The lie of evolution, part II

How about an earthquake/sunnami released by the One who made them? Would that chase people to the mountain tops? Then what?

How big is your God?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Pastor Larry wrote,

(The emphasis in bold type is mine)

I need to get some work done, so for now I am leaving this thread with this post,

Young earth creationism, and the willful ignorance that it embodies, is one of the most power forces of darkness that the church is having to contend with today. Its mantra of

“God said”
“The Bible says”
“God wrote”

makes God appear to be liar and a fool, and makes the Bible appear to be the writing of religious incompetents.

God did NOT say that the book of Genesis is to be interpreted literally. That is a doctrine of men.

The Bible does NOT say that God wrote the Bible. This is another doctrine of men.

The Bible does say that the Scriptures are inspired, and Luke tells us very plainly in what manner he was inspired when he wrote his gospel and the book of Acts,

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB, 1995)

The Bible does NOT tell us in what manner the book of Genesis was inspired. Perhaps Moses, like Luke, felt inspired to compile an account of the things regarding the early history of the earth. If so, like Luke, he probably compiled both written and oral information, edited it several times until he was happy with it, and then wrote his final draft. Nowhere in the book of Genesis does Moses claim scientific or historic accuracy. He leaves it is up to the scientists and the historians that God has given to us to investigate these matters so that we might know what actually occurred.

Some radical Christian fundamentalists, however, are telling you a very different story, and falsely claiming that their story is true. But consider again what the Bible actually has to say about the manner of the inspiration of it,

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB, 1995)

 

True, what is your take on the "fountains of the great deep?" Does that suggest (from a literal reading) isolated point sources?

Craig, feel free to comment on symbolism too.

A.F. </font>[/QUOTE]My take is that “fountains of the great deep?” does not suggest “rain alone.”

I’m sorry, I really do have to get some work done.

 

Tell me--do you even have the slightest idea what you're trying to talk about?

The significance of it is that it completely invalidates the young earth creationist notion that mutation is always detrimental and always results in loss of specificity.

If you need me to I can explain this in more depth.

 

There are many evidences for a young earth and creation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

It does not matter that this is a religious site. What matters is if the information is true.

All I am saying is that there is much evidence for a young universe.

But you will not accept any of this evidence. Your mind is already made up.

This evidence and theory is just as valid as those that believe the universe to be very old. It cannot be proven because no-one can go back to the beginning.

I forget who it was that wrote about the half life of radioactive materials. Just because some element has a half-life of a billion years (or whatever) does not prove how long that element has been in existence. Nobody knows how powerful these elements were in the beginning.

So, it is an ASSUMPTION that these elements are billions of years old. Do not confuse rate of decay with origin. Two different things altogether. This is poor reasoning.

 

Evidence for a Young World
by Russell Humphreys

Here are a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 to 10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale.

Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending with everyday facts.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.

Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.

For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’. The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]

3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.

The main way known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.

4. Not enough sodium in the sea
Every year, river and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean. [See also Salty seas: Evidence for a young Earth.]

5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.

A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data. The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old. [See also The Earth’s magnetic field: Evidence that the Earth is young.]

6. Many strata are too tightly bent
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’
Strong geologic evidence exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone — formed an alleged 500 million years ago — of the Ute Pass fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time scale.

8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. ‘Squashed’ Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. ‘Orphan’ Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.

9. Helium in the wrong places
All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth’s atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years. This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years. [See also Blowing Old-Earth Belief Away: Helium gives evidence that the Earth is young.]

10. Not enough stone age skeletons
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

11. Agriculture is too recent

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all.

12. History is too short

According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.

References
Scheffler, H. and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–353, 401–413.

D. Zaritsky et al., Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10.

Steidl, P.F., ‘Planets, comets, and asteroids’, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73–106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983) 5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092.

Whipple, F.L., "Background of modern comet theory," Nature 263 (2 Sept 1976) 15.

Gordeyev, V.V. et al., ‘The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world’s rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams’, Dockl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980) 150.

Hay, W.W., et al., ‘Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No B12 (10 December 1988) 14,933–14,940.

Maybeck, M., ‘Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans’, Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979) 215.

Sayles, F.L. and P.C. Mangelsdorf, ‘Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979) 767.

Austin, S.A. and D.R. Humphreys, ‘The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991) in press. Address, ref. 12.

Austin, S.A., ‘Evolution: the oceans say no!’ ICR Impact No. 8 (Oct. 1973) Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 21.

Merrill, R.T. and M. W. McElhinney, The Earth’s Magnetic Field , Academic Press (1983) London, pp. 101–106.

Humphreys, D.R., ‘Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis flood’, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh) Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. II, pp. 113–126.

Coe, R.S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, ‘New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal’, Nature 374 (20 April 1995) pp. 687–92.

Humphreys, D.R., ‘Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood’, Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991) (ref. 12).

Austin, S.A. and J.D. Morris, ‘Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences’, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986) pp.3–15. Address in ref. 12.

ibid., pp. 11–12.

Gentry, R.V., ‘Radioactive halos’, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) 347–362.

Gentry, R.V. et al., ‘Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification’, Science 194 (15 Oct. 1976) 315–318.

Gentry, R. V., ‘Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective’, Science 184 (5 Apr. 1974) 62–66.

Gentry, R. V., Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986) P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23–37, 51–59, 61–62.

Vardiman, L.The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990) P.O.Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.

Gentry, R. V. et al., ‘Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management’, Geophys. Res. Lett. 9 (Oct. 1982) 1129–1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169–170.

Deevey, E.S., ‘The human population’, Scientific American 203 (Sept. 1960) 194–204.

Marshak, A., ‘Exploring the mind of Ice Age man’, Nat. Geog. 147 (Jan. 1975) 64–89.

Dritt, J. O., ‘Man’s earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creat., Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 73–78. Address, ref. 12.

This article originally published by:

Dr Russell Humphreys
Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, Inc.
P.O. Box 10550
Albuquerque, NM 87184

 

Like Craig, I too need to go to bed. I just wanted to say before that that you really ought to do more study of radiometric dating before you try to tackle the problem. Many radiometric methods can be used to calculate the initial ratio of the elements (assuming that is what you meant by how "powerful" the elements were--if you're assuming changed radioactive decay just because that's convenient for your theory, that is poor reasoning). These methods also have the benefit of being self-checking, so if the method is not applicable because of disturbance of the rock it will be self-evident.

 

More evidence for a young Universe.

1 - The shrinking sun
Astrophysicist Eddy and mathematician Boornazian (1979) analyzed measurements of the sun recorded regularly from 1836 to 1953 at Greenwich Observatory and demonstrated a significant reduction in the size of the sun. If the solar system was 4.6 billions of years old, the sun, shrinking at a constant rate of about 0.1 percent per century (Wittmann 1980)77, would have had an initial mass so large to have made life implausible on earth. An increased gravitational attraction would have pulled the earth and other planets into it, and even at the present distance, the extreme heat which would have baked our world.

2 - Comet decay
The comets that travel around the sun are thought to be the same age as the solar system. Each time a comet orbits, it looses a certain amount of its mass through different mechanisms. The numbers of comets are decreasing due to such decay. The hundreds of comets in our solar system with closed elliptical orbits and random aphelia (points of orbit farthest from the sun) prove they are not now being added by any particular source (refuting the theoretical Oort cloud, which has no true evidence of existence). With no source of new comets known, if the universe was billions of years old (or even hundreds of thousands of years old) the comets would have started with such a great mass, the sun would have been orbiting the comets. The present existence of hundreds of observable comets in our solar system suggests a youthful solar system.78

3 - Meteorite Fossils
All known meteorites that have hit the earth are found in surface rocks. Due to the great span of time available through evolutionary thinking, there should be large numbers. However, Ian Taylor, referencing three noted scientists, summarized, "Not a single true meteorite has ever been found in the sedimentary rock record (Hindley 1997; Mason 1962, 4; Tarr 1932)."79 Additionally, all craters of meteorites are dated at only a few thousand years. Together, these indicate that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is believed by evolutionists.80

4 - The moon is receding
One of the experiments began on the moon during the Apollo program was the installation of a small bank of mirrors facing the earth (Bender et al. 1973). These mirrors were placed for laser-ranging experiments that have been conducted since that time which can measure the earth-moon distance to within two to three centimeters.81

These experiments showed that the distance from the earth to the moon is increasing at a rate of four centimeters per year--nearly two inches (Stephenson, 1982, 173). Based on this new technology, evolutionist Hammond in 1974 demonstrated that the initial separation of the moon from the earth must have happened less than one billion years ago--far to short than that demanded by evolution.82

Other important possibilities, though, are implied by this data. First, the moon's gravitational pull on the earth results in tidal activity. A few million years ago, the moon would have been so close that the tides would have destroyed the earth twice a day.83 At only a few thousand years of age, there is no problem. Second, a further result of the receding moon is a slowing of the rotation of the earth 84(see section of spin of earth).

5 - solar wind
Small particles of a material called cosmic dust exists in abundance in outer space. Radiation from stars tends to push these particles out of the galaxy, hence the term "solar wind" is sometimes used. Calculations show that if the galaxy were only a couple of million years old, the galaxy would be clear of this dust. With no known source of significant replenishment, and the abundance of the dust in existence in our galaxy, it can only be concluded that the galaxy must be young.87

6 - Cosmic dust velocity
The stellar radiation (or solar wind) while "blowing" or exerting pressure on cosmic dust, in the absence of friction, slowly, but continuously accelerates the dust particles. If our galaxy were billions of years old, the dust should now be moving about 21,000,000 miles per hour (going out of the galaxy). If the galaxy is only a few thousands of years old, the particles would only move a few miles per hour. Observations of interstellar cosmic dust show, in fact, velocities which are almost static, establishing the youth of the galaxy.88

7 - Poynting-robertson effect
The sun exerts a solar drag force on micrometeoroids, functioning as a vacuum to sweep space of these bodies at a rate of about 100,000 tons per day. Calculated to be billions of years old, there should be practically no micrometeoroids left since there is no known source of significant replenishment. However, what is seen in reality is an abundance of micrometeoroids in existence demonstrating a young solar system.89

8 - Hydrogen in the universe
Hydrogen cannot be produced in any significant quantity through the conversion of other elements, yet at the same time, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium throughout the universe. If the universe was billions of years old, there would be no (or almost no) hydrogen left. Contrary to this, noted professor of astronomy, Fred Hoyle, revealed, "The universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen." This yields to the inevitable conclusion that the earth and universe is quite young. Hoyle, in laying the groundwork for his model of continuous (but not special) creation, concluded:

How comes it then that the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter was indefinitely old, this would be quite impossible. So we see that the universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged."90

9 - Moon radiation
Lunar samples from the Apollo missions were found to be high in radioactivity. It was suggested that if the moon were millions of years old (or older), it would be intensely hot, even to the point of melting from the heat of radiation. In fact, the moon is rigid, with what some argue to be a cool interior. These speak to the youth of the moon, less than 50,000 years old.91

10 - Short-lived lunar isotopes
Isotopes known as U-236 and Th-230, which are short-lived, were found in lunar materials. If the moon were of a vast age, these isotopes would have long since decayed and would be absent from samples. However, as they are in relative abundance, the age of the moon (and earth) is demonstrated in thousands, not millions or billions of years.92

11 - Influx of cosmic dust
Cosmic dusts filters down from space to the earth and into the oceans (by wind and rain) at a rate of about fourteen million tons per year.85 The concentration of nickel in this cosmic material is much higher than the concentration in earthly materials (this is the basis for the calculation of cosmic dust accumulation). If the earth has been here for billions of years, the resultant concentration of nickel in the ocean sediments would be much greater.86 There is only enough cosmic dust on the earth to account for a few thousand years of meteoritic dust influx.

 

The slightest idea of what I am talking about--absolutely not. That is the point sir, neither do you. I have read several of the references. The words: may, perhaps,debatable, and other
inconclusive words are used throughout the reports.

It is kind of like Miller/Ulrey making amino acids in the laboratory and concluding that life started by random coincidence. That ain't science. How did the stuff get together and who stirred the pot?

I ain't too educated mister, please use examples that are common to my experience--and don't try to baffle me with a preponderence of pseudo-scientific speculation. Most people can recognize a "snow-job" when they see it.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Petrel

I have listed some real evidences for a young Universe. Fred Hoyle, one of the most famous astronomers of the 20th century was not a creationist.

As far as the methods to determine "initial ratio", there are many problems.


http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/deception.html

 

Petrel

Here is an analogy everyone can understand.

If I say my car gets 20 miles to the gallon of gasoline (rate of decay) and at this moment I have exactly 3 gallons of gas in my car....

How much gas did I have in my car to begin with?

And when did I buy it?

Answer that and I'll trust your method.

 

"The first fish were therefore 'in the middle.' They also had the same plasticity in their genomes (ability to vary) as all the other original kinds."

Evidence of this specific "plasticity" please. How do you know it existed? What was the mechanism of change to allow for adaptation? Why are they not plastic now? We need some factual support instead of broad assertions. I gave you references for my posts you have ignored.

"In Genesis 7:11 we read that ALL the fountains burst forth at once. This indicates a critical pressure had been reached under the crust. This pressure would have been caused by the heating of the earth's interior by radioactive elements, as both short and long half-life elements were all decaying at once at first. This heat would have driven out water from the rocks."

Yes, and water that hot and under that much pressure would have heated the oceans to the boiling point, evaporated a significant part of the oceans and thurned the atmosphere into nearly pure steam at broiling temperatures.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3147/2.html#000016

I have made some very conservative assuptions. Tell us just how much pressure would the water have actually been under so we can be a little more precise with our thermodynamics.

Any word on why a YEer would predict that crocodiles are closer genetically to birds than to other reptiles? What about camels and whales? Ape morphology from genetics? You were the one claiming it was a matter of interpretation. Opportunities abound.

 

One of the worst strawmen ever.

Analogies should have at least some bearing on the actual discussion.

 

Indeed, the great flood wasn't caused by rain alone. My point is that if the rain doesn't stir the oceans and mix the salt water with fresh water then that only leaves "fountains of the great deep." Since we don't know much about those we can't say what their effects would be. Maybe the fountains were salt water.

So that argument (that all of the fish would suddenly be killed by the change in water chemistry) sounds good but is overly simplified.


A.F.

 

You are right. It does not matter if it is a religious site or not. It matters if they are correct or not.

I guess it would be too much to ask for you to pick just one topic and have a discussion. You know, an exchange of facts and references and logic. Just pick one item off that list, type up your logic in your words and provide your references.

I have a feeling this will be like asking you to verify quotes for accuracy and context before you use after being shwon the dishonesty of quite a few of your quotes.

 

UTEOTW

My analogy is very good. The problem with radiometric dating is there are too many variables.

Here is a page chock full of the problems. Again, most of these objections come not from creationists, but SCIENTISTS in this very field.

But you only like the scientists who agree with you.


http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/1evlch07a.htm

I realized quite some time back that you evolution buffs have no regard for a literal interpretation of Genesis. Many have said so.

No, you only listen to science. But science is not on evolution's side.

Evolution cannot come from mutations because information is lost. For a more highly developed and complex creature to evolve, additional information is needed. This has never been shown and geneticists have said so.

And you know that is true.

You call it quote mining. So what? Is it the truth or not? You like to post lists of 200 references like it proves you are right. Doesn't prove a thing to me.

You believe incredible theories like puncuated equilibrium. Think man. This very theory PROVES there are no transistional forms found. Else you would not need this ridiculous theory.

But you are so sold on evolution you go out and look for evidence of this absurd theory.

Wow.

 

"Evidence for a Young World
by Russell Humphreys"

It really is too much to ask for you to pick a topic and discuss it in your own words.

[SIGH]

"1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast"

Density waves explain the spiral structures of galaxies. No mystery there.

"2. Comets disintegrate too quickly"

Comets are also replentished. Perhaps you have missed all the news stories over the last few years of Kuiper Belt objects being discovered. This provides one source for comets.


The other is the Oort cloud. We know it is out there because the orbits of coets on their first trip through the inner solar system tell us where they came from. Plus we have observed such a cloud around other stars.

"3. Not enough mud on the sea floor"

There are quite a few things that can happen to the sediment. Much of it is subducted. Some of it becomes new land in various ways. Some of it deissolves away.

"4. Not enough sodium in the sea"

The sodium in the oceans in in equilibrium.

This is an intersting link.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

It details the problems with AIG's analysis of the sodium. To get their figures to work out, not only did they have to leave out several mechanisms by which sodium is removed, they also had to change on mechanism by a factor of 35 from what was listed in their reference!!!! Maybe this therad should be retitled The Lie of YEism! The leaders seem to have a problem with honesty

"5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast"

The earth's magnetic field decays and reverses periodically. A record of these reversals is stored in the rocks. For example, where the Atlantic Ocean is spreading apart, there are a series of bands of alternating magnetic stripes. Interstingly, I read just today where the same patterns have been found on Mars showing that it, too, underwent plate tectonics back when it had a strong magnetic field.

Oh that's enough to get the picture. Please let us know when you want to focus on a particular topic.

Spamming like this gets old.

Edit to add:

I found this direct response to the spam you posted.

http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/Hump.html

Enjoy.

 

"My analogy is very good. The problem with radiometric dating is there are too many variables."

Please inform us of what those variables are and just how they are problematic. It would be best to go at this one "problem" at a time. These spammin posts and links that you never defend get us no where.

"Here is a page chock full of the problems. Again, most of these objections come not from creationists, but SCIENTISTS in this very field."

I stopped reading at the first quote.

I have examined enough such quotes from YEers to know that they do not have the ability to quote accurately and in context.

I you wish for me to examine a quote, please provide the quote and then provide a link where I can go read the entire source from which the quote was pulled in context. I do not accept other quotes.

You said that most of the quotes came from scientists in the field. Do you really think these guys are going around saying how what they do for a living is false? Do you really? Then do you really think that they have been accurately quoted? Do you really? If their actual opinions are not being reflected then the quotes are lies. Period!

"Evolution cannot come from mutations because information is lost. For a more highly developed and complex creature to evolve, additional information is needed. This has never been shown and geneticists have said so."

You have been given many examples of processes that can create new and useful genetic material. YOu have been given real world examples of these mechanisms.

You have not even attempted to show how these mechanisms really do not generate new "information." You have not even given us a quantifiable definition of "information." Yet you have no problem re-asserting claims that have been shown to be wrong and for which you have offered no support. I guess this falls under the category of a lie told often enough might become the truth.

So let's see. I assert that duplication and subsequent mutation of one of the copies provides new "information." I have given you examples of this in action in the past. Please explain to us just why it is not really new "information."

"You call it quote mining. So what? Is it the truth or not?"

NO IT IS NOT THE TRUTH. WHEN YOU QUOTE SOMEONE IN A WAY WHERE THE PRESENTATION OF THE QUOTE DOES NOT REFLECT THE OPINION OF THE ONE BEING QUOTED IT IS DISHONEST. WHEN THE CONTEXT IS REMOVED OR CHANGED SUCH THAT THE ORIGINAL MEANING IS LOST, THE QUOTE IS DISHONEST.

Is that really that hard of a concept? Quotes must accurately reflect the opinion of the one being quoted. Your quotes are the equivilent of one who would quote the Bible as saying "There is no God." That phrase can be found in the Bible. Now what is wrong with it? When you answer, you will know why your quote mining is horribly dishonest.

"You like to post lists of 200 references like it proves you are right. Doesn't prove a thing to me."

References show that you have a factual basis for your opinion. A lack of references shows that your assertions are unsupportable.

References may not prove a thing to you but that just goes to show that what you are trying to demonstrate is not science but fantasy.

"You believe incredible theories like puncuated equilibrium. Think man. This very theory PROVES there are no transistional forms found. Else you would not need this ridiculous theory."

I give up on that one. You have been explained PE every way I can think of and you still falsely assert that it says something that it does not. You either cannot understand it or you willingly misrepresent it. My opinion is the latter since you do not seem to get what is wrong with lying about what scientists have said.

 

"Oh that's enough to get the picture. Please let us know when you want to focus on a particular topic.

Spamming like this gets old."

Brother UTE!

A.F.

 

Is there a point here?

The poster in question seems happy to just provide random weblinks and to spam huge amounts of copy and pasted material from all over the place which is not his own. Sometimes without even a reference to show where they came from. Some people call that plagarism. In some places, plagarism is a bad word.

It would be useful to pick a topic and actually discuss it instead of all the links and spam and never bothering to defend such from the criticisms that come.

At the very least, if some spammed assertion can not be supported or defended it should not be made again at a later point.