-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can we really Believe the Creator's Word?
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
Bob
Evolution HAS been shown to be true. The TOE is only setting out to explain how the observed changes have occurred. These atheists you mention may know something about science, but to quote them on religious matters is a fallacy, specifically an appeal to authority. They have no credentials that indicate they have any expertise in the field of Christianity. (See how to point out a fallacy. What and why. You have long accused me of being fallacious but have not given me that kind of information when asked.)
But your use of the fallacy illustrates one of my reasons for being involved in this. There is the impression that Christianity is incompatible with an old earth, cultivated by you and your side. This can be and is used against us. There is nothing that says this must be the case. Evolution happened / happens. You can only deny the evidence for that. But there are consequences for your insistance and unbelievers thinking that Christianity is incompatible with reality is one of them. Believers losing faith when they find out the truth is another.
Evolution HAS been shown to be true. The TOE is only setting out to explain how the observed changes have occurred. These atheists you mention may know something about science, but to quote them on religious matters is a fallacy, specifically an appeal to authority. They have no credentials that indicate they have any expertise in the field of Christianity. (See how to point out a fallacy. What and why. You have long accused me of being fallacious but have not given me that kind of information when asked.)
But your use of the fallacy illustrates one of my reasons for being involved in this. There is the impression that Christianity is incompatible with an old earth, cultivated by you and your side. This can be and is used against us. There is nothing that says this must be the case. Evolution happened / happens. You can only deny the evidence for that. But there are consequences for your insistance and unbelievers thinking that Christianity is incompatible with reality is one of them. Believers losing faith when they find out the truth is another.
"Again" you are dodging the point with a circulare argument."
How is it circular. SHow me the circular part.
Relativity tells us how light is affected by a large mass. We look at gravitational lens where an object has been lensed by the gravity of a cluster of galaxies. The amount of bending requires about 5 times as much mass as what is observed. Where is the circular part? Do you have a different cause that would give us the same effect? You do not like the reasoning, give us a better explanation for the data if you can.
"The mass "held in place" at the outer rims of the galaxies is held by "black box magic" of sufficient mass to account for a gravitational field strong enough to hold them in place. I.E a mass that would be needed to CAUSE the effect seen. "
Close enough. We make an observation and figure out what explains it. What objection exactly do you have to this? You just implied that you agree with the observation.
"And the BIGGER problem is that such a mass would account for the "majority" of the mass of the galaxy - not some small micro-section of it.
"
Now you are catching on. Inflation predicts that there should be about five times as much dark matter as ordinary matter. Observations of the CMB confirm this. Observations or galactic rotation confirm this. Observations of gravitational lensing confirms this. Do you have a specific objection?
"Microlensing has NOT shown that 90% of galaxies consists of matter with unknown invisible non-radiating matter. Dwarfs radiate energy - dark matter does not."
You were not paying attention to what I said. The predictions of inflation, the observations of the CMB, and the observations of lensing by galaxy clusters all give us a value of about 5 times as much non-baryonic matter as baryonic matter. Rotating galaxies may need up to 10 times as much unseen matter. I was pointing out that there have been studies where objects in the LMC are oberved for microlensing. Microlensing has been observed and show that some of the unseen matter needed for rotating galaxies is in the form of unseen dwarfs. They may radiate energy, but not enough to measure at much distance.
"IF 90% of our solar system, or 90% of our own galaxy was composed of this "don't-know-what-it-is matter" - we would have more data on it."
You show that you do not know much about dark matter. First, it is about 80 / 20 dark matter to ordinary matter. Second, dark matter only seems to interact weakly with ordinary matter and only gravitationally at that. There would not really be much attracted to our solar system. Not enough gravity here. A little bit of dark matter evenly scattered through the empty expanse of a whole galaxy really adds up, though.
Do you have any specific objections to dark energy or are you going to continue to force me to refute an argument from incredulity, a fallacy BTW?
How is it circular. SHow me the circular part.
Relativity tells us how light is affected by a large mass. We look at gravitational lens where an object has been lensed by the gravity of a cluster of galaxies. The amount of bending requires about 5 times as much mass as what is observed. Where is the circular part? Do you have a different cause that would give us the same effect? You do not like the reasoning, give us a better explanation for the data if you can.
"The mass "held in place" at the outer rims of the galaxies is held by "black box magic" of sufficient mass to account for a gravitational field strong enough to hold them in place. I.E a mass that would be needed to CAUSE the effect seen. "
Close enough. We make an observation and figure out what explains it. What objection exactly do you have to this? You just implied that you agree with the observation.
"And the BIGGER problem is that such a mass would account for the "majority" of the mass of the galaxy - not some small micro-section of it.
"
Now you are catching on. Inflation predicts that there should be about five times as much dark matter as ordinary matter. Observations of the CMB confirm this. Observations or galactic rotation confirm this. Observations of gravitational lensing confirms this. Do you have a specific objection?
"Microlensing has NOT shown that 90% of galaxies consists of matter with unknown invisible non-radiating matter. Dwarfs radiate energy - dark matter does not."
You were not paying attention to what I said. The predictions of inflation, the observations of the CMB, and the observations of lensing by galaxy clusters all give us a value of about 5 times as much non-baryonic matter as baryonic matter. Rotating galaxies may need up to 10 times as much unseen matter. I was pointing out that there have been studies where objects in the LMC are oberved for microlensing. Microlensing has been observed and show that some of the unseen matter needed for rotating galaxies is in the form of unseen dwarfs. They may radiate energy, but not enough to measure at much distance.
"IF 90% of our solar system, or 90% of our own galaxy was composed of this "don't-know-what-it-is matter" - we would have more data on it."
You show that you do not know much about dark matter. First, it is about 80 / 20 dark matter to ordinary matter. Second, dark matter only seems to interact weakly with ordinary matter and only gravitationally at that. There would not really be much attracted to our solar system. Not enough gravity here. A little bit of dark matter evenly scattered through the empty expanse of a whole galaxy really adds up, though.
Do you have any specific objections to dark energy or are you going to continue to force me to refute an argument from incredulity, a fallacy BTW?
Bob,
Quoting popularizations of the second law is not what I asked. If evolution violates the second law then tell us what specific step violates the second law and show the math to prove it. Anecdotes from how scientists such as Asimov give lay accounts of the second law to help people understand a very complex subject does not count as proof. Asimov does not believe that entropy denies evolution does he? Then why do you quote him?
As your quote from Dr. Williams shows, we understand the reality of thermodynamics very well and have for a while. Scientists, those who understand thermodynamics, do not see anything in entropy that is at odds with evolution.
Gish, onth other hand, holds the same misconceptions about entropy that you do. Entropy increases in the universe as a whole but local deceases in entropy are not prohibited. Try leaving a cup of room temperature water outside one night. Its entropy will decrease all by itself as it cools off. Now the entropy of the atmosphere will increase as it removes heat from the cup. And if it is a clear night, the entropy of deep space wil increase as heat is readiated there, too. But the cup of water will decrease in entropy. No intelligence. No interaction. No violation. If you are lucky, it will be cold enough to freeze and you will get an even larger decrease in entropy.
Give us the specific step and show your math. But I can safely predict you will not do this.
Quoting popularizations of the second law is not what I asked. If evolution violates the second law then tell us what specific step violates the second law and show the math to prove it. Anecdotes from how scientists such as Asimov give lay accounts of the second law to help people understand a very complex subject does not count as proof. Asimov does not believe that entropy denies evolution does he? Then why do you quote him?
As your quote from Dr. Williams shows, we understand the reality of thermodynamics very well and have for a while. Scientists, those who understand thermodynamics, do not see anything in entropy that is at odds with evolution.
Gish, onth other hand, holds the same misconceptions about entropy that you do. Entropy increases in the universe as a whole but local deceases in entropy are not prohibited. Try leaving a cup of room temperature water outside one night. Its entropy will decrease all by itself as it cools off. Now the entropy of the atmosphere will increase as it removes heat from the cup. And if it is a clear night, the entropy of deep space wil increase as heat is readiated there, too. But the cup of water will decrease in entropy. No intelligence. No interaction. No violation. If you are lucky, it will be cold enough to freeze and you will get an even larger decrease in entropy.
Give us the specific step and show your math. But I can safely predict you will not do this.
Now that Answers in Genesis is even publishing that polonium halos have been found in rock that they conclude is not original, are you planning to drop the use of polonium halos? If not, debunk this AIG article while you are at it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_poloniumradiohalos.asp
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Evolution has no steps. They can not show anything changing into anything else - (or did you forget that).
What they "pretend to see" and in fact "firmly believe" is that one day they WILL be able to show this increased organization as species a "acquires a wing" etc.
As Asimov stated it - the "science" is pretty clear and basically the hopeful alchemy of the evolutionist - is not even remotely possible.
Your response - is not a kind of "proof" other than proving your determination to ignore good science.
Please note in your own words --
Nothing of scientific value in that. Just your dancing.
Sadly - the 2nd law is not as "mysterious" as you claim. It flatly denies the alchemy of evolutionism.
The fact that a cup of water is warmed by the sun DOES not stop cars from rusting or organic matter from decaying.
Evolutionist "like to pretend" that a cup of water that warms over time would "confuse" people into thinking that a Lizard becomes a bird if given enough time... (or rotting meat turns into rats and maggots??).
Ahh there it was "again".
As already noted - ordered and intelligent application of energy to an intelligently designed system that CAN absorb it (as in first CREATE the seed with the ABILITY to assimilate water, sunshine, minerals - and TRANSFORM them into living organic systems) - and then you have increased entropy in living systems at the scale "NEEDED" by evolutionism. But in that case -- WITHOUT the seed "showing up on its own" (sadly for our evolutionist alchemists today).
Much more logical faith would be to trust the Creator's account rather than inventing more alchemy about entropy not working on earth because the sun is shining.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
AS already noted here. The position of the Christian evolutionist is to deny the science that they don't like - just as the atheist evolutionist does (And the proof for this was shown in the case of the nylon bug).
I also showed that the Christian who accepts the Creator's account will show "similar faith" in the Word of God when challenged with a puzzle and while waiting for scientific data to unravel the puzzel that evolutionists spin.
My QUESTION is why Christian Evolutionist would express that same "Faith in evolution no matter WHAT the data against it" as their atheist brethren.
Comment? Testimony?
In Christ,
Bob
HEB 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
HEB 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
The understanding of origins is based on faith, no matter what you believe. By Divine revelation, we understand that the Lord Jesus Christ was the Creator.
Whether a person is an evolutionist or a creationist, our beliefs are founded on faith.
What I have found very little information on is this:
It appears that the Lord Jesus created all things with age built in. Plants, animals, and people were all created fully formed and functional, with both the male and female of each species fully formed and functional.
It may appear that the universe is billions of years old. Jesus made it that way. It was made fully formed and functional.
If anybody knows any writings about this, please let me know.
HEB 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
The understanding of origins is based on faith, no matter what you believe. By Divine revelation, we understand that the Lord Jesus Christ was the Creator.
Whether a person is an evolutionist or a creationist, our beliefs are founded on faith.
What I have found very little information on is this:
It appears that the Lord Jesus created all things with age built in. Plants, animals, and people were all created fully formed and functional, with both the male and female of each species fully formed and functional.
It may appear that the universe is billions of years old. Jesus made it that way. It was made fully formed and functional.
If anybody knows any writings about this, please let me know.
"Evolution has no steps. They can not show anything changing into anything else - (or did you forget that)."
Well, I guess I'll have to issue my challenge here, also. Look at the following paper.
Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Now, explain to me why this is not an example of a transitional series. It is very detailed. Failure to be able to critique this on factual grounds is an admission that at least this transitional series exists.
I have given you plenty of transitionals in the past. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are two of my favorite. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon are another favorite group. There is always Microrator, Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, and Archaeopteryx. And, we have this little ditty. http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html? The closest thing to a response you have given is the archy is just a bird line.
"What they "pretend to see" and in fact "firmly believe" is that one day they WILL be able to show this increased organization as species a "acquires a wing" etc."
Look at the full series of bird transitionals, of which I have given you a few above (Microrator, Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, and Archaeopteryx) and you will be able to see the development of a wing.
"As Asimov stated it - the "science" is pretty clear and basically the hopeful alchemy of the evolutionist - is not even remotely possible."
Where does Asimov EVER indicate that he thinks that evolution is "hopeful alchemy" that "is not even remotely possible?"
"Ahh there it was "again". As already noted - ordered and intelligent application of energy to an intelligently designed system"
So, now a cup of water coming to equilibrium with its surroundings is an "ordered and intelligent application of energy." It is just things happening naturally. And in the process, the entropy of the hot body is reduced. No intelligence necessary for it to happen.
"The position of the Christian evolutionist is to deny the science that they don't like "
Give me some science that I am denying. I have given you pages of things you deny.
Now, I have one more challenge for you since you claim that entropy denies the possibility of evolution.
First question. Does entropy mean that the evolution of humans from its last common ancestor with the other apes is impossible? If so, go to question two. If not, then why are you talking about entropy?
Second question. Are mutations thermodynamically prohibited? If so, please demonstrate this mathematically with the appropriate thermodynamic references. If not, please proceed to question three.
Third question. Is the selection of the favorable mutations thermodynamically prohibited? If so, please demonstrate this mathematically with the appropriate thermodynamic references. If not, well, what is the entropy problem again? If the mutations can happen and if the mutations can be selected, then how does entropy deny evolution?
"My QUESTION is why Christian Evolutionist would express that same "Faith in evolution no matter WHAT the data against it" as their atheist brethren."
I have yet to see any logical and factual evidence against it.
Well, I guess I'll have to issue my challenge here, also. Look at the following paper.
Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Now, explain to me why this is not an example of a transitional series. It is very detailed. Failure to be able to critique this on factual grounds is an admission that at least this transitional series exists.
I have given you plenty of transitionals in the past. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are two of my favorite. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon are another favorite group. There is always Microrator, Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, and Archaeopteryx. And, we have this little ditty. http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html? The closest thing to a response you have given is the archy is just a bird line.
"What they "pretend to see" and in fact "firmly believe" is that one day they WILL be able to show this increased organization as species a "acquires a wing" etc."
Look at the full series of bird transitionals, of which I have given you a few above (Microrator, Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, and Archaeopteryx) and you will be able to see the development of a wing.
"As Asimov stated it - the "science" is pretty clear and basically the hopeful alchemy of the evolutionist - is not even remotely possible."
Where does Asimov EVER indicate that he thinks that evolution is "hopeful alchemy" that "is not even remotely possible?"
"Ahh there it was "again". As already noted - ordered and intelligent application of energy to an intelligently designed system"
So, now a cup of water coming to equilibrium with its surroundings is an "ordered and intelligent application of energy." It is just things happening naturally. And in the process, the entropy of the hot body is reduced. No intelligence necessary for it to happen.
"The position of the Christian evolutionist is to deny the science that they don't like "
Give me some science that I am denying. I have given you pages of things you deny.
Now, I have one more challenge for you since you claim that entropy denies the possibility of evolution.
First question. Does entropy mean that the evolution of humans from its last common ancestor with the other apes is impossible? If so, go to question two. If not, then why are you talking about entropy?
Second question. Are mutations thermodynamically prohibited? If so, please demonstrate this mathematically with the appropriate thermodynamic references. If not, please proceed to question three.
Third question. Is the selection of the favorable mutations thermodynamically prohibited? If so, please demonstrate this mathematically with the appropriate thermodynamic references. If not, well, what is the entropy problem again? If the mutations can happen and if the mutations can be selected, then how does entropy deny evolution?
"My QUESTION is why Christian Evolutionist would express that same "Faith in evolution no matter WHAT the data against it" as their atheist brethren."
I have yet to see any logical and factual evidence against it.
Heres something interesting(with a link of course)...
--------------------------------------------------
Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project1 indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago. The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week. Such accelerations would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth down to the 6,000 years that a straightforward reading of the Bible gives.
Our experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated helium escapes from tiny radioactive crystals in granite-like rock. The data show that most of the helium generated by nuclear decay would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian2 age of the rock, and there would be very little helium in the crystals today. But the crystals still retain large amounts of helium, amounts our experiments show are entirely consistent with an age of only thousands of years. Thus these data are evidence against the long ages of evolutionism and for the recent creation in Scripture.
Here are some details:
Much Helium Begins in Radioactive Crystals
The research story starts in the late 1970s at Fenton Hill in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico, about twenty miles west of Los Alamos, just west of a large volcanic caldera. Geoscientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory were drilling (figure 1) several miles deep into the hot, dry granitic rock beneath the site to determine how suitable it would be as a geothermal energy source. They sent drill core samples to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for analysis.
At Oak Ridge, Robert Gentry, a creationist physicist, and his colleagues ground up the rock, extracting hard, dense, microscopic crystals called zircons (figure 2, page iii). The zircons, were, as usual, radioactive. Much of the uranium and thorium in the earth's continental crust is in zircons, often imbedded in flakes of biotite, a black mica. The zircon-containing mica is scattered widely throughout the granitic rocks of the crust.
The radioactivity makes helium. As a uranium atom decays in many steps down to a lead atom, it emits eight alpha particles, each of which is a helium nucleus composed of two protons and two neutrons. For the crystal size we are concerned with, most of the emitted alpha particles stop within the zircon originating them. Then each alpha particle quickly gathers two electrons from the crystal and becomes a complete helium atom.
Much Helium Is Still in the Zircons
Helium is a lightweight, fast-moving, and "slippery" atom, not sticking chemically to other atoms. It can diffuse through solids relatively fast, meaning that helium atoms wiggle through the spaces between atoms in a crystal lattice. For the same reason it can leak rapidly through tiny holes and cracks, making it ideal for leak detection in laboratory vacuum systems. The rates are so great that those who believe in billions of years had expected most of the helium produced during the alleged long ages to have worked its way out of the crust and into the earth's atmosphere.
But the helium is not in the earth's atmosphere! When non-specialists hear that, they usually assume that helium has risen to the top of the atmosphere as it would in a balloon, and then that it has leaked from the top of the atmosphere into space. But unconfined helium spreads throughout the atmosphere from top to bottom, and the loss into space is actually quite small. Dr. Larry Vardiman, an ICR atmospheric scientist, has shown that even after accounting for the slow leakage into space, the earth's atmosphere has only about 0.04% of the helium it should have if the earth were billions of years old.3
In 1957 Melvin Cook, a creationist chemist, pointed out this problem in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, asking in his title, "Where is the earth's radiogenic helium?"4 Radiogenic means, "generated by nuclear decay." In nearly half a century, uniformitarian scientists apparently have not found a good enough answer to publish in Nature. But creationists have a simple answer: most of the helium has not entered the earth's atmosphere. It is still in the earth's crust and mantle. In fact, the Oak Ridge team found that much of it is still in the zircons! It has not even had enough time to leak out of the crystals where it originated.
Los Alamos measurements5 of uranium, thorium, and lead in the zircons imply "1.5 billion" years worth of nuclear decay—at today's rates. Gentry et al. used the amounts of lead to calculate how much helium the decay had deposited in the zircons. Then they measured how much helium was still in the zircons. Comparing the two gave the percentage of helium still retained in the zircons, which they published in 1982.6
Their results were remarkable. Up to 58 percent of the radiogenic helium had not diffused out of the zircons. The percentages decreased with increasing depth and temperature in the borehole. That confirms diffusion had been happening, because the rate of diffusion in any material increases strongly with temperature. Also, the smaller the crystal, the less helium should be retained. These zircons were both tiny and hot, yet they had retained huge amounts of helium!
Experiments and Theory Needed
Many creationists, knowing how fast helium diffuses in many materials, believed it would be impossible for that much helium to remain in the zircons after 1.5 billion years. But we had no specific data to support our belief. As of 2000 the only reported helium diffusion data for zircons7 were ambiguous, and none existed at all for biotite. So the RATE project commissioned experiments to measure helium diffusion in zircon and biotite samples specifically from the Fenton Hill borehole.
We also needed theoretical models to interpret the data. Thinking biotite was the main restriction, we published8 two models showing the biotite diffusion rates required to make the zircons retain the observed amounts of helium at the observed borehole temperatures for a specified time. The "Evolution" model assumed the time was 1.5 billion years, with continuous production of helium during the whole period. The "Creation" model assumed the time was 6,000 years, with most of the helium produced in one or more bursts of accelerated nuclear decay near the beginning of that time.
RATE Experiments Show How Fast Helium Escapes
Our experiments showed that we need to account for both diffusion from zircon and biotite, but zircon is more important. The resulting new "Creation" model differs by less than 0.05% from the previous one. The "Evolution" model did not change. So the numbers in our first models are still valid, but they now apply to zircon instead of biotite.
Our zircon data agree with recently published data from another site,9 and both agree with our "Creation" model. The data allow us to calculate how long diffusion has been taking place—between 4,000 and 14,000 years! The diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than the maximum rates the "Evolution" model could allow. That leaves no hope for the 1.5 billion years. For most of that alleged time, the zircons would have to have been as cold as liquid nitrogen (196ºC below zero) to retain the observed amount of helium. Such a "cryogenic Earth" model would not help uniformitarians, because it would violate uniformitarianism!
Three of my colleagues and I10 on the RATE project are preparing a paper with full technical details which we hope to present at the International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh next summer. In the meantime, friends and supporters of the RATE project have good reason to rejoice with us over these preliminary results, which strongly uphold the 6,000-year timescale of Scripture.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm
Endnotes and References can be found using the URL above.
God bless,
Mike
--------------------------------------------------
Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project1 indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago. The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week. Such accelerations would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth down to the 6,000 years that a straightforward reading of the Bible gives.
Our experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated helium escapes from tiny radioactive crystals in granite-like rock. The data show that most of the helium generated by nuclear decay would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian2 age of the rock, and there would be very little helium in the crystals today. But the crystals still retain large amounts of helium, amounts our experiments show are entirely consistent with an age of only thousands of years. Thus these data are evidence against the long ages of evolutionism and for the recent creation in Scripture.
Here are some details:
Much Helium Begins in Radioactive Crystals
The research story starts in the late 1970s at Fenton Hill in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico, about twenty miles west of Los Alamos, just west of a large volcanic caldera. Geoscientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory were drilling (figure 1) several miles deep into the hot, dry granitic rock beneath the site to determine how suitable it would be as a geothermal energy source. They sent drill core samples to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for analysis.
At Oak Ridge, Robert Gentry, a creationist physicist, and his colleagues ground up the rock, extracting hard, dense, microscopic crystals called zircons (figure 2, page iii). The zircons, were, as usual, radioactive. Much of the uranium and thorium in the earth's continental crust is in zircons, often imbedded in flakes of biotite, a black mica. The zircon-containing mica is scattered widely throughout the granitic rocks of the crust.
The radioactivity makes helium. As a uranium atom decays in many steps down to a lead atom, it emits eight alpha particles, each of which is a helium nucleus composed of two protons and two neutrons. For the crystal size we are concerned with, most of the emitted alpha particles stop within the zircon originating them. Then each alpha particle quickly gathers two electrons from the crystal and becomes a complete helium atom.
Much Helium Is Still in the Zircons
Helium is a lightweight, fast-moving, and "slippery" atom, not sticking chemically to other atoms. It can diffuse through solids relatively fast, meaning that helium atoms wiggle through the spaces between atoms in a crystal lattice. For the same reason it can leak rapidly through tiny holes and cracks, making it ideal for leak detection in laboratory vacuum systems. The rates are so great that those who believe in billions of years had expected most of the helium produced during the alleged long ages to have worked its way out of the crust and into the earth's atmosphere.
But the helium is not in the earth's atmosphere! When non-specialists hear that, they usually assume that helium has risen to the top of the atmosphere as it would in a balloon, and then that it has leaked from the top of the atmosphere into space. But unconfined helium spreads throughout the atmosphere from top to bottom, and the loss into space is actually quite small. Dr. Larry Vardiman, an ICR atmospheric scientist, has shown that even after accounting for the slow leakage into space, the earth's atmosphere has only about 0.04% of the helium it should have if the earth were billions of years old.3
In 1957 Melvin Cook, a creationist chemist, pointed out this problem in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, asking in his title, "Where is the earth's radiogenic helium?"4 Radiogenic means, "generated by nuclear decay." In nearly half a century, uniformitarian scientists apparently have not found a good enough answer to publish in Nature. But creationists have a simple answer: most of the helium has not entered the earth's atmosphere. It is still in the earth's crust and mantle. In fact, the Oak Ridge team found that much of it is still in the zircons! It has not even had enough time to leak out of the crystals where it originated.
Los Alamos measurements5 of uranium, thorium, and lead in the zircons imply "1.5 billion" years worth of nuclear decay—at today's rates. Gentry et al. used the amounts of lead to calculate how much helium the decay had deposited in the zircons. Then they measured how much helium was still in the zircons. Comparing the two gave the percentage of helium still retained in the zircons, which they published in 1982.6
Their results were remarkable. Up to 58 percent of the radiogenic helium had not diffused out of the zircons. The percentages decreased with increasing depth and temperature in the borehole. That confirms diffusion had been happening, because the rate of diffusion in any material increases strongly with temperature. Also, the smaller the crystal, the less helium should be retained. These zircons were both tiny and hot, yet they had retained huge amounts of helium!
Experiments and Theory Needed
Many creationists, knowing how fast helium diffuses in many materials, believed it would be impossible for that much helium to remain in the zircons after 1.5 billion years. But we had no specific data to support our belief. As of 2000 the only reported helium diffusion data for zircons7 were ambiguous, and none existed at all for biotite. So the RATE project commissioned experiments to measure helium diffusion in zircon and biotite samples specifically from the Fenton Hill borehole.
We also needed theoretical models to interpret the data. Thinking biotite was the main restriction, we published8 two models showing the biotite diffusion rates required to make the zircons retain the observed amounts of helium at the observed borehole temperatures for a specified time. The "Evolution" model assumed the time was 1.5 billion years, with continuous production of helium during the whole period. The "Creation" model assumed the time was 6,000 years, with most of the helium produced in one or more bursts of accelerated nuclear decay near the beginning of that time.
RATE Experiments Show How Fast Helium Escapes
Our experiments showed that we need to account for both diffusion from zircon and biotite, but zircon is more important. The resulting new "Creation" model differs by less than 0.05% from the previous one. The "Evolution" model did not change. So the numbers in our first models are still valid, but they now apply to zircon instead of biotite.
Our zircon data agree with recently published data from another site,9 and both agree with our "Creation" model. The data allow us to calculate how long diffusion has been taking place—between 4,000 and 14,000 years! The diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than the maximum rates the "Evolution" model could allow. That leaves no hope for the 1.5 billion years. For most of that alleged time, the zircons would have to have been as cold as liquid nitrogen (196ºC below zero) to retain the observed amount of helium. Such a "cryogenic Earth" model would not help uniformitarians, because it would violate uniformitarianism!
Three of my colleagues and I10 on the RATE project are preparing a paper with full technical details which we hope to present at the International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh next summer. In the meantime, friends and supporters of the RATE project have good reason to rejoice with us over these preliminary results, which strongly uphold the 6,000-year timescale of Scripture.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm
Endnotes and References can be found using the URL above.
God bless,
Mike
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
What? Rapid changes and geologic sequences at the flood that "have to be accounted for"?
"Never"! said the evolutionist. "I will just keep faithfully hoping for another solution to that problem! After all - we are HERE aren't we? That proves that the Creator's account is wrong and evolution is true. So if we just wait - this problem too will be solved".
Exactly the response expected of the atheist evolutionist - so why do the Christian evolutionists use it?
Big puzzle.
In Christ,
Bob
"Never"! said the evolutionist. "I will just keep faithfully hoping for another solution to that problem! After all - we are HERE aren't we? That proves that the Creator's account is wrong and evolution is true. So if we just wait - this problem too will be solved".
Exactly the response expected of the atheist evolutionist - so why do the Christian evolutionists use it?
Big puzzle.
In Christ,
Bob
Mike
What about the questions we have on the table? These include how to make our fossil record in 6000 years, the transitional forms I gave you, The correction to what PE is about, and the "problem" of entropy? Since you think entropy is a problem, I would like to also ask you to answer the same three questions I posed to BR about entropy and human evolution above. I think it demonstrates how entropy is not really a problem.
Now, as far as the RATE stuff goes. I have debunked this one before, but here goes again. Basically it boils down to this. They did not have the lab measure diffusion rates at the temperatures they were actually interested in. They had them measured at higher temperatures. They then took only a selected set of the what they received, the set that gave them the answer they were looking for, and arbitrarily threw out the rest. The ages that one can calculate from their own data range from 4800 years to 48 million years a range of 10000 fold! This is a very good indication that they may have a serious problem. Of the ten ages that would be calculated from their data, they of course took the three "young" ones and threw the SEVEN old ones away. Finally, the samples they keep that give young ages are also the rocks that have extremely low measured vlues of He, near the detection limit. Here the possibility of detection error is the greatest. If these samples really contained no He or only contamination, then the "dates" truely have no meaning at all. On the other hand, the samples with high levels of He should be much less prone to error but give ages in the millions of years, even using their limited set of diffusion data. The ages are much higher if the full set is used. These good data points are thrown out. In the end, this is just more questionable ethics from the RATE group. They arbitrarily threw out the diffusion data they did not like and they arbitrarily threw out the dates they did not like from their samples even using the limited diffusion data. They were left drawing conclusions from the least trustworthy set of data and ignoring the rest.
Sorry I do not have a link for you, my information is coming from a source on this tha I do not think is on the web. Similar stuff can be found with Google, though.
What about the questions we have on the table? These include how to make our fossil record in 6000 years, the transitional forms I gave you, The correction to what PE is about, and the "problem" of entropy? Since you think entropy is a problem, I would like to also ask you to answer the same three questions I posed to BR about entropy and human evolution above. I think it demonstrates how entropy is not really a problem.
Now, as far as the RATE stuff goes. I have debunked this one before, but here goes again. Basically it boils down to this. They did not have the lab measure diffusion rates at the temperatures they were actually interested in. They had them measured at higher temperatures. They then took only a selected set of the what they received, the set that gave them the answer they were looking for, and arbitrarily threw out the rest. The ages that one can calculate from their own data range from 4800 years to 48 million years a range of 10000 fold! This is a very good indication that they may have a serious problem. Of the ten ages that would be calculated from their data, they of course took the three "young" ones and threw the SEVEN old ones away. Finally, the samples they keep that give young ages are also the rocks that have extremely low measured vlues of He, near the detection limit. Here the possibility of detection error is the greatest. If these samples really contained no He or only contamination, then the "dates" truely have no meaning at all. On the other hand, the samples with high levels of He should be much less prone to error but give ages in the millions of years, even using their limited set of diffusion data. The ages are much higher if the full set is used. These good data points are thrown out. In the end, this is just more questionable ethics from the RATE group. They arbitrarily threw out the diffusion data they did not like and they arbitrarily threw out the dates they did not like from their samples even using the limited diffusion data. They were left drawing conclusions from the least trustworthy set of data and ignoring the rest.
Sorry I do not have a link for you, my information is coming from a source on this tha I do not think is on the web. Similar stuff can be found with Google, though.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
As has already been shown - evolutionist THEMSELVES admit that Archaeopteryx is a "true bird". You have already shown that you "need" to use TRUE BIRDS as a link BETWEEN true birds and reptiles.
Your fallacy there is so obvious as not to need further comment.
Transitional forms need to be of the same body type with the single "added feature". We are not talking about hair color or loss of hair we are talking about lizards with newly forming wings. We are talking about snakes with feet but not entire body type changes.
We are not talking about body type changes between poodles and German Shepherds - as drastic as that is.
It is evolutionists that CLAIM they have transitionals. It is up to them to defend that claim. (Obviously) and they should do so in a way that is compelling to a critical review - not a devotee true-believer-in-evolutionism-at-any-cost audience.
Wouldn't it have been much more logical to simply "accept" the Creator's account?
Christians who trust the Creator's account think so.
And the benefit of that is that not only is it scientifically "sound" it also supports rather than undermines the Word of God and the Gospel. (Even Atheist evolutionists see that last point)
In Christ,
Bob
Bob, since all our responses to one another seem to be happening only on this thread, I am going to move my last major post from the other thread over here since it contains some questions I really would like to have you answer. I am also still waiting for you to answer the questions above, in particular the one about the transitional series and the one about entropy and evolution.
-----------------------------------------------
"And would also like to see the genome mapping for the one that you are claiming above - before and after the claimed infusion."
Good. Go read the following.
"Sequence analysis of a cryptic plasmid from Flavobacterium sp. KP1, a psychrophilic bacterium," Makoto Ashiuchi, Mia Md. Zakaria, Yuriko Sakaguchi, Toshiharu Yagi, FEMS (Federation of European Microbiological Societies) Microbiology Letters 170 (1999), 243-249.
"A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp.," Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, Dec. 1992, p. 7948-7953.
"Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425, April 1984.
But I do not expect even that to change your mind. Proof of what you say is impossible. I predict you will ignore it.
Since you indicated that you wanted others, look these up while you are at it.
Franceschini G, et al. (1980) "A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family." J Clin Invest. 66, 892-900 The abstract can be read at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430351&dopt=Abstract
Francis, J. E., and P. E. Hansche, 1972. Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics 70: 59-73.
Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel, 1980. Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.
Boraas, M. E., 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 64: 1102.
Lin, E. C. C., and T. T. Wu, 1984. Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in Escherichia coli. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 135-164) Plenum, New York.
Hartley, B. S., 1984. Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 23-54) Plenum, New York.
Direct question. Do you now accept that mutations can lead to new information? If not, what specific objection do you raise to each of these assertions of new traits and new "information" from mutations? A failure to object to any one on factual grounds implies an acceptance of new "information."
Did you read the article from which you quoted McGinnis or did you grab this from some website? Hard to tell with the lack of references. Anyhow, you might want to read the entire article. It can be found here. http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm It is an article that explains how specific genetic evidence has been found about how ancient life was able to evolve changes to their body plans.
"This is not unlike the way the plasma physicists belatedly "admit" that there is more mass in the universe than the big bang theory can account for."
You might want to prove this assertion. I explained earlier to you how inflation makes very detailed predictions that have been shown to be true with the latest studies of the CMB. Let's take this a little further. I explained how the sound waves in the early universe would have left some areas more compressed and some more rarified. Dark matter would not be affected by these sound waves. But it would be attracted by the increased gravity in the compressed areas. By carefully measuring the differences in the CMB, it is possible to calculate the amount of dark matter in the early universe. The amount, five time the amount of baryonic matter, matches what is seen later in the universe. More consistency between different ways of measuring the same thing. For more information, I would suggest The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of COsmic Origins by Guth and Lightman, 1998.
"It is the way S. J. Gould promotes punctuated equilibrium as a way to "explain" what Evolutionists had been denying in debates with Creationists until that time."
How many time do I have to correct mistatements of Gould. First, let GOuld do it himself.
from Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, Norton, New York
If you want to keep using Gould when it comes to transitionals, that is what he has to say on the matter. PE explains that most evolution happens in small, isolated populations in very short (geologically speaking) lengths of time that make it rare for transitions to be recorded in the fossil record. It does not mean that species level transitions do not exist. It is just that you expect better evidence for higher level transistions. I have given you so many examples of higher level transisitons. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are two of my favorite. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon are another favorite group. There is always Microrator, Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, and Archaeopteryx.
But, since you want to quote Gould, let's move into the issue of species to species transitions. If you really think that there are no fossil transitions, then disprove the following species to species transition.
Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
You should have no trouble showing that this is not a valid transitional series on factual grounds. Again, failure to do so is an admission that it is in fact a valid transitional series.
"Basically - they stone wall on the evidence "no matter how obvious" until they think they have a "first excuse" for an answer for the problem."
Who is stonewalling? Look at the references just in this post alone. How many references did you make in your last post? Do we need an exhaustive list of all the questions you have failed to answer just in the last few threads?
"This is just another shining example in a long string of them. And of course - in the case of the "nylon bug" it is another example of grasping at straws. But they do so at the great cost of admitting to another obvious flaw in their armor."
Nope. The nylon bug is a great example of showing something that you claim is impossible. It shows a new trait developing from a mutation. You have no way around this as an example of new "information" so you dismiss it as "grasping at straws." Why do you not instead either mount a factual challenge of the evidence or admit to new "information." You cannot do the former and I predict you will not do the latter.
Where is your math proof of where evolution violates 2LOT?
Why do you continue to abandon the literal interpretation you seek to impose on everyone else by denying the universe is part of the Genesis description? I gave you the word used for "heaven(s)" in the first two chapters and showed how it means the universe. Yet you deny this, too.
-----------------------------------------------
"And would also like to see the genome mapping for the one that you are claiming above - before and after the claimed infusion."
Good. Go read the following.
"Sequence analysis of a cryptic plasmid from Flavobacterium sp. KP1, a psychrophilic bacterium," Makoto Ashiuchi, Mia Md. Zakaria, Yuriko Sakaguchi, Toshiharu Yagi, FEMS (Federation of European Microbiological Societies) Microbiology Letters 170 (1999), 243-249.
"A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp.," Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, Dec. 1992, p. 7948-7953.
"Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425, April 1984.
But I do not expect even that to change your mind. Proof of what you say is impossible. I predict you will ignore it.
Since you indicated that you wanted others, look these up while you are at it.
Franceschini G, et al. (1980) "A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family." J Clin Invest. 66, 892-900 The abstract can be read at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430351&dopt=Abstract
Francis, J. E., and P. E. Hansche, 1972. Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics 70: 59-73.
Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel, 1980. Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.
Boraas, M. E., 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 64: 1102.
Lin, E. C. C., and T. T. Wu, 1984. Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in Escherichia coli. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 135-164) Plenum, New York.
Hartley, B. S., 1984. Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 23-54) Plenum, New York.
Direct question. Do you now accept that mutations can lead to new information? If not, what specific objection do you raise to each of these assertions of new traits and new "information" from mutations? A failure to object to any one on factual grounds implies an acceptance of new "information."
Did you read the article from which you quoted McGinnis or did you grab this from some website? Hard to tell with the lack of references. Anyhow, you might want to read the entire article. It can be found here. http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm It is an article that explains how specific genetic evidence has been found about how ancient life was able to evolve changes to their body plans.
"This is not unlike the way the plasma physicists belatedly "admit" that there is more mass in the universe than the big bang theory can account for."
You might want to prove this assertion. I explained earlier to you how inflation makes very detailed predictions that have been shown to be true with the latest studies of the CMB. Let's take this a little further. I explained how the sound waves in the early universe would have left some areas more compressed and some more rarified. Dark matter would not be affected by these sound waves. But it would be attracted by the increased gravity in the compressed areas. By carefully measuring the differences in the CMB, it is possible to calculate the amount of dark matter in the early universe. The amount, five time the amount of baryonic matter, matches what is seen later in the universe. More consistency between different ways of measuring the same thing. For more information, I would suggest The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of COsmic Origins by Guth and Lightman, 1998.
"It is the way S. J. Gould promotes punctuated equilibrium as a way to "explain" what Evolutionists had been denying in debates with Creationists until that time."
How many time do I have to correct mistatements of Gould. First, let GOuld do it himself.
Emphasis mine.
from Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, Norton, New York
If you want to keep using Gould when it comes to transitionals, that is what he has to say on the matter. PE explains that most evolution happens in small, isolated populations in very short (geologically speaking) lengths of time that make it rare for transitions to be recorded in the fossil record. It does not mean that species level transitions do not exist. It is just that you expect better evidence for higher level transistions. I have given you so many examples of higher level transisitons. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are two of my favorite. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon are another favorite group. There is always Microrator, Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, and Archaeopteryx.
But, since you want to quote Gould, let's move into the issue of species to species transitions. If you really think that there are no fossil transitions, then disprove the following species to species transition.
Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
You should have no trouble showing that this is not a valid transitional series on factual grounds. Again, failure to do so is an admission that it is in fact a valid transitional series.
"Basically - they stone wall on the evidence "no matter how obvious" until they think they have a "first excuse" for an answer for the problem."
Who is stonewalling? Look at the references just in this post alone. How many references did you make in your last post? Do we need an exhaustive list of all the questions you have failed to answer just in the last few threads?
"This is just another shining example in a long string of them. And of course - in the case of the "nylon bug" it is another example of grasping at straws. But they do so at the great cost of admitting to another obvious flaw in their armor."
Nope. The nylon bug is a great example of showing something that you claim is impossible. It shows a new trait developing from a mutation. You have no way around this as an example of new "information" so you dismiss it as "grasping at straws." Why do you not instead either mount a factual challenge of the evidence or admit to new "information." You cannot do the former and I predict you will not do the latter.
Where is your math proof of where evolution violates 2LOT?
Why do you continue to abandon the literal interpretation you seek to impose on everyone else by denying the universe is part of the Genesis description? I gave you the word used for "heaven(s)" in the first two chapters and showed how it means the universe. Yet you deny this, too.
I see you continue to dance around the issue, instead of meeting it with facts. Yes, you showed me how archy, with dozens of features that are outside the range of all known birds but that are normal for theropod dinosaurs is really just a bird. Those dozens of reptilain features that cannot be found anywhere in any bird are not valid evidence because a dog breeder can breed a hairless dog. Of course, I see.
You want to see a wing forming. Now when I give you the animals where you can actually see this, you simply ask again. Where iss the challenge to the data?
I gave you a specific reference to a specific sequence. Dispute it with facts. Don't dance. Don't quote mine, we all know how accurate your quotes of scientists tend to be. Dispute the series with facts. Or admit that it is a transitional series after all.
You want to see a wing forming. Now when I give you the animals where you can actually see this, you simply ask again. Where iss the challenge to the data?
I gave you a specific reference to a specific sequence. Dispute it with facts. Don't dance. Don't quote mine, we all know how accurate your quotes of scientists tend to be. Dispute the series with facts. Or admit that it is a transitional series after all.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Bob said -- "IF 90% of our solar system, or 90% of our own galaxy was composed of this "don't-know-what-it-is matter" - we would have more data on it."
How can you keep doing that in good conscience?
You did it with entropy - clearly.
You are doing it here with dark matter and with dark energy.
The point remains -- unnanswered.
IF Dark matter is 90% of our own galaxy and our own solar system (Which it must be since we are already claiming that it is 80% of the universe)THEN we would see lensing bubbles filling up the sky as we look into the milkyway from earth. We do not.
IF you attempt to claim that for some easter-bunny-style reason it is NOT here - then that means that 99.9% of other solar systems ARE composed of dark matter to "account for NONE here" and an overal average of 80-90.
Which is obviously - pure faith on your part.
It is MUCH MORE well reasoned and logical to admit the SAME thing that our objective and well reasoned physicists admit - we don't know what this is - we merely CALL it dark matter for lack of a better term. We see effects of it on large scales but matter that can only be detected on large scale (galaxies) is unknown to our science AND matter that does not radiate energy, not detectable in 8xSUN sized clumps etc - is UNKNOWN to our physics.
To CLAIM it is to claim that our OWN science is failing to understand 80-99.9% of what we are looking at.
The same is true of dark energy and an explosion from the big bang that ACCELERATES over time with variable rates rather than expending its energy and slowing.
Our science does not have a way to produce such an event. It claims sudden expansion in the early minutes of the big bang - followed by normal expansion and now -- followed by acceleration.
Another big "unknown" is the result.
Yet your claim is that you know so much about the universe that the Creator's account can't possibly be correct.
In Christ,
Bob
Here we have the perfect example of your ignoring the science - not answering the challenge and then later claiming "I have answered everything".
How can you keep doing that in good conscience?
You did it with entropy - clearly.
You are doing it here with dark matter and with dark energy.
The point remains -- unnanswered.
IF Dark matter is 90% of our own galaxy and our own solar system (Which it must be since we are already claiming that it is 80% of the universe)THEN we would see lensing bubbles filling up the sky as we look into the milkyway from earth. We do not.
IF you attempt to claim that for some easter-bunny-style reason it is NOT here - then that means that 99.9% of other solar systems ARE composed of dark matter to "account for NONE here" and an overal average of 80-90.
Which is obviously - pure faith on your part.
It is MUCH MORE well reasoned and logical to admit the SAME thing that our objective and well reasoned physicists admit - we don't know what this is - we merely CALL it dark matter for lack of a better term. We see effects of it on large scales but matter that can only be detected on large scale (galaxies) is unknown to our science AND matter that does not radiate energy, not detectable in 8xSUN sized clumps etc - is UNKNOWN to our physics.
To CLAIM it is to claim that our OWN science is failing to understand 80-99.9% of what we are looking at.
The same is true of dark energy and an explosion from the big bang that ACCELERATES over time with variable rates rather than expending its energy and slowing.
Our science does not have a way to produce such an event. It claims sudden expansion in the early minutes of the big bang - followed by normal expansion and now -- followed by acceleration.
Another big "unknown" is the result.
Yet your claim is that you know so much about the universe that the Creator's account can't possibly be correct.
In Christ,
Bob
To show how inaccurate quote minig usually is, I'll just take one of your quotes.
Here is the FULL quote from Eldredge.
Here is the FULL quote from Eldredge.
As you can see, he has zero problems with evolution. He is pointing out that scientists need to be more explicit in pointing out that evolution can be very "jerky," proceeding in fits and starts. It is very dishonest to quote him as if he is saying that the fossil record does not support evolution.