Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

FourPart;1511528 wrote: Creationists do not examine the evidence & then come up with explanations. The come up with explanations & then cherry pick whichever pieces of evidence they feel may support their explanations, albeit if misinterpreted.

As for most of the fossils supposedly having originated from the flood? How come they haven't found a proportionate amount of fossilised humans at the same geological level? In theory there should be just as many fossils being found of humans as any other creature of the same time - but there aren't.

Come to that, how come no human fossils have been found at the same geological levels as dinosaurs, and earlier life forms? Evolution explains it very well - there simply weren't humans around to be fossilised at that time. Creationism has no explanation at all.


As the Flood waters rose, the more intelligent and agile escaped to higher ground. When they were overcome there was little or no sediment to fossilize.

[FourPart]

Pahu;1511532 wrote: As the Flood waters rose, the more intelligent and agile escaped to higher ground. When they were overcome there was little or no sediment to fossilize.
But according to the Bible there was no higher ground until after the waters subsided (namely Ararat), and according to Walt Brown there was no higher ground because the mountains were formed as a result of the earth splitting open under the pressure of the water, so there's 2 of your own arguments that contradict yourself.

[Pahu]

FourPart;1511556 wrote: But according to the Bible there was no higher ground until after the waters subsided (namely Ararat), and according to Walt Brown there was no higher ground because the mountains were formed as a result of the earth splitting open under the pressure of the water, so there's 2 of your own arguments that contradict yourself.


The Bible speaks of mountains being covered by the Flood. So does Brown. These were small mountains.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511565 wrote: The Bible speaks of mountains being covered by the Flood. So does Brown. These were small mountains.


And where is your proof that these were small mountains?

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511568 wrote: And where is your proof that these were small mountains?


The fact they were covered by the Flood.

[Saint_]

So there should be large concentrations of human fossils at the tops of the mountains, but there aren't.

[Saint_]

Hey Pahu, what are you going to do if they find life on Europa? State that the flood carried life across space?

And what about those bacteria traces on Mars?

Sooner or later, you views are going to be shattered. You should start getting mentally prepared for it. Seriously.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511579 wrote: The fact they were covered by the Flood.


HA! very good!

I knew you had a sense of humor.

[Ted]

He refers to the Bible but it is a metaphor from cover to cover with a few smatterings of history here and there. It as a book is midrash.

[Ted]

The flood is a legend in the true sense of the word. A historical basis but very well amplified. the Tigris and the Euphrates flooded throughout history. To try to make that a cataclysm is to say the least absurd. Other places flood as well just look around the world today. Hey then there was Katrina that some tried to make into God's punishment on the evil state of the US. May God if he/she/it exists protect us from this nonsense.

[Pahu]

Saint_;1511581 wrote: So there should be large concentrations of human fossils at the tops of the mountains, but there aren't.


By the time they reached that high there was not enough sediment for fossilization.

[Pahu]

Saint_;1511582 wrote: Hey Pahu, what are you going to do if they find life on Europa? State that the flood carried life across space?

And what about those bacteria traces on Mars?

Sooner or later, you views are going to be shattered. You should start getting mentally prepared for it. Seriously.


Where is evidence for bacteria traces on Mars?

[Pahu]

Ted;1511596 wrote: He refers to the Bible but it is a metaphor from cover to cover with a few smatterings of history here and there. It as a book is .


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.

[Pahu]

Ted;1511599 wrote: The flood is a legend in the true sense of the word. A historical basis but very well amplified. the Tigris and the Euphrates flooded throughout history. To try to make that a cataclysm is to say the least absurd. Other places flood as well just look around the world today. Hey then there was Katrina that some tried to make into God's punishment on the evil state of the US. May God if he/she/it exists protect us from this nonsense.




Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence



When the Bible refers to a worldwide Flood in Genesis 7–8, that’s exactly what it means. Not local, not metaphorical, not some crazy dream—the waters covered the whole earth. Don’t just take our word for it, though. Take a look at the evidence right beneath your feet.

Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents

We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures

Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals

We find extensive fossil “graveyards and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard

Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas

We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers

Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances

We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.

Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country

Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata

We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion

Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession

Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years, while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

Focus in: Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured

What now?

The Bible’s history is reliable throughout—from the creation of man from the dust of the ground to the worldwide Flood to the coming of Jesus Christ. But just reading the evidence isn’t enough. The message of salvation founded in the Bible's history is also true, and, God wants us to accept the gift of salvation He freely offers us.

The evidence is real. God has revealed Himself to us in His Word and in His creation (Romans 1:20).

How will you respond?

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... -evidence/

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511614 wrote:

Worldwide Flood, Worldwide Evidence



When the Bible refers to a worldwide Flood in Genesis 7–8, that’s exactly what it means. Not local, not metaphorical, not some crazy dream—the waters covered the whole earth. Don’t just take our word for it, though. Take a look at the evidence right beneath your feet.

Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents

We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures

Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals

We find extensive fossil “graveyards and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard

Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas

We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers

Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances

We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.

Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country

Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata

We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion

Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession

Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years, while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

Focus in: Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured

What now?

The Bible’s history is reliable throughout—from the creation of man from the dust of the ground to the worldwide Flood to the coming of Jesus Christ. But just reading the evidence isn’t enough. The message of salvation founded in the Bible's history is also true, and, God wants us to accept the gift of salvation He freely offers us.

The evidence is real. God has revealed Himself to us in His Word and in His creation (Romans 1:20).

How will you respond?

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... -evidence/


Sorry, but, no. None of that is at all convincing evidence of a flood a few thousand years ago.

All of those examples are much better explained by such things as plate tectonics, and continental migration over millions of years, along with a few cataclysmic events that have been documented over the millions of year of life on Earth.

The Bible is net a Science book, nor a Biology book, nor even a real History book. It is a book that compiled a number of very good stories about a people and their struggle to deal with life and their struggle with God and the environment in which they lived.

People like you miss the entirety of the point of God's word and the lessons intended to be learned from the Bible.

I feel sorry for you.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1511615 wrote: Sorry, but, no. None of that is at all convincing evidence of a flood a few thousand years ago.

All of those examples are much better explained by such things as plate tectonics, and continental migration over millions of years, along with a few cataclysmic events that have been documented over the millions of year of life on Earth.

The Bible is net a Science book, nor a Biology book, nor even a real History book. It is a book that compiled a number of very good stories about a people and their struggle to deal with life and their struggle with God and the environment in which they lived.

People like you miss the entirety of the point of God's word and the lessons intended to be learned from the Bible.

I feel sorry for you.This is your way of trying to understanding a person's mindset? What it looks like to me is you trying to one-up the other in an attempt to appear to be the more spiritual person with a better knowledge of your fairytale and invisible friend.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511615 wrote: Sorry, but, no. None of that is at all convincing evidence of a flood a few thousand years ago.

All of those examples are much better explained by such things as plate tectonics, and continental migration over millions of years, along with a few cataclysmic events that have been documented over the millions of year of life on Earth.



The Bible is net a Science book, nor a Biology book, nor even a real History book. It is a book that compiled a number of very good stories about a people and their struggle to deal with life and their struggle with God and the environment in which they lived.

People like you miss the entirety of the point of God's word and the lessons intended to be learned from the Bible.

I feel sorry for you.


If denial of the facts makes you feel better, by all means continue to deny. But the fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Snakes Have Always Been Snakes

It's an old story. An animal or plant is discovered in sedimentary rocks by paleontologists and it pushes the organism's origin further back by many millions of years—but it's always a plant or animal already known to science. Granted, some of these fossilized creatures are extinct, but that's no indication they evolved.

This time snakes are the subject of a recent, unexpected discovery that supposedly pushes their first appearance back an additional 65 million years.1 Evolutionists were shocked at the discovery of four snake fossils, the oldest (Eophis underwoodi) dating back to "167 million years" by evolutionary dating. Prior to these discoveries the oldest snake fossil was a mere "102 million years old."

Creation scientists maintain snakes have always been snakes. Evolutionists say snakes evolved from some non-snake ancestor—evidently much longer than 167 million years ago. The problem is the complete lack of evidence of "modern" snakes having evolved from non-snake ancestors. Fossils of transitional snake-like creatures do not exist; there are only questionable theories and conjecture.

Through the decades, evolutionists have been at a bit of a loss as to the origin of snakes.

"Unfortunately, the fossil history of the snakes is very fragmentary, so that it is necessary to infer much of their evolution from the comparative anatomy of modern forms."2

"The origin of the snakes is still an unsolved problem."3

"Zoologists debate the evolutionary origin of the snakes."4

Even as recently as this year, 2015, evolutionists are still at a loss, "The debate is far from resolved."5

Is it any wonder the theme of no real evidence of evolutionary change is seen throughout another article regarding these same snake fossils? "The snakes in these groups ‘are still very much snakes, there is no question about the affinity of these living forms¦.'"6 Earlier in the same article the writer stated, "The remains seem to be most similar to modern snakes that belong to rather obscure groups, and are thought to be somewhat primitive members of the snake family, such as a group called the anilioids¦." But evolutionist Allaby never refers to the Family Aniliidae as being "primitive."7 The debate continues.

As long as secular scientists trust in Darwinism, the origin of any kind of animal or plant will be far from resolved. Perhaps snake evolutionists should scale back their old story.

References

1. Dunham, W. Remarkable fossils push back snake origins by 65 million years.

2. Reuters. Posted on Reuters.com on January 27, 2015, accessed January 28, 2015.

3. Colbert, E. et al. 2001. Colbert's Evolution of the Vertebrates, 5th Ed. New York: Wiley-Liss, 154.

4. Stahl, B. 1985. Vertebrate History. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.,318.

5. Miller, S. and J. Harley. 2013. Zoology. McGraw-Hill, 357.

6. Benton, M. 2015. Vertebrate Paleontology. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 252.

7. Blaszczak-Boxe, A. 2015. Oldest Known Snake Fossils Identified. Live Science.

Snakes Have Always Been Snakes | The Institute for Creation Research

[Ted]

More BS from Pahu????

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511620 wrote: If denial of the facts makes you feel better, by all means continue to deny. But the fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Snakes Have Always Been Snakes

It's an old story. An animal or plant is discovered in sedimentary rocks by paleontologists and it pushes the organism's origin further back by many millions of years—but it's always a plant or animal already known to science. Granted, some of these fossilized creatures are extinct, but that's no indication they evolved.

This time snakes are the subject of a recent, unexpected discovery that supposedly pushes their first appearance back an additional 65 million years.1 Evolutionists were shocked at the discovery of four snake fossils, the oldest (Eophis underwoodi) dating back to "167 million years" by evolutionary dating. Prior to these discoveries the oldest snake fossil was a mere "102 million years old."

Creation scientists maintain snakes have always been snakes. Evolutionists say snakes evolved from some non-snake ancestor—evidently much longer than 167 million years ago. The problem is the complete lack of evidence of "modern" snakes having evolved from non-snake ancestors. Fossils of transitional snake-like creatures do not exist; there are only questionable theories and conjecture.

Through the decades, evolutionists have been at a bit of a loss as to the origin of snakes.

"Unfortunately, the fossil history of the snakes is very fragmentary, so that it is necessary to infer much of their evolution from the comparative anatomy of modern forms."2

"The origin of the snakes is still an unsolved problem."3

"Zoologists debate the evolutionary origin of the snakes."4

Even as recently as this year, 2015, evolutionists are still at a loss, "The debate is far from resolved."5

Is it any wonder the theme of no real evidence of evolutionary change is seen throughout another article regarding these same snake fossils? "The snakes in these groups ‘are still very much snakes, there is no question about the affinity of these living forms¦.'"6 Earlier in the same article the writer stated, "The remains seem to be most similar to modern snakes that belong to rather obscure groups, and are thought to be somewhat primitive members of the snake family, such as a group called the anilioids¦." But evolutionist Allaby never refers to the Family Aniliidae as being "primitive."7 The debate continues.

As long as secular scientists trust in Darwinism, the origin of any kind of animal or plant will be far from resolved. Perhaps snake evolutionists should scale back their old story.

References

1. Dunham, W. Remarkable fossils push back snake origins by 65 million years.

2. Reuters. Posted on Reuters.com on January 27, 2015, accessed January 28, 2015.

3. Colbert, E. et al. 2001. Colbert's Evolution of the Vertebrates, 5th Ed. New York: Wiley-Liss, 154.

4. Stahl, B. 1985. Vertebrate History. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.,318.

5. Miller, S. and J. Harley. 2013. Zoology. McGraw-Hill, 357.

6. Benton, M. 2015. Vertebrate Paleontology. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 252.

7. Blaszczak-Boxe, A. 2015. Oldest Known Snake Fossils Identified. Live Science.

Snakes Have Always Been Snakes | The Institute for Creation Research


I did not deny the facts.

I simply deny that the facts are evidence of what you claim them to be.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511632 wrote: I did not deny the facts.

I simply deny that the facts are evidence of what you claim them to be.


You are wrong. The fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Variation Is Limited within Kinds

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.

Variation Is Limited within Kinds | The Institute for Creation Research

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 12



“The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence. Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.

“The origin of angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today. Colin Patterson et al., “Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

You become repititiously repetitive, and still fail to offer actual evidence to support a single claim.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511646 wrote: You become repititiously repetitive, and still fail to offer actual evidence to support a single claim.


Try reading with your mind and eyes open. The fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Circular Arguments Punch Holes in Triceratops Study

Researchers continue to study one of the most well-known dinosaurs—the three-horned genus Triceratops—as they analyze data collected during the eleven-year Hell Creek Project. The effort involved collecting fossils from the famous Montana Hell Creek Formation, including over fifty Triceratops specimens. The latest report from the Project, however, reveals three logic holes in its attempts to answer questions about when and how these dinosaurs evolved.

Publishing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), dinosaur expert John Horner and three other scientists studied minute anatomical differences between these Triceratops specimens taken from different layers within the roughly 300-foot-thick Hell Creek Formation.

They wrote, "The combination of a stratigraphically controlled robust sample from the entire ∼90-m-thick HCF and identification of ontogenetic [maturation] stages makes Triceratops a model organism for testing hypotheses proposed for the modes of dinosaur evolution."1 Since the only hypotheses they tested were modes of evolution—ignoring any creation hypotheses—then of course they would conclude that the creatures evolved, which the study authors did.

But that's just circular reasoning—the first big hole in this study.

The report also described contradicting results of cladistics analyses where software generated likely evolutionary lineages using Triceratops anatomy details. Just because their software outputs evolutionary scenarios, does that mean Triceratops actually evolved? No it doesn't. Since the software only outputs evolutionary scenarios, it will always output evolutionary scenarios no matter how many or how much fossil detail inputs it receives! The project's software is subjective, biased toward evolution. That's a second hole.

What about the question of when these dinosaurs lived and died? The PNAS study authors wrote that the changes in horn structure that define two named species of Triceratops occurred within one to two million years. Where did they get those numbers?

They reference a technical book on the Formation published by the Geological Society of America.2 There, different evolutionary authors agreed on the rock's age using biostratigraphy. They used fossils to assign ages to rocks by assuming those fossilized creatures evolved over millions of years.

After assuming deep time in the first place, how could these researchers fail to conclude that the rock layers formed millions of years ago over a span of one to two million years?

They bolstered their age assignments by "calibrating" them to astronomical theory. The geological monograph explains, "The calibration points in both the 1992 and 1995 versions [of dates for the Hell Creek Formation] are a mixture of conventional K-Ar and 40Ar-39Ar ages and astronomical dating."2 A recent ICR article described how "calibrating" ages by assuming long ages of astronomical shifts boils down to yet another circular argument guaranteed to output millions of years.3

And if radioisotope systems involving argon or potassium really worked as accurate and reliable dating methods, then why would its users need calibration from outside sources?

This instance of circular reasoning represents the third hole in the PNAS study results, leaving plenty of room for its major conclusions to leak out.

Triceratops need not have evolved if they were simply different expressions of genetic variation that God pre-programmed into the original ceratopsid dinosaur kind. And the sedimentary rocks that contain these dinosaur fossils need not have been deposited over millions of years. The continent-covering muds and sands that Noah's Flood, or its immediate after-effects produced only thousands of years ago, readily explain these rocks and the splendid fossils they contain.

References

1. Scannella, J. B. et al. Evolutionary trends in Triceratops from the Hell Creek Formation, Montana. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print, 2014, accessed July 9, 2014.

2. Hicks, J. F. et al. 2002. The Hell Creek Formation and the Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary in the Northern Great Plains: An Integrated Continental Record of the End of the Cretaceous. J.H. Hartman, K.R. Johnson, D.J. Nichols, Eds. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America, Special Paper 361, 42.

3. Hebert, J. 2014. Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth: Part 1. Acts & Facts. 43 (6): 12-14.

Circular Arguments Punch Holes in Triceratops Study | The Institute for Creation Research

[Saint_]

National Geographic Teams have found new fossil from the dawn of Earth.

National Geographic Finds Oldest Life on Earth

This May Be the Oldest Known Sign of Life on Earth

Found embedded in crystal, the structures seem to be fossils formed around hydrothermal vents as much as 4.28 billion years ago.



By Nadia Drake

PUBLISHED MARCH 1, 2017

Stalks of iron-rich minerals, each a fraction the size of an eyelash, may be evidence of the earliest life-forms to inhabit the newborn planet Earth. The tiny hematite tubes are as much as 4.28 billion years old, according to the scientists announcing the find, and they are stunningly similar to structures produced by microbes living around undersea hydrothermal vents.

Discovered in slices of rock recovered from northern Quebec, the microscopic metallic detritus—plus chemical signatures associated with ancient metabolisms—could push back the date at which life arose on Earth. If verified, these fossils would surpass 3.7-billion-year-old microbial mats found in Greenland as the oldest known traces of life.

The microfossils also lend support to the idea that the warm, watery, mineral-rich neighborhoods around submerged vents are prime places for life to emerge, whether on this planet, on the seafloors of icy moons, or elsewhere in the universe.

[Pahu]

Saint_;1511648 wrote: National Geographic Teams have found new fossil from the dawn of Earth.

National Geographic Finds Oldest Life on Earth

This May Be the Oldest Known Sign of Life on Earth

Found embedded in crystal, the structures seem to be fossils formed around hydrothermal vents as much as 4.28 billion years ago.



By Nadia Drake

PUBLISHED MARCH 1, 2017

Stalks of iron-rich minerals, each a fraction the size of an eyelash, may be evidence of the earliest life-forms to inhabit the newborn planet Earth. The tiny hematite tubes are as much as 4.28 billion years old, according to the scientists announcing the find, and they are stunningly similar to structures produced by microbes living around undersea hydrothermal vents.

Discovered in slices of rock recovered from northern Quebec, the microscopic metallic detritus—plus chemical signatures associated with ancient metabolisms—could push back the date at which life arose on Earth. If verified, these fossils would surpass 3.7-billion-year-old microbial mats found in Greenland as the oldest known traces of life.

The microfossils also lend support to the idea that the warm, watery, mineral-rich neighborhoods around submerged vents are prime places for life to emerge, whether on this planet, on the seafloors of icy moons, or elsewhere in the universe.


Dating methods are not reliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



'Oldest Evidence' of Life?

Recently, evolutionists discovered “microfossils up to almost 4.3 billion years old in Canada.1 Their article states:

“It shows that some microbes have not changed significantly since Earth’s early times, Papineau said. Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago and the oceans appeared about 4.4 billion years ago. If the fossils are indeed 4.28 billion years old, that would suggest “an almost instantaneous emergence of life after ocean formation, Dodd said.1

It is significant that these fossil microbes apparently didn’t change after four billion years—but evolution implies many, many changes over millions of years. If evolution involves substantial change, then why are these ancient microfossils so similar to modern microbes?

The article states the microbes “are similar to the bacteria that thrive today around sea floor hydrothermal vents and “hydrothermal vents spewing hot water may have been the cradle of life on Earth relatively soon after the planet formed. This brings us to a second point: The hardy life forms clustered around today’s hydrothermal vents are called extremophiles. They can survive punishing temperatures, high pressure, and toxic chemicals. Were these the first forms of life on Earth—having been fashioned by time, chance, and natural processes? In our advanced 21st century, secular biologists are still unaware of life’s origin:

How did cells arise? Of all the major questions posed by biologists, this question may be the least likely ever to be answered.2

We should be aware that the sudden and spontaneous formation of organic life (unobserved “abiotic synthesis) from inorganic non-life has yet to be documented either on the surface of the “primitive Earth, or in the cracks in the ocean’s floor—the “iron-sulfur world hypothesis. And it’s certainly never been empirically observed in a laboratory. Indeed, naturalistic philosophers despair in even defining what life actually is.3

Although evolutionists cannot define life, how it arose, or where this miraculous first-life event occurred, they maintain it somehow did so almost instantaneously! Truly, a key ingredient in this strange, secular scenario is blind faith.

Finally, the article airily stated that the oceans “appeared. But even water’s origin is an ongoing puzzle for the material scientist. “Astronomers [are still] looking for clues to water’s origins stated a science news website.4 It recently has been suggested water covering the Earth may have had a more local origin, “How did the Earth get its water? It seems it had it all along.5 This is an interesting admission especially in the light of what the Apostle Paul said:

“Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them. (Acts 14:15)

The biblical record is a testimony of One who made water and life, the One who was there “in the beginning....6

References

1. Dunham, W. Canadian bacteria-like fossils called oldest evidence of life. Reuters. Posted on reuters.com March 1, 2017, accessed March 1, 2017.

2. Karp, G. 2013. Cell and Molecular Biology, 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 7.

3. Bedau, M. A., and C. Cleland, eds. 2010. The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspective from Philosophy and Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

4. Howell, E. Astronomers Looking for Clues to Water’s Origins. Astrobiology Magazine. Posted on astrobio.net March 27, 2014, accessed March 1, 2017.

5. Origin of Earth’s water traced back to the birth of our planet. New Scientist. Posted on newscientist.com November 18, 2015, accessed March 1, 2017.

6. Genesis 1:1.

'Oldest Evidence' of Life? | The Institute for Creation Research

[LarsMac]

You're one to talk about having an open mind.

A couple of small points

1. Evolution does not dictate change, nor does it require change. If an organism is getting along well the way it is, it does not need to evolve. It simply goes on about its business as usual. Evolution is simply the term used to describe the results of organisms adapting to changes in their environment to stay viable. That's it. Nothing really more to it than that.

2. You seem to have created your very own definition of Evolution, with a couple of interesting rules, which you then declare that cannot be.

Quit trying to make the Bible a science book.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511651 wrote: You're one to talk about having an open mind.

A couple of small points

1. Evolution does not dictate change, nor does it require change. If an organism is getting along well the way it is, it does not need to evolve. It simply goes on about its business as usual. Evolution is simply the term used to describe the results of organisms adapting to changes in their environment to stay viable. That's it. Nothing really more to it than that.


Except evolution requires those changes to be an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.

2. You seem to have created your very own definition of Evolution, with a couple of interesting rules, which you then declare that cannot be.

Quit trying to make the Bible a science book.


When have I tried to make the Bible a science book? 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

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511660 wrote: Except evolution requires those changes to be an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.


Evolution requires nothing. Evolutionary change does not necessarily result in " beneficial increase in complexity". Evolutionary changes may be as simple as a slight change in a birds beak that allows it to crack thicker seed shells. Or, a longer beak to allow a hummingbird to take nectar from a deeper blossom. Or a slight variation in coloration to blend in with the surrounding vegetation.

You define your own version of evolution simply to deny that it exists. How very scientific of you.

[/QUOTE]

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511663 wrote: Evolution requires nothing. Evolutionary change does not necessarily result in " beneficial increase in complexity". Evolutionary changes may be as simple as a slight change in a birds beak that allows it to crack thicker seed shells. Or, a longer beak to allow a hummingbird to take nectar from a deeper blossom. Or a slight variation in coloration to blend in with the surrounding vegetation.

You define your own version of evolution simply to deny that it exists. How very scientific of you.




Your definition does not conform to the known definition of evolution. Where is evidence that beaks or coloration add up to an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Slight built it adaptations to changes in environment has nothing to do with evolution.

[Ted]

LarsMarc Great post.. Pahu should try writing fiction. I suppose Brown isn't the wone to follow in credible writing.

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511664 wrote: Your definition does not conform to the known definition of evolution. Where is evidence that beaks or coloration add up to an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Slight built it adaptations to changes in environment has nothing to do with evolution.


You mean that my definition does not conform to YOUR definition of Evolution.

I cannot argue for "Evolutionists" or "Creationists", whatever those are.

I can only speak to what I know from reading and studying the science. (And reading and studying the Bible. Yes, I have done that, too.)

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511671 wrote: You mean that my definition does not conform to YOU definition of Evolution.

I cannot argue for "Evolutionists" or "Creationists", whatever those are.

I can only speak to what I know from reading and studying the science. (And reading and studying the Bible. Yes, I have done that, too.)


Evolutionists are those who believe in the myth of evolution. Creationists are those who believe in the fact of creation. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



Monkey Business in the New Gorilla Genome

Old evolutionary assumptions seem hard to break. The recent assembling of ape DNA sequences based on the human genome provides a good example. This new gorilla genome study, despite capitalizing on advanced DNA sequencing technology, suffers from the same old malady.1 What could have been an accurate genome has been apparently tainted by evolutionary practices.

When genomes (a complete set of chromosomes) are sequenced, the initial DNA are obtained in small sections and pieced together. Over the past 20 years, a variety of different technologies produced reads—individual DNA sequences, of about 100 to 1,500 bases in length. Considering that human and ape genomes are each about three billion bases in length, it's a daunting task to assemble these short reads into contiguous regions that represent large sections of chromosomes.

For past research projects in chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan genomes (human kind's supposed closest evolutionary relatives) the DNA sequence reads have always been short in length and research funds quite limited. So using a healthy dose of evolutionary presuppositions, scientists found it convenient to simply assemble the short ape DNA sequence reads using the human genome as a scaffold or guide. This produced a biased and more human-like ape genome.2

Now a new DNA sequencing technology called SMRT (Single-Molecule, Real-Time sequencing technology) can produce reads of over 10,000 bases in length—making the assembly process of a new genome less dependent on a reference scaffold. But old habits are hard to break, especially when the results don't match up with evolution.3

Using SMRT, the gorilla genome was re-sequenced into long reads which were then initially assembled onto each other based on overlaps without the use of a reference sequence—an approach called a 'de novo assembly.'1,4 But unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. Then the regions of contiguous sequence that were assembled de novo, called contigs or scaffolds, were further assembled and edited using the human genome as a guide. The authors of the project state, "We evaluated the correctness of the scaffolds by aligning them to GRCh38 ," and, "Scaffolds were further oriented and ordered using GRCh38 to provide chromosomal resolution."4 So even though they started out building the gorilla genome from scratch, they still used the human genome as an evolutionary standard to modify the end product.

What started out as a noble and objective effort at achieving a more accurate gorilla genome, ended up being muddled by old evolutionary biases. Isn't this a clear subjective negation of the scientific method?

Nevertheless, if the assembled DNA sequences are released to the public prior to the stage at which the standard evolutionary practices were employed (practices that make the gorilla genome look far more human than it really is), then both creationists and secular researchers will have much improved resources to work with. I look forward to reviewing those initial sequences.

References

1. Gordon, D. et al. 2016. Long-read sequence assembly of the gorilla genome. Science. 352 (6281): 52, DOI: 10.1126.

2. Tomkins, J. P. 2011. How Genomes Are Sequenced and Why It Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees. Answers Research Journal. 4: 81-88.

3. Tomkins, J. P. 2016. A More Accurate Chimpanzee Genome. Acts & Facts. 45 (4): 9.

4. Gordon, D. et al. 2016. Supplementary Material for Long-read sequence assembly of the gorilla genome. Science. 352 (6281): 52, DOI: 10.1126.



Monkey Business in the New Gorilla Genome | The Institute for Creation Research

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511686 wrote: Evolutionists are those who believe in the myth of evolution. Creationists are those who believe in the fact of creation...




gotcha. So one myth or the other.

I am not a proponent of Evolution as you define it, but the myth of a 6000 year old earth is far less probable.

By the way,

Do you ever actually read any of the documents you post references to?

[Ted]

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 13



d. “The insect fossil record has many gaps. “Insects: Insect Fossil Record, Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).

e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:

“As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination. Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.

“How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill. Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.

“Origin of the vertebrates is obscure—there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time. Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.

f. “... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world. Taylor, p. 60.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511730 wrote:

Fossil Gaps 13



d. “The insect fossil record has many gaps. “Insects: Insect Fossil Record, Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).

e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:

“As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination. Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.

“How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill. Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.

“Origin of the vertebrates is obscure—there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time. Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.

f. “... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world. Taylor, p. 60.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


That horse long ago gave up the ghosts. You should probably put your whip away.

[Ted]

The biggest joke of all is that some believe the creationists.

[FourPart]

Ted;1511738 wrote: The biggest joke of all is that some believe the creationists.


No - the biggest joke is that some still believe in a Flat Earth - mind you, they also tend to be Creationists.

[Ted]

Creationism is another myth but evolution trumps creationism. In one place in the Bible Jesus is purported to say "none are so blind and those who will not see and also None are so deaf as those who will not hear." A paraphrase as looking it up for here is a total waste of time.

[Pahu]

Ted;1511855 wrote: Creationism is another myth but evolution trumps creationism. In one place in the Bible Jesus is purported to say "none are so blind and those who will not see and also None are so deaf as those who will not hear." A paraphrase as looking it up for here is a total waste of time.


Are saying the myth of evolution trumps creation?

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511858 wrote: Are saying the myth of evolution trumps creation?


The "Myth of Evolution" is far more credible than your Myth of Creation.

[Ted]

To think this is the 21st cent.!!!!!!

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511859 wrote: The "Myth of Evolution" is far more credible than your Myth of Creation.


Really? Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

Evidence for the Existence of God

Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists

AlwaysBeReady.com

The First Cause Argument

Arguments for God's Existence

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1




Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

Scientists Speak About Evolution

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511865 wrote: Really? Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.

...

Yadda, yadda, yadda




The Universe is as eternal as God. Therefore it has no beginning.

[Ted]

Quantum physicists have shown that atones wink in and out of nothingness.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511866 wrote: The Universe is as eternal as God. Therefore it has no beginning.


The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

[Pahu]

Ted;1511870 wrote: Quantum physicists have shown that atones wink in and out of nothingness.




QUANTUM

SOMETHING from NOTHING?




Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

“¦ spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition¦Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation¦Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

“The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A FINAL THOUGHT

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

Who created God? • ChristianAnswers.Net

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1511873 wrote: The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.


Sorry, but Entropy only applies to a closed system.

We discussed that, already.

[Saint_]

In the beginning, God created Evolution and He saw that it worked great. Why can't evolution be a part of the processes of the Universe? He created radioactive decay, star life cycles, atomic physics, but he can't create evolution as a process? Kind of underrating Him, aren't you?

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1511876 wrote: Sorry, but Entropy only applies to a closed system.

We discussed that, already.


Open Systems


‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.

‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’

The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

• that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

• usable energy is running out

• information tends to get scrambled

• order tends towards disorder

• a random jumble won’t organize itself

•

It also depends on the type of system:

• An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.

• A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

• An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: answers to critics - creation.com