Sagan and Druyan, p. 210.

However, Sagan and Druyan believed that the Oort cloud exists, and went on to predict (p. 211) that “with the refinement of our scientific instruments, and the development of space missions to go far beyond Pluto, the cloud will be seen, measured, and studied.

d. Raymond A. Lyttleton, “The Non-Existence of the Oort Cometary Shell, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, December 1974, p. 393.

If comet formation accompanies star formation, as evolutionists claim, then many comets should have been expelled from other stars. Some expelled comets should have passed through our solar system in recent years. No incoming comet has ever been observed with an interstellar (i.e. hyperbolic) orbit. [See Wetherill, p. 470.]



Small Comets




Photographs taken from Earth-orbiting satellites show small, ice-filled comets striking Earth’s upper atmosphere at an average rate of one every three seconds (a).



Figure 33: Small Comets. The Dynamic Explorer satellite took this picture in ultraviolet light showing small comets (the dark spots) colliding with Earth’s upper atmosphere. The comets begin to break up 800 miles above the Earth’s surface, then frictional heating vaporizes the pieces and their descent stops at an elevation of about 35 miles. The water vapor, which soon dissipates, blocks ultraviolet light from Earth, producing the dark spots. The northern lights are shown by the halo.

Each comet adds 20–40 tons of water to the Earth’s atmosphere. If this influx began when evolutionists say the Earth started to evolve, all our oceans would have come from small comets. Actually, impact rates were undoubtedly greater in the past, because the planets have swept many of these comets from the solar system. Therefore, small comets would have placed much more water on Earth than is here today. Obviously, this did not happen, so oceans look young. [See also pages 287 and 295

a. Louis A. Frank with Patrick Huyghe, The Big Splash (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990).

Richard Monastersky, “Comet Controversy Caught on Film, Science News, Vol. 133, 28 May 1988, p. 340.

Timothy M. Beardsley, “Ice Storm, Scientific American, Vol. 258, June 1988, p. 24.

Jonathan Eberhart, “A Bunch of Little Comets—But Just a Little Bunch, Science News, Vol. 132, 29 August 1987, p. 132.

Richard A. Kerr, “In Search of Elusive Little Comets, Science, Vol. 240, 10 June 1988, pp. 1403–1404.

Richard A. Kerr, “Double Exposures Reveal Mini-Comets? Science, Vol. 243, 13 January 1989, pp. 170–171.

Richard Monastersky, “Small Comet Controversy Flares Again, Science News, Vol. 137, 9 June 1990, p. 365.



Hot Planets




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

a. H. H. Aumann and C. M. Gillespie Jr., “The Internal Powers and Effective Temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, July 1969, pp. L69–L72.

“Jupiter radiates into space rather more than twice the energy it receives from space. G. H. A. Cole, The Structure of Planets (New York: Crane, Russak & Co., Inc., 1978), p. 114.

M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Puzzle That Is Saturn, Science, 18 September 1981, p. 1351.

Jonathan Eberhart, “Neptune’s Inner Warmth, Science News, Vol. 112, 12 November 1977, p. 316.

b. Ibid.

c. “The Mystery of Venus’ Internal Heat, New Scientist, Vol. 88, 13 November 1980, p. 437.

d. To initiate nuclear fusion, a body must be at least ten times as massive as Jupiter. [See Andrew P. Ingersoll, “Jupiter and Saturn, Scientific American, Vol. 245, December 1981, p. 92.]

e. Ingersoll and others once proposed that Saturn and Jupiter could generate internal heat if their helium gas liquefied or their liquid hydrogen solidified. Neither is possible, because each planet’s temperature greatly exceeds the critical temperatures of helium and hydrogen. (The critical temperature of a particular gas is that temperature above which no amount of pressure can squeeze it into a liquid or solid.) Even if the temperature were cold enough to permit gases to liquefy, what could initiate nucleation? When I mentioned this in a private conversation with Ingersoll in December 1981, he quickly acknowledged his error.

f. Paul M. Steidl, “The Solar System: An Assessment of Recent Evidence—Planets, Comets, and Asteroids, Design and Origins in Astronomy, editor George Mulfinger Jr. (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1983), pp. 87, 91, 100.

Jupiter would have rapidly cooled to its present temperature, even if it had been an unreasonably hot 20,000 kelvins when it formed. Evolutionary models require too much time. [See Edwin V. Bishop and Wendell C. DeMarcus, “Thermal Histories of Jupiter Models, Icarus, Vol. 12, May 1970, pp. 317–330.]



Solar Wind




The Sun’s radiation applies an outward force on particles orbiting the Sun. Particles less than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have been “blown out of the solar system if it were billions of years old. Yet these particles are still orbiting the Sun. (a) Conclusion: the solar system appears young.

a. After showing abundant photographic evidence for the presence of micrometeorites as small as 10^-15 g that “struck every square centimeter of the lunar surface, Stuart Ross Taylor stated:

“It has been thought previously that radiation pressure would have swept less massive particles out of the inner solar system, but there is a finite flux below 10^-14 g. Stuart Ross Taylor, Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1975), p. 90.

Large lunar impacts are continually churning up and overturning the lunar surface. Therefore, for these micrometeorite impacts to blanket the surface so completely, they must have been recent. [For more details see: Figure 155]



Poynting-Robertson Effect




Dust particles larger than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter form a large disk-shaped cloud that orbits the Sun between the orbits of Venus and the asteroid belt. This cloud produces zodiacal light (a). Forces acting on these particles should spiral most of them into the Sun in less than 10,000 years. (This is called the Poynting-Robertson effect. ) Known forces and sources of replenishment cannot maintain this cloud, so the solar system is probably less than 10,000 years old.

This is how the Poynting-Robertson effect works: Rain falling on a speeding car tends to strike the front of the car and slow it down slightly. Likewise, the Sun’s rays that strike particles orbiting the Sun tend to slow them down, causing them to spiral into the Sun. Thus, the Sun’s radiation and gravity act as a giant vacuum cleaner that pulls in about 100,000 tons of nearby micrometeoroids per day. Disintegrating comets and asteroids add dust at less than half the rate at which it is being destroyed (b).

A disintegrating comet becomes a cluster of particles called a meteor stream. The Poynting-Robertson effect causes smaller particles in a meteor stream to spiral into the Sun more rapidly than larger particles. After about 10,000 years, these orbits should be visibly segregated by particle size. Because this segregation is generally not seen, meteor streams are probably a recent phenomenon (c).

Huge quantities of microscopic dust particles also have been discovered around some stars (d). Yet, according to the theory of stellar evolution, those stars are many millions of years old, so that dust should have been removed by stellar wind and the Poynting-Robertson effect. Until some process is discovered that continually resupplies vast amounts of dust, one should consider whether the “millions of years are imaginary.

a. “For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea [Hawaii] , above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill. ... In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring, [Donald N. B.] Hall [Director of the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy] was able to report within days that ‘the data were really superb.’ They don’t tell an entirely welcome story, though. ‘Unfortunately, they don’t seem to show any dust rings at all.’  Charles Petit, “A Mountain Cliffhanger of an Eclipse, Science, Vol. 253, 26 July 1991, pp. 386–387.

To understand the origin of zodiacal light, see page 319.

b. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 60–61.

Harold S. Slusher and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System: A Study of the Poynting-Robertson Effect and Extinction of Interplanetary Dust, ICR Technical Monograph No. 6, revised edition (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).

c. Stanley P. Wyatt Jr. and Fred L. Whipple, “The Poynting-Robertson Effect on Meteor Orbits, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 3, January 1950, pp. 134–141.

Ron Cowen, “Meteorites: To Stream or Not to Stream, Science News, Vol. 142, 1 August 1992, p. 71.

d. David A. Weintraub, “Comets in Collision, Nature, Vol. 351, 6 June 1991, pp. 440–441.



Supernova Remnants




In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b). So, the Milky Way looks young.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... nebula.jpg " alt="" />

Figure 34: The Crab Nebula. In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians in New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and briefly was as bright as a full moon. Today, the remnants from that explosion comprise the Crab Nebula.

a. “An application of the present results to the [Milky Way] Galaxy yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae. G. A. Tammann, “On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.

• A more recent technique that surveyed thousands of galaxies, including smaller galaxies, concluded that

... the time between [supernova] explosions is 100 years or more. Michael S. Turner, “Yes, Things Really Are Going Faster, Science, Vol. 299, 31 January 2003, p. 663.

b. Keith Davies, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), pp. 175–184.

“Where have all the remnants gone? Astronomy Survey Committee of the National Research Council, Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.



Connected Galaxies




Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts. This happens too often for all examples to be coincidences (a). If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), these galaxies and quasars haven’t been moving apart for very long. If redshifts do not always imply velocities, many astronomical conclusions are in error.

a. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.

Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar, “On the Nature of Mass, Nature, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 41–44.

William Kaufmann III, “The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth, Science Digest, July 1981, pp. 76–81, 117.

Geoffrey Burbidge, “Redshift Rift, Science 81, December 1981, p. 18.



Unstable Galaxies




Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universe’s assumed evolutionary age (a). The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.

a. David Fleischer, “The Galaxy Maker, Science Digest, October 1981, Vol. 89, pp. 12, 116.



Galaxy Clusters




Hundreds of rapidly moving galaxies often cluster tightly together. Their relative velocities, as inferred by the redshifts of their light, are so high that these clusters should be flying apart, because each cluster’s visible mass is much too small to hold its galaxies together gravitationally (a). Because galaxies within clusters are so close together, they have not been flying apart for very long.

A similar statement can be made concerning many stars in spiral galaxies and gas clouds that surround some galaxies (b). These stars and gas clouds have such high relative velocities that they should have broken their “gravitational bonds long ago if they were billions of years old. If the redshifted starlight always indicates a star’s velocity, then a billion-year-old universe is completely inconsistent with what is observed.



These observations have led some to conclude, not that the universe is young, but that unseen, undetected mass—called dark matter—is holding these stars and galaxies together. For this to work, about 80% of the mass in the universe must be invisible—and hidden in the right places. However, many experiments have shown that the needed “missing mass does not exist (c). Some researchers are still searching, because the alternative is a young universe. See Missing Mass.

a. “In 1933 the late Fritz Zwicky pointed out that the galaxies of the Coma cluster are moving too fast: there is not enough visible mass in the galaxies to bind the cluster together by gravity. Subsequent observations verified this ‘missing’ mass in other clusters. M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Science, Vol. 219, 4 March 1983, p. 1050.

b. Faye Flam, “NASA PR: Hype or Public Education? Science, Vol. 260, 4 June 1993, pp. 1417–1418.

“It turns out that in almost every case the velocities of the individual galaxies are high enough to allow them to escape from the cluster. In effect, the clusters are ‘boiling.’ This statement is certainly true if we assume that the only gravitational force present is that exerted by visible matter, but it is true even if we assume that every galaxy in the cluster, like the Milky Way, is surrounded by a halo of dark matter that contains 90 percent of the mass of the galaxy. Trefil, p. 93.

Gerardus D. Bouw, “Galaxy Clusters and the Mass Anomaly, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 14, September 1977, pp. 108–112.

Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 179–185.

Silk, The Big Bang, pp. 188–191.

Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.

Halton M. Arp, “NGC-1199, Astronomy, Vol. 6, September 1978, p. 15.

Halton M. Arp, “Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts, Astrophysical Journal, 15 July 1980, pp. 469–474.

c. A huge dust ring has been observed orbiting two galaxies. The measured orbital velocity of this ring allows the calculation of the mass of the two galaxies and any hidden mass. There was little hidden mass. Statistical analyses of 155 other small galactic groups also suggest that there is not enough hidden mass to hold them together. [See Stephen E. Schneider, “Neutral Hydrogen in the M96 Group: The Galaxies and the Intergalactic Ring, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 343, 1 August 1989, pp. 94–106.]

Conclusion

All dating techniques, especially the few that suggest vast ages, presume that a process observed today has proceeded at a known, but not necessarily constant, rate. This assumption may be grossly inaccurate. Projecting present processes and rates far back in time is more likely to produce errors than extrapolation over a much shorter time. Furthermore, a much better understanding usually exists for dating “clocks that show a young Earth and a young universe.

This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 1:07 pm
by FourPart
Pahu;1506603 wrote: Plants and animals were originally created with large gene pools within distinct created kinds. A large gene pool gives a created kind the genetic potential to produce a variety of types within the kind, allowing the offspring to adapt to varying ecosystems and ensure the survival of that kind of organism.

Genetic potential can best be understood by observing the large number of dog breeds. There are many shapes, sizes, and colors of dogs, illustrating the tremendous genetic potential in this kind of animal—but they all remain distinctly recognizable as dogs. Other kinds of plants and animals have similar potential to produce variety within their own created kinds.


In this post first of all, once again you decline to define a kind, but once again only give examples - just as I predicted you would. Then you give 2 different examples that describe Evolution. The keyword of Evolution is CHANGE. It has nothing to do with Creation. It has everything to do with changing something that is already there.

In the very next word you contradict your previous post. You claim it doesn't work, after you have described HOW it works

Evolution does not work because it has been disproved by the facts of science.


Furthermore, your 2nd statement is also erroneous as it has been proved, time & time again by a growing collection of hard evidence. The argument against it consists of a vague interpretation of the Bible - a collection of stories passed down by word of mouth by the uneducated. You have yet to provide a single piece of Scientific evidence to the contrary. All you ever provide is links by Walt Brown to his own websites with "Alternative Facts" (as appears to be the going phrase at the moment - that is "Facts which do not have any foundation & are always based on an erroneous premise).

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 1:20 pm
by Pahu
FourPart;1506615 wrote: In this post first of all, once again you decline to define a kind, but once again only give examples - just as I predicted you would.


On the contrary I gave a very good definition of kind.

Then you give 2 different examples that describe Evolution.


False!

The keyword of Evolution is CHANGE. It has nothing to do with Creation. It has everything to do with changing something that is already there.


Change to what? Evolution is about changing from one kind to another, which has never been observed in nature or fossils.



In the very next word you contradict your previous post. You claim it doesn't work, after you have described HOW it works


I have no idea what you are referring to. Could you be more specific?

Furthermore, your 2nd statement is also erroneous as it has been proved, time & time again by a growing collection of hard evidence. The argument against it consists of a vague interpretation of the Bible - a collection of stories passed down by word of mouth by the uneducated. You have yet to provide a single piece of Scientific evidence to the contrary. All you ever provide is links by Walt Brown to his own websites with "Alternative Facts" (as appears to be the going phrase at the moment - that is "Facts which do not have any foundation & are always based on an erroneous premise).


Bible Accuracy



1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



Archaeology and the Bible

The Rocks Cry Out

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

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record

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



Scientific Facts in 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

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 meeting those requirements.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 1:52 pm
by LarsMac
So, you are not really going to answer my question, then.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:12 pm
by Pahu
LarsMac;1506619 wrote: So, you are not really going to answer my question, then.


I thought I answered all your questions. What did I miss?

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:16 pm
by FourPart
Pahu;1506617 wrote: On the contrary I gave a very good definition of kind.


It appears you don't even understand the definition of a definition. Just as I predicted all you gave was a collection of examples - namely 'Plants', 'Animals', and (also just as predicted) 'Dogs'.

THIS is what you call a definition. Just where does it say anything about it meaning that it changes from one 'kind' into another?



Evolution

noun

1. any process of formation or growth; development:

the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

2. a product of such development; something evolved :

The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements:

the evolutions of a figure skater.

7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
(Evolution | Define Evolution at Dictionary.com )

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:16 pm
by FourPart
Change to what? Evolution is about changing from one kind to another, which has never been observed in nature or fossils.


There you have it. A perfect demonstration that you don't have the foggiest idea what Evolution even is. Just as I stated, the Creationist doesn't even understand Evolution. They see it as being a lateral / sideways thing, which it is not. It is nothing to do with changing from one 'kind' into another. You are seeing Evolution as being like a tree where one branch becomes a totally different, disconnected branch. In actual fact a branch divides off into 2 different branches - one grows in one direction and the other in another direction. Further along the line these branches sub-divide into branches of their own. It is also very common that these different branches take on different characteristics of their own. This is how different varieties of apples are made, for example. It does not mean that one branch suddenly changes to become part of a totally unrelated one (although, admittedly, this does accasionally happen when chance causes a form of grafting to happen, but that's beside the point). However, it cannot be denied that all of these branches, no matter how diverse, all come from the same root stock.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Could you be more specific?


How specific do I need to be? I highlighted your own words in bold type.

The remainder of your post can be disregarded as the usual irrelevant pasted padding which no-one takes the slightest bit of notice of anyway.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:32 pm
by Pahu
FourPart;1506621 wrote: It appears you don't even understand the definition of a definition. Just as I predicted all you gave was a collection of examples - namely 'Plants', 'Animals', and (also just as predicted) 'Dogs'.

THIS is what you call a definition. Just where does it say anything about it meaning that it changes from one 'kind' into another?




Well, I had an answer for you but I was blocked by Error 500 (Internal Server Error).

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:40 pm
by Pahu
FourPart;1506622 wrote: There you have it. A perfect demonstration that you don't have the foggiest idea what Evolution even is. Just as I stated, the Creationist doesn't even understand Evolution. They see it as being a lateral / sideways thing, which it is not. It is nothing to do with changing from one 'kind' into another. You are seeing Evolution as being like a tree where one branch becomes a totally different, disconnected branch. In actual fact a branch divides off into 2 different branches - one grows in one direction and the other in another direction. Further along the line these branches sub-divide into branches of their own. It is also very common that these different branches take on different characteristics of their own. This is how different varieties of apples are made, for example. It does not mean that one branch suddenly changes to become part of a totally unrelated one (although, admittedly, this does accasionally happen when chance causes a form of grafting to happen, but that's beside the point). However, it cannot be denied that all of these branches, no matter how diverse, all come from the same root stock.


So you agree with me that evolution does not happen. Apple trees make apples. Dogs make dogs. Chickens make chickens. One kind never changes into another kind. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:19 pm
by FourPart
Pahu;1506626 wrote: So you agree with me that evolution does not happen. Apple trees make apples. Dogs make dogs. Chickens make chickens. One kind never changes into another kind. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.
Once again either you totally miss the point, don't understand the point or blatantly deny the point.

Take the example (which is still being observed happening) of waters receding & fish having problems to survive in diminishing water levels. Certain species evolve which can survive for brief periods outside of the water (mudskippers). Although these are still fish they are still developing. Then you move onto others that can breathe air & water through their gills (such as lungfish). Still a fish. Then comes the axylotal. It breathes through gills, but it has devoloped legs. Still a fish? Then there is the salamander - an amphibian? Still a fish? Then a newt. an amphibian. Still a fish? Then a lizard. A reptile - no longer restricted to the water at all. Alligators / Crocodiles - not restricted to the water, but still very closely connected to it. And so on. Each different species is just one example of transitionary stages from one to another. At each stage you can see that it is still of the previous 'kind', but as additional changes occur the similarities to the original species become less obvious. One would not expect to see a crocodile suddenly change into a sheep, which is the Creationist's understanding of Evolution.

Macroevolution & Microevolution are not even scientifically recognised terms. They are inventions of Creationists. Full Evolution happens over millions of years, so it's hardly surprising that it hasn't been observed in real time, so that's a non argument for a start. However, we ARE able to observe the changes happening retrospectively by way of periodical snapshots in time by way of fossil records. At the base of the geological fossil ladder you ONLY find the most primitive lifeforms. Then as time goes on through the strata you get more & more advanced ones. If the Creationists view were to hold up, ALL forms of life would be found equally at ALL levels of geological strata. However, this is not the case.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:54 pm
by LarsMac
Pahu;1506620 wrote: I thought I answered all your questions. What did I miss?


The point.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:49 am
by Pahu
FourPart;1506627 wrote:

Take the example (which is still being observed happening) of waters receding & fish having problems to survive in diminishing water levels. Certain species evolve which can survive for brief periods outside of the water (mudskippers). Although these are still fish they are still developing. Then you move onto others that can breathe air & water through their gills (such as lungfish). Still a fish. Then comes the axylotal. It breathes through gills, but it has devoloped legs. Still a fish? Then there is the salamander - an amphibian? Still a fish? Then a newt. an amphibian. Still a fish? Then a lizard. A reptile - no longer restricted to the water at all. Alligators / Crocodiles - not restricted to the water, but still very closely connected to it. And so on. Each different species is just one example of transitionary stages from one to another. At each stage you can see that it is still of the previous 'kind', but as additional changes occur the similarities to the original species become less obvious. One would not expect to see a crocodile suddenly change into a sheep, which is the Creationist's understanding of Evolution.


All of your examples are fully formed animals with no evidence of evolution. You do not understand creationist's understanding of evolution. It is when bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.

Macroevolution & Microevolution are not even scientifically recognised terms.


Yes thy are.

They are inventions of Creationists.


No they aren't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution.

Full Evolution happens over millions of years, so it's hardly surprising that it hasn't been observed in real time, so that's a non argument for a start. However, we ARE able to observe the changes happening retrospectively by way of periodical snapshots in time by way of fossil records. At the base of the geological fossil ladder you ONLY find the most primitive lifeforms. Then as time goes on through the strata you get more & more advanced ones. If the Creationists view were to hold up, ALL forms of life would be found equally at ALL levels of geological strata. However, this is not the case.


The Fossil Record doesn’t just show how a full understanding of the fossils contradicts evolution; it specifically supports creation and the Flood. It documents the sudden appearance of basic types, not a slow development of one type from some other type through transitional fossils. Fossils exhibit stasis, not the change that evolution requires. The animals represented in the fossil record typically died in catastrophic conditions of rapid water movement, not in uniform conditions. Fossilization occurred through rapid burial. The case is strong for the creation/Flood scenario. Only a willful commitment to naturalism would lead one to conclude evolution and uniformity instead.

Reading the Fossil Record | The Institute for Creation Research

Also, the facts of science have disproved evolution. For example:

Plant UV Detectors Could Not Have Evolved

The first chapter of the timeless text of Genesis states, "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day."1

In direct contrast, modern consensus insists, "Documented deep in the earth's crust are the progressive changes and modifications undergone by various groups of the plant kingdom through millions of years."2

So, did plants really evolve over eons, or were they created in one day? New research demonstrates exactly why plants had to have been created in an instant.

A team of scientists led by researchers at the Scripps Research Institute and the University of Glasgow investigated the marvelous mechanism by which plant cells detect harmful UV-B radiation and then send signals that activate cellular UV-B protection regimes.3 Without UV detection and prevention, and without all the biochemicals for photosynthesis, plants would have long ago died.

A protein in plants called UVR8 responds to light in just the UV-B range. The protein consists of two identical halves that automatically link to one another just before light hits them. Investigators learned that when UV-B light hits a particular amino acid near the center of the dual complex to change its electrical charges, the halves separate and activate the protein.

The study appears online in Science Express. The lead authors said, "Other light-sensing proteins require a chemical modification or helper molecule to detect light, but UVR8 is unique in that it has these inbuilt UV-B-sensing tryptophan pyramids—structures that no one has seen before."3



Credit: Getzoff lab, The Scripps Research Institute. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.

When separated, each UVR8 protein half somehow quickly signals its cell to activate UV-B protection systems. Human skin cells employ similar tactics to protect against UV light damage, which can cause cancer by disrupting a cell's vital DNA.4

To discover what plant life would be like without the dual-purpose protein UVR8, the researchers mutated UVR8 proteins. "The mutant plants grew poorly when exposed to UV 'B' wavelength radiation—the range most responsible for tanning and burning of human skin," according to a Scripps Research Institute news release.3

If plants evolved over millions of years, then nature would have constructed their UV detection and protection system one piece at a time. But there are too many precisely specified parts for evolution to explain, such as various communicating molecules that detect UV, transport the correct signals to the correct places, receive those signals accurately, and deploy specific responses like activating a gene or producing more or less of a specific protein based on those signals. Building each of these separately and over long periods of time is unrealistic.

This is because it takes more than just UVR8 for all of this to work properly, just as it takes more than just a key for a car to function. In other words, all the parts had to have been put in place all at once. Otherwise, the first imaginary evolving plants would have incurred DNA damage from sunlight faster than the damage could be repaired.

UVR8-like proteins also occur in algae and moss. The evolutionary authors tried to fit these observations into their nature-only paradigm by insisting that UVR8 evolved early and all descendant plants inherited it. But because UVR8 would be useless without many other precisely interacting molecules, inheriting it would have been a waste of energy. UVR8, along with all other vital plant molecules, was created on purpose. The fact that UV damage is detected and repaired by all kinds of plants just means that God designed all plants with foresight.

And that means that the Genesis record had it right all along.

References

Genesis 1:12-13.

Delevoryas, T. 1962. Morphology and Evolution of Fossil Plants. In Prothero, D. R. 2004. Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 435.

Ultraviolet Protection Molecule in Plants Yields Its Secrets to Scripps Research Team. Scripps Research Institute news release, February 9, 2012, reporting research in Christie, J. M. et al. Plant UVR8 Photoreceptor Senses UV-B by Tryptophan-Mediated Disruption of Cross-Dimer Salt Bridges. Science Express. Published online February 9, 2012.

Guliuzza, R. 2009. Made in His Image: Melanin, the Sunblock That's Just Skin Deep. Acts & Facts. 38 (8): 10-11.

Plant UV Detectors Could Not Have Evolved | The Institute for Creation Research

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:37 pm
by Ted
Sometimes you have to drag people kicking and screeming into the 21st cent.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:45 pm
by Ted
May God if you so vbelieve preserve us from this brand of human ignorace.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:29 am
by Pahu


Codes, Programs, and Information 1



In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information (such as language) from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and Braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again. It is hard to imagine how natural processes and long periods of time could produce even one language. Having two languages form by natural processes and be able to automatically convert one to the other is unbelievable.

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex (a) and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease (b). It seems obvious that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence (c).

a. In 2010, another level of complexity was discovered in the genetic code. On a strand of DNA, a sequence of three adjacent nucleotides form a unit in the genetic code called a codon. Prior to 2010, some codons were thought to have the same function as others. That turns out to not be the case.

“...synonymous codon changes can so profoundly change the role of a protein adds a new level of complexity to how we interpret the genetic code. Ivana Weygand-Durasevic and Michael Ibba, “New Roles for Codon Usage, Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1474. Also see Fangliang Zhang et al., “Differential Arginylation of Actin Isoforms Is Regulated by Coding Sequence-Dependent Degradation, Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1734–1537.

b. “Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation. Anne-Claude Gavin et al., “Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery, Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.

c. The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were produced by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today. [See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst, “Evolution Encoded, Scientific American, Vol.*290, April 2004, pp.*84–91.]

“This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution. [emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch, as quoted by David Bradley, “The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care, Science, Vol.*297, 13*September 2002, p.*1790.

“It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction, but also the embodiment of life’s mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also guide the construction of proteins. So it is disappointing, but not surprising, that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself. John Maddox, “The Genetic Code by Numbers, Nature, Vol.*367, 13 January 1994, p.*111.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:15 pm
by Ted
Too bad Brown wasn't a real scientist.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:47 am
by FourPart
It's funny how every single post he makes supports what I say that he doesn't have a clue about how Evolution works. He is determined to believe it goes sideways, even though I have explained how things branch out. Even if you use his pet term of Macroevolution, it makes no difference. Yes - each of the examples I gave are established species. They are established species at their current stage of evolution. There were other established species at an earlier stage in their evolution. Most of those established species are still to be found today, only on different branches of the same tree.

Imagine yourself starting out to walk across the desert. The barren white sand is laid out before you. After a few days you realise that the sand is no longer white, but black, yet at no point did you cross a line at which it changed from white to black. You contine along you journey & you realise that the ground is stony, yet at no time did you cross a line at which the sand turned into stones. You contine walking & you realise there are field of grass, yet at no time did you cross a line of grass. The ground on which you walk is still the same 'kind'. It is the 'kind' that is 'Ground'. Evolution is all the same 'kind'. It is the 'kind' of 'Life'. It is unlikely to ever change from that 'kind'. There will always be different branches of that 'kind' of Life, but it will always remain the same 'kind'. It is, as you say, an established 'kind'.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:02 am
by Pahu
FourPart;1506722 wrote: It's funny how every single post he makes supports what I say that he doesn't have a clue about how Evolution works. He is determined to believe it goes sideways, even though I have explained how things branch out. Even if you use his pet term of Macroevolution, it makes no difference. Yes - each of the examples I gave are established species. They are established species at their current stage of evolution. There were other established species at an earlier stage in their evolution. Most of those established species are still to be found today, only on different branches of the same tree.


Doesn't evolution teach that all life started with a single cell, which evolved into all the different forms of life today including man? Where is the evidence that happened? The reason it doesn't exist is the facts of science have disproved evolution. For example:






Sea Worm Is 'Man's Ancestor'

On July 7, BBC News reported the rare discovery of a fossilized sea worm, classified as a hemichordate, a sophisticated invertebrate. Evolutionists are excited because this find supposedly provides insight into early evolution. And some evolutionists even see this worm—called Oesia—as a half-billion-year-old ancestor of man.1

Hemichordates—the acorn worms inhabiting ocean sediments today—are anything but simple. They are designed with a net-like nerve plexus containing giant nerve cells, pharyngeal gill slits, glomerulus, longitudinal and circular muscle, and unique embryonic development.

But what do scientists know for sure regarding this new supposedly ancient fossil? Clearly, like its modern version, it's quite a complex creature. The article states Oesia "had U-shaped gills running down most of the length of its body, to enable filter feeding." The fossil showed the sea worm lived inside a sophisticated tube-like structure that served as a protective house. But to say this worm is our ancestor is a wholly unwarranted extrapolation.

Contrary to what the BBC article states, this half-billion-year-old fossil does not give scientists any "new insights into how early creatures evolved." It's merely a sea-worm fossil much like sea worms alive today. Indeed, in 2013 three evolutionists said, "Hemichordate [evolution] has long remained problematic."2 British paleontologist Michael Benton stated, "The [evolutionary history] of hemichordates is actively debated."3 and six evolutionists said, "Hemichordate [evolutionary history] has long been puzzling."4

The amount of extrapolation needed to jump from sea worm to human is absolutely incredible. Evolutionists are simply speculating from something known to something unknown using conjecture and lots of imagination, rather than relying on an empirical process.

The fact that no undisputed transitional fossils exist doesn't seem to thwart evolutionary extrapolation nor wild claims, like we see in this story, of an ancestral connection between sea worms and humans. There must be a better scientific explanation.

Creation scientists view this Oesia fossil as an ocean bottom-dwelling sea worm buried suddenly during the first stage of the Genesis Flood.

References

1. Sea worm fossil gives clues to 'common ancestor.' BBC News, Science & Environment. Posted on July 7, 2016, accessed July 8, 2016.

2. Caron, J., et al. 2013. Tubicolous enteropneusts from the Cambrian period. Nature. 495 (7442): 503-506.

3. Benton, M. 2014. Vertebrate Paleontology, 4th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 5.

4. Hickman, C., et al. 2011. Integrated Principles of Zoology, 15th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 496.



Sea Worm Is 'Man's Ancestor' | The Institute for Creation Research

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:35 am
by FourPart
Simple question. How many single cells are you made of?

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:41 am
by Pahu
FourPart;1506732 wrote: Simple question. How many single cells are you made of?


724 trillion cells. Why do you ask?

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:38 pm
by FourPart
Quite simply because that demonstrates that you originate from a single cell. Even in the womb a single cell evolves by splitting into 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. The point is that the number of cells is not relevant. A single cell life form, such as an amoeba splits into 2 in order to make a copy of itself. However, it is also very common for those cells not to fully divide before splitting, resulting in a 2 cell amoeba. Oh - hang on. An amoeba is a single celled 'kind'. The resulting life form is a 2 celled 'kind'. Over a single generation it has evolved. This is something that is witnessed all the time. It is the very root of evolution.

Once again, despite having asked you over & over again you have still declined to DEFINE a 'kind', as opposed to giving different examples of 'kinds'. A dog is a 'kind'. A cat is a 'kind'. But, then again, a mammal is a 'kind'. A reptile is a 'kind'. A fish is a 'kind'. But then again, they are all living, breathing lifeforms. Lifeforms are a 'kind'. But then plants are also living, breathing lifeforms. You see, each 'kind' that you choose to cite is also covered over a much wider umbrella 'kind', and even you have admitted that species can evolve within 'kinds'.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:55 am
by Pahu
FourPart;1506743 wrote: Quite simply because that demonstrates that you originate from a single cell.


Because I am composed of trillions of cells I originated from a single cell?

Even in the womb a single cell evolves by splitting into 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. The point is that the number of cells is not relevant. A single cell life form, such as an amoeba splits into 2 in order to make a copy of itself. However, it is also very common for those cells not to fully divide before splitting, resulting in a 2 cell amoeba. Oh - hang on. An amoeba is a single celled 'kind'. The resulting life form is a 2 celled 'kind'. Over a single generation it has evolved. This is something that is witnessed all the time. It is the very root of evolution.

Once again, despite having asked you over & over again you have still declined to DEFINE a 'kind', as opposed to giving different examples of 'kinds'. A dog is a 'kind'. A cat is a 'kind'. But, then again, a mammal is a 'kind'. A reptile is a 'kind'. A fish is a 'kind'. But then again, they are all living, breathing lifeforms. Lifeforms are a 'kind'. But then plants are also living, breathing lifeforms. You see, each 'kind' that you choose to cite is also covered over a much wider umbrella 'kind', and even you have admitted that species can evolve within 'kinds'.


Science disproves evolution. For example:

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time

2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms

3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms | The Institute for Creation Research

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:30 pm
by FourPart
Pahu;1506765 wrote: Because I am composed of trillions of cells I originated from a single cell?


Yes.

Now a simple test. Let's see how many posts you can manage thinking for yourself without having to use any pastes.

And another simple test - DEFINE A KIND without using examples.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:13 pm
by Ted
Actually we come from the union of 2 half cells. Male and Female.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:11 pm
by FourPart
Ted;1506825 wrote: Actually we come from the union of 2 half cells. Male and Female.


Precisely. Every living being begins as a single cell, which goes on to divide, according to its DNA coding. Pahu has already conceded that there is such a thing as Evolution, although he refuses to acknowledge that this is in any other range than in a 'kind', which he is unable to define exactly what a 'kind' is. My point is that all lifeforms a of a 'kind' - the 'kind' that is life itself. An amoeba is a single celled lifeform. Its DNA restricts it to divide only into 2 identical cells. However, on occasion (as may be observed) there can be mutations in the DNA & it doesn't complete the division & becomes a 2 celled lifeform. As this no longer fits the parameters of a single celled 'kind' that, surely, must class as a new 'kind', but as we have no definition of just what a 'kind' is, we are unable to establish this. So, apart from the numbers, just what is the difference between a single, double, or multiple trillion celled lifeform? Essentially, there is no real difference between humans (or any other lifeform which has evolved beyond the stage of a worm) to a worm. It's just a case of food in at one end & waste out at the other, with blood cells to carry the nutrients around the system (of course, some humans tend to be closer to the original model than others).

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:57 am
by Pahu
FourPart;1506837 wrote: Precisely. Every living being begins as a single cell, which goes on to divide, according to its DNA coding. Pahu has already conceded that there is such a thing as Evolution, although he refuses to acknowledge that this is in any other range than in a 'kind', which he is unable to define exactly what a 'kind' is. My point is that all lifeforms a of a 'kind' - the 'kind' that is life itself. An amoeba is a single celled lifeform. Its DNA restricts it to divide only into 2 identical cells. However, on occasion (as may be observed) there can be mutations in the DNA & it doesn't complete the division & becomes a 2 celled lifeform. As this no longer fits the parameters of a single celled 'kind' that, surely, must class as a new 'kind', but as we have no definition of just what a 'kind' is, we are unable to establish this. So, apart from the numbers, just what is the difference between a single, double, or multiple trillion celled lifeform? Essentially, there is no real difference between humans (or any other lifeform which has evolved beyond the stage of a worm) to a worm. It's just a case of food in at one end & waste out at the other, with blood cells to carry the nutrients around the system (of course, some humans tend to be closer to the original model than others).


You must have missed the definition of kind. Here it is again: The phrase “after his kind occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each land animal kind, of the same sort as that of each plant kind (Genesis 1:11-12) and each air animal and water animal (Genesis 1:21). All of these reproductive systems are programmed in terms of the biochemical genetic code, utilizing the basic elements of the earth.

Science disproves evolution. For example:







2014 Most Notable News: Fossils Resemble Living Relatives

Every year, a few fortunate paleontologists discover fossils that closely resemble living creatures, and 2014 was no exception. In fact, it was a banner year for finding modern-looking fossils in what secular scientist believe to be very old rocks. Here are a few notable examples.

In March, scientists reported fossilized plant chromosomes—fern DNA fossilized inside exquisitely preserved cells.1 After 180 million supposed years, secularists expected evolution to have somehow affected the number, lengths, or arrangements of these plant chromosomes, but the team found no difference between the fossil chromosomes and those of living royal ferns. In other words, they found no hint of evolution—a puzzling if not spectacular find.2

Stenopodideans mostly look like shrimp, except they have huge third legs instead of oversize first legs like modern shrimp. This feature made them easy to identify for a team that described fossil stenopodideans this year.3 The fossils showed no evidence of whole new body parts evolving that would indicate a transformation from one kind of creature into another kind.

Other researchers had found stenopodideans in Jurassic system rocks, but the new discovery instantly inflated the conventional age range of these wonderfully stable creature forms to 360 million years. Could evolution really have done so little change to these unique creatures after so long?4

Another arthropod broke the evolutionary mold of constant change by remaining the same after 52 million supposed years. Like its fossilized cousins, the modern ant beetle maintains an array of special features, including tiny spike-like projections for ants to constantly inspect as it lives its whole life cycle unnoticed inside an ant colony.5

Squirrels are more familiar creatures to most people than oddball arthropods, and this year researchers described squirrel look-alikes from dinosaur-bearing rocks in China.6 These amazing fossils now join a growing list of modern mammal forms found in the same strata as dinosaur fossils, including Tasmanian devils, treeshrews, beavers, and groundhogs. Have squirrels been squirrels since the very beginning? The fossils say "yes."7

Two more 2014 discoveries really astonished those interested in the growing number of what Charles Darwin called "living fossils," including some possible time record-breakers. Researchers investigating seafloor worm fossils from Russian bore holes found intricate tissues exactly matching those of today's beard worms.8 This would come as no shock if the fossil were only thousands of years old, but its 550 million-year age assignment shatters credibility.9

In our final example, biologists discovered mushroom-like animals alive on the sea floor off Australia's southern coast, then matched these newfound body forms to known fossils from Ediacaran rocks bearing the conventional label of 550 million years.10 We asked when reporting this find, "How will secular biologists explain that evolution had no effect on it over the course of 550 million years?"11

None of the evolution Darwinists expected showed up in these newly discovered or newly extended living fossils. Instead, each find confirms the Bible's record of God having created creatures to reproduce after their own kinds from the beginning not that long ago.

References

The team cited calcification as the specific means of preservation, likely involving mineral-rich waters. Bomfleur, B., S. McLaughlin, and V. Vajda. 2014. Fossilized Nuclei and Chromosomes Reveal 180 Million Years of Genomic Stasis in Royal Ferns. Science. 343 (6177): 1376-1377.

Thomas, B. Fossil Plant Chromosomes Look Modern. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org April 16, 2014, accessed December 29, 2014.

Jones, W. T. et al. 2014. The first Paleozoic stenopodidean from the Huntley Mountain Formation (Devonian-Carboniferous) north-central Pennsylvania. Journal of Paleontology. 88 (6): 1251-1256.

Thomas, B. Ghost Lineage Spawns Evolution Ghost Story. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org December 4, 2014, accessed December 29, 2014.

Thomas, B. Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org December 18, 2014, accessed December 29, 2014.

Bi, S. et al. 2014. Three new Jurassic euharamiyidan species reinforce early divergence of mammals. Nature. 514 (7524): 579-584.

Thomas, B. Jurassic Squirrels? Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org October 3, 2014, accessed December 29, 2014.

Moczydlowska, M., F. Westall, and F. Foucher. 2014. Microstructure and Biogeochemistry of the Organically Preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites. Journal of Paleontology. 88 (2): 224-239.

Thomas, B. Wonder Worm. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org April 23, 2014, accessed December 29, 2014.

Just, J., R. M. Kristensen, and J. Olesen. 2014. Dendrogramma, New Genus, with Two New Non-Bilaterian Species from the Marine Bathyal of Southeastern Australia (Animalia, Metazoa incertae sedis) – with Similarities to Some Medusoids from the Precambrian Ediacara. PLoS ONE. 9 (9): e102976.

Thomas, B. 550 Million Years of Non-Evolution? Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org December 8, 2014, accessed December 29, 2014.

2014 Most Notable News: Fossils Resemble Living Relatives | The Institute for Creation Research

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:37 am
by LarsMac
That is all very nice, but it is all Creationist propaganda. Not science.

I particularly like the "In our final example..." item. It basically shows that your friends have no earthly idea what the concept of Darwin's Origin of Species was trying to convey.

Just because an organism exists, does not mean that it must "evolve". If it exists in a niche where its current form works well, then it can exit for millions of years, without cause to change. That actually proves the science.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:50 am
by Pahu
LarsMac;1506869 wrote: That is all very nice, but it is all Creationist propaganda. Not science.

I particularly like the "In our final example..." item. It basically shows that your friends have no earthly idea what the concept of Darwin's Origin of Species was trying to convey.

Just because an organism exists, does not mean that it must "evolve". If it exists in a niche where its current form works well, then it can exit for millions of years, without cause to change. That actually proves the science.


Science disproves evolution. For example:





Facts Bite into Bird Tooth Story

Fossils clearly show that some birds used to have small teeth, but most birds today do not have teeth. When and how did this change happen? A new study in the journal Science makes a few unfounded conclusions.1

The Science team studied 46 genomes from the class Aves, which includes all birds. Each genome represented one of 46 major groups, including perching birds, birds of prey, swimming, tropical, and flightless birds. The study authors zoomed in on six key genes that toothed mammals and reptiles use in tooth formation today, finding that the bird versions of these six genes all look very different.

Even though hundreds of genes are involved in making teeth, the study authors attributed most of the differences in these six genes to genetic alterations like deleted exons, frameshift mutations, inserted stop codons, and splice-site mutations. These modifications are known to happen, but they do not always indicate that an altered gene does not function.2 Thus, before concluding that bird-tooth loss evolved through random genetic changes, scientists need to show why these alleged genetic changes could not have happened by design.

Because all six genes in today's birds have some of these supposed alterations—assuming that these genes have been altered from a code that once built bird teeth—the study authors concluded that all birds evolved from a single common ancestor that suffered tooth loss millions of years ago. However, this conclusion rests on the often-quoted, but impossible assumption, that all modern bird kinds evolved from one ancestor that had evolved from a dinosaur.

They wrote, "Modern birds share a common ancestry with toothed, maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs," and, "We estimate that tooth loss, or at least the loss of enamel caps that provide the outer layer of mineralized teeth, occurred about 116 million years ago."1 But if one concludes that all birds inherited tooth loss from an ancestor by assuming that all birds evolved from that supposed ancestor, then one has merely reasoned in a circle.

Besides, if all birds descended from a single ancestor that had lost the integrity of its tooth genes, then shouldn't all 46 of the birds they tested have inherited the same genetic mishap? Instead, the study authors found an array of gene alterations. And for that matter, shouldn't these supposedly broken genes have mutated beyond recognition after 116 million years of change?

Options other than broken-down tooth genes might better explain what these study authors found. For example, they wrote, "Previous studies have documented that are expressed outside of tooth development."1 They then dismissed the idea that these genes have any critical functions by asserting that if the genes were critical to bird life, then they would have been maintained instead of altered. But what about the possibility that birds maintain the genes in their current forms for important uses? In other words, the study authors assumed that the genes were altered before they even came to the conclusion that the genes were altered in a common ancestor—another circular argument.

Maybe what these authors have interpreted as broken genes actually do something useful in bird tissues, like serving as regulatory RNA switches or signals as a bird develops inside its egg—but that would contradict their conclusions. After all, the genes are actively expressed and apparently functional. They are not dead sequences at all. If tooth loss in some birds did occur via corrupted genes, then this is a process of information loss—not upward evolutionary improvement. For all we really know, God originally intended these six genes to perform the same tasks "outside of tooth development" that they do today. The fact that modern birds do use these tooth genes takes a bite out of the idea that the six genes are corruptions—a conclusion that relies more on circular reasoning than on scientific observations.

References

Meredith, R.W. et al. 2014. Evidence for a single loss of mineralized teeth in the common avian ancestor. Science. 346 (6215): 1254390-1-1254390-6.

Wells, J. 2011. The Myth of Junk DNA. Seattle: Discovery Institute Press.

Facts Bite into Bird Tooth Story | The Institute for Creation Research

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:24 pm
by Ted
Just reading a new book from National Geographic on the evolution of man.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:32 pm
by FourPart
1. The phrase "After his kind" is not a definition. It is a broad, vague, umbrella term. A definition is a precise description of what something is. The definition of a Dog, for instance might be something like "a species of mammal falling under the Canine species". However, that may then go further into the 'kind' category of a mammal, such as, "Warm blooded species which nurture their young by secretions of milk from the mammary glands. Also defined by having hair follicles" etc. "After his kind" is nothing like this. "His kind" could simply mean "Lifeforms".

2, Just as predicted - 2 postings - 2 pastings. The second without even any pretence of any original thought - no comments of your own - just copy & paste.

I repeat my challenge

A. DEFINE A 'KIND'.

B. Make your replies WITHOUT USING COPY & PASTE.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:40 pm
by Ted
Maybe I'm homo erectus. LOL

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:35 pm
by FourPart
Here, Pahu - I've found a new home for you on FaceBook (unless this is already your page - which wouldn't surprise me). It is full of self lauding posters / pasters who have nothing more to do that to Glorify the Ever Holy God that is Walt Brown.

On the other hand, here is a selection of independant websites that give a more realistic view of Walt Brown.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #537: Walt Brown

Hydroplate theory debate reality check | Conservative News and Views

More on Walter Brown's debate offer



And, of course, this one is hilarious - one of Pahu's many other identical threads where he attempts to open a Paste Thread, with the identical title, but is promptly banned after the initial post, although the discussion does continue for quite a while.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum ... -Evolution

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:05 pm
by LarsMac
Pahu;1506877 wrote: Science disproves evolution. For example:





Facts Bite into Bird Tooth Story

Fossils clearly show that some birds used to have small teeth, but most birds today do not have teeth. When and how did this change happen? A new study in the journal Science makes a few unfounded conclusions.1

The Science team studied 46 genomes from the class Aves, which includes all birds. Each genome represented one of 46 major groups, including perching birds, birds of prey, swimming, tropical, and flightless birds. The study authors zoomed in on six key genes that toothed mammals and reptiles use in tooth formation today, finding that the bird versions of these six genes all look very different.

Even though hundreds of genes are involved in making teeth, the study authors attributed most of the differences in these six genes to genetic alterations like deleted exons, frameshift mutations, inserted stop codons, and splice-site mutations. These modifications are known to happen, but they do not always indicate that an altered gene does not function.2 Thus, before concluding that bird-tooth loss evolved through random genetic changes, scientists need to show why these alleged genetic changes could not have happened by design.

Because all six genes in today's birds have some of these supposed alterations—assuming that these genes have been altered from a code that once built bird teeth—the study authors concluded that all birds evolved from a single common ancestor that suffered tooth loss millions of years ago. However, this conclusion rests on the often-quoted, but impossible assumption, that all modern bird kinds evolved from one ancestor that had evolved from a dinosaur.

They wrote, "Modern birds share a common ancestry with toothed, maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs," and, "We estimate that tooth loss, or at least the loss of enamel caps that provide the outer layer of mineralized teeth, occurred about 116 million years ago."1 But if one concludes that all birds inherited tooth loss from an ancestor by assuming that all birds evolved from that supposed ancestor, then one has merely reasoned in a circle.

Besides, if all birds descended from a single ancestor that had lost the integrity of its tooth genes, then shouldn't all 46 of the birds they tested have inherited the same genetic mishap? Instead, the study authors found an array of gene alterations. And for that matter, shouldn't these supposedly broken genes have mutated beyond recognition after 116 million years of change?

Options other than broken-down tooth genes might better explain what these study authors found. For example, they wrote, "Previous studies have documented that are expressed outside of tooth development."1 They then dismissed the idea that these genes have any critical functions by asserting that if the genes were critical to bird life, then they would have been maintained instead of altered. But what about the possibility that birds maintain the genes in their current forms for important uses? In other words, the study authors assumed that the genes were altered before they even came to the conclusion that the genes were altered in a common ancestor—another circular argument.

Maybe what these authors have interpreted as broken genes actually do something useful in bird tissues, like serving as regulatory RNA switches or signals as a bird develops inside its egg—but that would contradict their conclusions. After all, the genes are actively expressed and apparently functional. They are not dead sequences at all. If tooth loss in some birds did occur via corrupted genes, then this is a process of information loss—not upward evolutionary improvement. For all we really know, God originally intended these six genes to perform the same tasks "outside of tooth development" that they do today. The fact that modern birds do use these tooth genes takes a bite out of the idea that the six genes are corruptions—a conclusion that relies more on circular reasoning than on scientific observations.

References

Meredith, R.W. et al. 2014. Evidence for a single loss of mineralized teeth in the common avian ancestor. Science. 346 (6215): 1254390-1-1254390-6.

Wells, J. 2011. The Myth of Junk DNA. Seattle: Discovery Institute Press.

Facts Bite into Bird Tooth Story | The Institute for Creation Research


The arguments made here are absurd.



They imply that the change from teeth to beak was "broken-down tooth genes" and seem to imply that that was something that the author of the study came up with.

Changing genes are not "broken"

And the authors of the study do NOT have to "show why these alleged genetic changes could not have happened by design."

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:36 am
by Pahu
FourPart;1506883 wrote: 1. The phrase "After his kind" is not a definition. It is a broad, vague, umbrella term. A definition is a precise description of what something is. The definition of a Dog, for instance might be something like "a species of mammal falling under the Canine species". However, that may then go further into the 'kind' category of a mammal, such as, "Warm blooded species which nurture their young by secretions of milk from the mammary glands. Also defined by having hair follicles" etc. "After his kind" is nothing like this. "His kind" could simply mean "Lifeforms".

2, Just as predicted - 2 postings - 2 pastings. The second without even any pretence of any original thought - no comments of your own - just copy & paste.

I repeat my challenge

A. DEFINE A 'KIND'.

B. Make your replies WITHOUT USING COPY & PASTE.


A unique basic plant or animal, which cannot change into a different kind.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:44 pm
by Ted
Yes it can over thousands and millions of years. Just wishful thinking that they can't.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:53 pm
by Pahu
Ted;1506927 wrote: Yes it can over thousands and millions of years. Just wishful thinking that they can't.


Where is evidence it ever happened? Science disproves evolution. For example:



Flood Explains 'Worldwide Pattern' in Ancient Rock


Marine biologists have scoured sea floor sediments for decades, finding living creatures in the mud but never fossils in the process of forming. That's because when a sea creature dies, its carcass is totally recycled within weeks. So, if a creature's soft parts are going to fossilize, it has to happen extremely fast.

Certain sedimentary rocks, like those of the Burgess Shale in Canada, contain large amounts of fossilized sea creatures that preserve some soft body parts, such as eyes and intestines. Their remains now consist of the same carbon atoms of which their bodies were comprised, but baked and compressed into thin films. Paleontologists have attempted to find an explanation for this remarkable preservation.

In pursuit of answers to this question, Robert Gaines of California's Pomona College and his team recently looked for similarities in what are called "Burgess Shale-type" fossils from places like the Chengjiang Shale in China's Yunnan Province. The researchers analyzed ratios of carbon, oxygen, and sulfur isotopes within the millimeter-thin layers of very fine-grained mudstone from the region. Their results appear in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.1

Gaines said in a University of Southern Denmark press release via EurekAlert!, "My initial hypothesis was validated by a consistent and worldwide pattern."2 According to the technical paper, that pattern first included "rapid entombment of soft-bodied organisms in sediments" and then hardening of the sediment very soon afterward under a layer of calcium carbonate "cement." This was supposedly caused in part by "enhanced alkalinity of Cambrian oceans." Also, the assumed "global ocean" of the time had low sulfate levels, leaving sulfur-eating bacteria too little nourishment to completely degrade the fossils.1

In addition, the study authors wrote that preserving Burgess Shale-type fossils "was greatly enhanced by the absence of bioturbation," which refers to the way in which creatures like worms and clams constantly churn sea floor and lake bed sediments.3

But did all that really happen? Probably not, since most of those events invoke unexplained phenomena, such as strange ancient sea chemistry and a puzzling absence of bioturbation. Plus, if sealing buried creatures under limestone explains Burgess Shale-type fossils, then similarly preserved fossils should be found beneath the continent-covering limestones all over the globe, and not just in isolated pockets.

But it does appear that the conditions, whatever they were, that formed these exquisite fossils existed at the same time. The study authors cited evidence of "rapid entombment" by "bottom-flowing density currents."1 And whereas standard geology has no explanation for such widespread catastrophic undersea density flows, creation scientists can cite the Genesis Flood in describing the unprecedented scale of violent geologic activity implied by these and other fossils.4

References

1. Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation. University of Southern Denmark via EurekAlert!, March 7, 2012.

2. Gaines, R. R. et al. 2012. Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (14): 5180-5184.

3. Morris, J. 2009. Sedimentary Structure Shows a Young Earth. Acts & Facts. 38 (7): 15.

4. For example, see Sigler, R. and V. Wingerden. 1998. Submarine Flow and Slide Deposits in the Kingston Peak Formation, Kingston Range, Mojave Desert, California: Evidence for Catastrophic Initiation of Noah's Flood. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.

Flood Explains 'Worldwide Pattern' in Ancient Rock | The Institute for Creation Research

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:30 pm
by LarsMac
Pahu;1506933 wrote: Where is evidence it ever happened? Science disproves evolution. For example:



Flood Explains 'Worldwide Pattern' in Ancient Rock


Marine biologists have scoured sea floor sediments for decades, finding living creatures in the mud but never fossils in the process of forming. That's because when a sea creature dies, its carcass is totally recycled within weeks. So, if a creature's soft parts are going to fossilize, it has to happen extremely fast.

Certain sedimentary rocks, like those of the Burgess Shale in Canada, contain large amounts of fossilized sea creatures that preserve some soft body parts, such as eyes and intestines. Their remains now consist of the same carbon atoms of which their bodies were comprised, but baked and compressed into thin films. Paleontologists have attempted to find an explanation for this remarkable preservation.

In pursuit of answers to this question, Robert Gaines of California's Pomona College and his team recently looked for similarities in what are called "Burgess Shale-type" fossils from places like the Chengjiang Shale in China's Yunnan Province. The researchers analyzed ratios of carbon, oxygen, and sulfur isotopes within the millimeter-thin layers of very fine-grained mudstone from the region. Their results appear in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.1

Gaines said in a University of Southern Denmark press release via EurekAlert!, "My initial hypothesis was validated by a consistent and worldwide pattern."2 According to the technical paper, that pattern first included "rapid entombment of soft-bodied organisms in sediments" and then hardening of the sediment very soon afterward under a layer of calcium carbonate "cement." This was supposedly caused in part by "enhanced alkalinity of Cambrian oceans." Also, the assumed "global ocean" of the time had low sulfate levels, leaving sulfur-eating bacteria too little nourishment to completely degrade the fossils.1

In addition, the study authors wrote that preserving Burgess Shale-type fossils "was greatly enhanced by the absence of bioturbation," which refers to the way in which creatures like worms and clams constantly churn sea floor and lake bed sediments.3

But did all that really happen? Probably not, since most of those events invoke unexplained phenomena, such as strange ancient sea chemistry and a puzzling absence of bioturbation. Plus, if sealing buried creatures under limestone explains Burgess Shale-type fossils, then similarly preserved fossils should be found beneath the continent-covering limestones all over the globe, and not just in isolated pockets.

But it does appear that the conditions, whatever they were, that formed these exquisite fossils existed at the same time. The study authors cited evidence of "rapid entombment" by "bottom-flowing density currents."1 And whereas standard geology has no explanation for such widespread catastrophic undersea density flows, creation scientists can cite the Genesis Flood in describing the unprecedented scale of violent geologic activity implied by these and other fossils.4

References

1. Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation. University of Southern Denmark via EurekAlert!, March 7, 2012.

2. Gaines, R. R. et al. 2012. Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (14): 5180-5184.

3. Morris, J. 2009. Sedimentary Structure Shows a Young Earth. Acts & Facts. 38 (7): 15.

4. For example, see Sigler, R. and V. Wingerden. 1998. Submarine Flow and Slide Deposits in the Kingston Peak Formation, Kingston Range, Mojave Desert, California: Evidence for Catastrophic Initiation of Noah's Flood. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.

Flood Explains 'Worldwide Pattern' in Ancient Rock | The Institute for Creation Research


The fact that you don't see a thing is not evidence that the thing does not exist.

You, more than anyone, should get THAT.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:34 pm
by Ted
I would hope so.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:11 am
by Pahu


Codes, Programs, and Information 2



No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. A complex program is stored in the genetic information in every form of life. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs (d).

d. “No matter how many ‘bits’ of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it ‘information’ if it doesn’t at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a ‘program.’ Another name for computer software is an ‘algorithm.’ No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organisms with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed? Abel and Trevors, p. 8.

“No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms. Jack T. Trevors and David L. Abel, “Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life, Cell Biology International, Vol. 28, 2004, p. 730.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:20 pm
by Pahu


Codes, Programs, and Information 3



Life contains matter, energy, and information (e).

e. How can we measure information? A computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. Information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u that directly follows a “q. If compression could be accomplished to the maximum extent possible (eliminating all redundancies and unnecessary information), the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or widget.

Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log24 = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.

Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.

While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.

“Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day. Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics; or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1948), p. 132.

Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3×1024 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p.88.]



[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:46 pm
by LarsMac
Pahu;1507046 wrote:

Codes, Programs, and Information 3



Life contains matter, energy, and information (e).

e. How can we measure information? A computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. Information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u that directly follows a “q. If compression could be accomplished to the maximum extent possible (eliminating all redundancies and unnecessary information), the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or widget.

Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log24 = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.

Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.

While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.

“Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day. Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics; or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1948), p. 132.

Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3×1024 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p.88.]



[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


Information is a human construct.

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:46 am
by Pahu


Codes, Programs, and Information 4



All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly (f). Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

Macroevolution cannot occur (g).

Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life (h).

Life could not result from a “big bang (i).

f. Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3×10^24 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p.*88.]

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Ibid., p. 107.

“If there are more than several dozen nucleotides in a functional sequence, we know that realistically they will never just ‘fall into place.’ This has been mathematically demonstrated repeatedly. But as we will soon see, neither can such a sequence arise randomly one nucleotide at a time. A pre-existing ‘concept’ is required as a framework upon which a sentence or a functional sequence must be built. Such a concept can only pre-exist within the mind of the author. Sanford, pp.*124–125.

g. Because macroevolution requires increasing complexity through natural processes, the organism’s information content must spontaneously increase many times. However, natural processes cannot significantly increase the information content of an isolated system, such as a reproductive cell. Therefore, macroevolution cannot occur.

“The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded. Gitt, p. 124.

h. Based on modern advances in the field of information theory, the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. [See, for example, Charles H. Bennett, “Demons, Engines and the Second Law, Scientific American, Vol. 257, November 1987, pp. 108–116.] Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being. [See also [ “Second Law of Thermodynamics ]]

i. If the “big bang occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science. Random, chaotic movements of gas molecules contain virtually no useful information. Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:54 pm
by LarsMac
An interesting article on that very concept was in Science this month.

The Summary reads:

Charles Darwin closed his first edition of On the Origin of Species with the poetic words: “There is grandeur in this view of life,¦whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved (1). Today, scientists are using genetics to understand how species multiply, and ecological and behavioral knowledge to understand why they do so. However, many questions remain about the sources of genetic variation and how new phenotypes arise in response to environmental change. Recent research has revealed unexpected origins of genetic variation, providing crucial insights into phenotypic divergence and the evolutionary effects of rare events triggered by global climatic change.

- Science - Watching speciation in action

B. Rosemary Grant, Peter R. Grant

+ See all authors and affiliations

Science 03 Mar 2017:

Vol. 355, Issue 6328, pp. 910-911

DOI: 10.1126/science.aam6411


Science Disproves Evolution

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:41 am
by Pahu
LarsMac;1507337 wrote: An interesting article on that very concept was in Science this month.

The Summary reads:

Charles Darwin closed his first edition of On the Origin of Species with the poetic words: “There is grandeur in this view of life,¦whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved (1). Today, scientists are using genetics to understand how species multiply, and ecological and behavioral knowledge to understand why they do so. However, many questions remain about the sources of genetic variation and how new phenotypes arise in response to environmental change. Recent research has revealed unexpected origins of genetic variation, providing crucial insights into phenotypic divergence and the evolutionary effects of rare events triggered by global climatic change.

- Science - Watching speciation in action

B. Rosemary Grant, Peter R. Grant

+ See all authors and affiliations

Science 03 Mar 2017:

Vol. 355, Issue 6328, pp. 910-911

DOI: 10.1126/science.aam6411







The disciplines of science disprove evolution. For example:



Darwin vs. Genetics: Surprises and Snags in the Science of Common Ancestry

For over 150 years, Darwin’s hypothesis that all species share a common ancestor has dominated the creation-evolution debate. Surprisingly, when Darwin wrote his seminal work, he had no direct evidence for these genealogical relationships—he knew nothing about DNA sequences. In fact, before the discovery of the structure and function of DNA, obtaining direct scientific evidence for common ancestry was impossible. Now, with online databases full of DNA-sequence information from thousands of species, the direct testing of Darwin’s hypothesis has finally commenced. What follows is a critical reevaluation of the four major lines of genetic evidence that secular scientists use to support evolutionary common ancestry.

Evidence 1: Relative Genetic Similarities

One of the most commonly cited evidences for evolution is the hierarchical classification of life,1 which is based on anatomy and physiology. If evolution were true, then genetics should clearly reflect this pattern.

A brief examination of DNA inheritance shows the theoretical basis for this evolutionary expectation. When life begins at conception, DNA is transmitted through both the sperm and the egg, but the process of transmission happens imperfectly. Thus, each successive generation grows more genetically distant from previous generations as each new fertilization event contributes more genetic mistakes to the lineage.

By analogy, it’s as if a group of people were tasked with transcribing the text of a book and, in the process, made several errors with each transcription. If each flawed copy was used as the basis for the next copy, each successive transcription event would contribute more mistakes to the final product. Since the errors are cumulative, then comparing the number of mistakes between individual copies of the book would reveal which copies were transcribed earlier and which ones were transcribed later. Similarly, under the evolutionary paradigm, comparing the number of DNA mistakes between species should reveal which ones have a recent common ancestor and which ones have an older genealogical connection.2

Darwin’s iconic “tree of life embodies the sum of evolution’s relative predictions about species’ common ancestry (Figure 1A), and many genetic observations seem to support his hierarchical depiction of the genealogical relationships among species. For example, humans tend to share more DNA with the great apes than with frogs, and these species share more DNA with one another than they do with insects. This is consistent with predicted nesting of the human evolutionary branch within the primate branch of the tree of life and with the clustering of vertebrate species with one another but not with invertebrates on the tree.

These results would seem to confirm evolution. The problem? Numerous genetic patterns contradict this tree.3 In addition, for those patterns that do fit the tree, this result by itself demonstrates nothing about its validity. Why? Scientific tests must distinguish between hypotheses—supporting one while destabilizing the other—and the hierarchical pattern of life supports two hypotheses that are radically different. What hypothesis other than evolution predicts a hierarchical pattern? Design! Although some might protest that the design hypothesis does not explicitly predict hierarchies as a signature, empirical observations quickly put this objection to rest.4

For example, consider the similarities and differences among major types of transportation vehicles. An Indy racing car has much more in common with a sedan (e.g., four wheels, movement restricted to land, etc.) than with a hovercraft. However, all three vehicles have more in common with one another (e.g., movement restricted to sea or land) than with a helicopter. Thus, a “tree of transportation could be drawn without much effort by simply observing and classifying the products of design that surround us, and this tree would depict vehicles in a hierarchical pattern (Figure 1B).

Hence, genetic hierarchies do not provide valid scientific evidence for evolution. Bona fide evidence for evolution must support Darwinism to the clear exclusion of design. If the relative hierarchy of genetic similarities fails to do this, then perhaps another line of evidence will?

Evidence 2: Absolute Genetic Differences

At first glance, the design hypothesis doesn’t seem to predict exactly how many genetic differences should exist between humans and chimpanzees. However, the evolutionary hypothesis does. Since evolutionary progress ultimately occurs via imperfect inheritance of DNA, the accumulation of these mistakes over evolutionary time leads to precise expectations about the absolute genetic differences among species, and a match between these predictions and reality could strengthen Darwin’s case.

Unfortunately for Darwin, genetic differences contradict evolutionary predictions. The evolutionary timescale and mechanism underestimate the genetic diversity among species. For example, about 900,000,000 DNA “letter differences exist between humans and chimpanzees.5 Under the evolutionary timescale, these differences must arise via imperfect DNA inheritance in just six million years. Since humans and chimpanzees both reproduce relatively slowly, establishing genetic differences in the entire chimpanzee and human populations is enormously challenging. Both theoretical calculations and computer simulations indicate that the current differences could not arise in six million years of evolutionary change.6,7 Evolution predicts far fewer genetic differences between us and chimpanzees than actually exist and, therefore, underestimates the actual absolute genetic differences.

Evolutionary predictions for other species suffer from the problem opposite to the one that plagues human-chimp comparisons. For example, mitochondrial DNA—located in the microscopic energy factories of the cell—is found across the animal kingdom, and it is inherited imperfectly as well. The rate of mitochondrial DNA mistake accumulation has been experimentally measured for only three distinct animal species, yet all three of these species have far too few mitochondrial DNA differences for any of the species to have arisen millions of years ago. In fact, mitochondrial DNA mistakes are accumulating so rapidly that if these species did indeed evolve millions of years ago, then they would have undergone mutations in every single one of their mitochondrial DNA positions multiple times over.8 Here, the evolutionary hypothesis dramatically overestimates the actual genetic diversity within these species.

Together, these results reveal that genetic differences are no friends of Darwinism; the Darwinists aren’t even getting the basic predicted counts right. Furthermore, these results either call into question the very mechanism of Darwinian change—mutations—or they call into question Darwin’s timescale. Perhaps both.

Evidence 3: Junk DNA

The third line of evolutionary evidence from genetics leads to the same conclusion. Since the mechanism of evolutionary change is based on genetic mistakes, evolutionists expect the genomes of certain species to be littered with useless DNA—essentially leftovers from the clumsy, unguided evolutionary process. Evolutionist Dan Graur and his colleagues make this clear: “Evolution can only produce a genome devoid of ‘junk’ if and only if the effective population size is huge and the deleterious effects of increasing genome size are considerable¦.In humans, there seems to be no selection against excess genomic baggage. Our effective population size is pitiful and DNA replication does not correlate with genome size.9 Hence, evolutionists predict that the human genome should be filled with junk DNA.

The ENCODE project, a massive undertaking funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute, corralled a large amount of preliminary data that effectively refuted this hypothesis.10 In fact, the quote cited above comes from a paper written to dispute the conclusions of ENCODE—not because the experiments were flawed but simply because the project’s results were inconsistent with evolutionary expectations. The idea of a species having large amounts of junk DNA seems to be a relic of the past.

Evolutionists have further responded to ENCODE by citing organisms whose DNA sequence seems inexplicable apart from invoking junk as an explanation. For example, evolutionist T. Ryan Gregory coined the “onion test as a challenge to claims of function for junk DNA.11 The essence of his test, which has been publicized by a prominent theistic evolutionist,12 draws on the fact that the onion has much more DNA than humans and that much of this DNA falls into the category of sequence previously labeled “junk. Since humans are obviously much more complex than onions, Gregory sees no reason why the onion should carry around so much extra DNA.

This challenge is simply another example of the logical flaw that beset earlier claims of junk DNA. For Gregory to insist that creationists must explain the onion’s DNA reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. Creationists did not insist that all DNA was functional. Rather, evolutionists prematurely claimed non-functional DNA in the absence of laboratory evidence. No creationist explanation is needed until the onion’s DNA has been tested in the laboratory.13

Evolutionists have yet to demonstrate that junk DNA exists at the levels they expect to find in light of evolution, and this discrepancy effectively removes junk DNA as a line of evidence for evolution. In addition, this fact raises the question of whether all genetic differences arise via mutation. For example, one potential source of genetic differences that evolutionists regularly ignore is divine creation. In humans, modeling the common genetic differences as originating via creation rather than mutation explains the human genetic diversity data and leads to dramatically different predictions for the function of these DNA variants.14

Despite the weight of these preliminary findings, some evolutionists still cite what seem to be examples of junk DNA to support evolution. How well do these examples fare?

Evidence 4: Shared DNA Mistakes

A prominent and persuasive-sounding example of junk DNA is the purported fusion site on human chromosome 2 where, supposedly, two ancestral ape-like chromosomes came together to form a single chromosome. Evolutionists have been repeating the fusion claim for years without actually examining the sequence closely. Dr. Jeff Tomkins’ analysis of this sequence reveals that the fusion is actually functional and bears little, if any, resemblance to the predicted fusion sequence.15 This means that one of the best lines of evidence for human-chimp ancestry has now become one of the biggest evolutionary challenges: If humans and great apes have a common ancestor, why do they have different chromosome numbers?

Other specific examples of junk DNA collapse under close examination as well. For example, small subsets of the 3,000,000,000 human DNA letters represent recognizable functional sequences called genes. A comparison of these genes to the remaining DNA letters in the human DNA sequence reveals the existence of pseudogenes. As their name implies, pseudogenes look like genes that once were functional but now are broken. Evolutionists have compared pseudogenes between humans and primates and found common sequences, a pattern that evolutionists maintain is best interpreted as evidence of common ancestry.16

An analogy to human language strengthens the force of this argument. For example, if two students submitted identical essays to their teacher, the teacher might suspect that one student copied his essay from the other. If the teacher also found that both essays contained numerous errors and that the errors occurred in the same paragraphs and sentences in both essays, her suspicion of plagiarism would grow stronger. The chance is miniscule that both students would just happen to make the same typo at the same location in each of their essays. By analogy, the chance is also miniscule that two different species would randomly have the same error in the same place in their DNA sequences, especially since the human and chimpanzee DNA sequences are each billions of DNA letters long. Therefore, if two species do share errors in the exact same DNA location (i.e., both have the same pseudogenes), then evolutionists maintain that these species must have “plagiarized these mistakes from a common source.17,18

The key assumption in this analogy is that errors can be unambiguously identified. Evolutionists have again assumed that pseudogenes are non-functional without doing any laboratory experiments. These tests have now begun to be performed, and recent results revealed that pseudogenes are quite likely functional.19 Hence, pseudogenes are not “plagiarized mistakes from a common human-chimp ancestor but probably represent functional code. So instead of supporting evolution, pseudogenes seem to support design!

Summary

Darwin was completely ignorant of the biological role of DNA when he penned his theory a century and a half ago. Now the evolutionary case from genetics is unravelling at multiple levels because it was never based on any direct evidence for common ancestry in the first place. Do the evolutionists have any lines of genetic evidence left? Evolution fails to predict either the absolute number or the function of genetic differences among species. This is remarkable since the supposed “engine of evolutionary change is the genetic mistakes themselves. If evolutionists can’t even get their fundamental mechanisms to line up with their models, then why do they continue to present Darwin’s grand hypothesis as fact?

References

Futuyma, D. J. 2009. Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Carroll, S. B. 2006. The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2013. Incomplete lineage sorting and other ‘rogue’ data fell the tree of life. Journal of Creation. 27 (3): 84-92.

Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Homology Prove Evolution? Acts & Facts. 42 (9): 20.

Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.

Sanford, J. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.

Rupe, C. L. and J. C. Sanford. 2013. Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle—“Haldane’s Ratchet. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism. M. Horstemeyer, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.

Jeanson, N. T. 2014. New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years. Acts & Facts. 43 (4): 5-8.

Graur, D. et al. 2013. On the immortality of television sets: “function in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution. 5 (3): 578-590.

The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.

Gregory, T. R. The onion test. Evolver Zone. Posted on genomicrom.evolverzone.com April 25, 2007, accessed December 17, 2013.

Venema, D. ENCODE and “Junk DNA, Part 2: Function: What’s in a Word? The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.org September 26, 2012, accessed December 17, 2013.

Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Junk DNA Exist? Acts & Facts. 42 (4): 20.

Carter, R. W. The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos. Creation Ministries International. Posted on creation.com August 20, 2011, accessed June 25, 2014.

Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.

Venema, D. and D. Falk. Signature in the Pseudogenes, Part 2. The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.org May 17, 2010, accessed December 13, 2013.

Max, E. E. Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics: Another argument in the evolution-creation controversy. The TalkOrgins Archive. Posted on talkorigins.org May 5, 2003, accessed December 13, 2013.

Jeanson, N. 2011. Human-Chimp Genetic Similarity: Do Shared “Mistakes Prove Common Ancestry? Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 6.

Tomkins, J. 2013. Pseudogenes Are Functional, Not Genomic Fossils. Acts & Facts. 42 (7): 9.



Darwin vs. Genetics: Surprises and Snags in the Science of Common Ancestry | The Institute for Creation Research