The lie of evolution

I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for all of the data proposed here. I applaud your husband for making an effort at a coherent model, but I'm afraid it is incomplete (see my thread in the Science forum on current VSL theory), and then again he does not post here.

It is also true that some YE posters here declare that their interpretation is the only possible one in spite of the fact that an alternative valid explanation exists. I hope you noticed the new data I posted above providing a reasonable explanation for quantized redshifts other than having the earth at the center of the universe.

I propose that those who say that a scientific proposal is "contrived" simply because it is currently unproven are those creating a war between science and religious belief--not between science and the Bible because I don't think that there is a conflict, but between science and one person's interpretation of the Bible.

 

Helen, I'm interested in this. Could you provide those 12 references?

Is Psalm 104:2 one of those references? It is not in the past completed tense:

"Bless the LORD, O my soul! O LORD my God, you are very great! You are clothed with splendor and majesty, covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." (Psalm 104:1-2, ESV)

Here's another one:

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nothing, and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness." (Isaiah 40:22-23)

The stretching out is in the same tense as bringing princes to nothing. Where did you hear that these references were "always in the past completed tense"? I think someone misled you.

 

Alas, people argue what scientists have discovered all the time.

See? You're doing it again!

Evolution is observed, documented, and has a theory to account for it. That makes it science. It is psychologically impossible for scientists now to get rid of it unless and until a better theory takes its place.

Correction. It directly contradicts some literalistic interpretations of the bible.

It survives by showing its interpretation of data is the best one so far. Anyone is free to propose better data fitting explanations and then the new explanations take over. That is the history of science. As a correllary, over time, the replacement theories get harder and harder to find, because all the easy ones to replace have already had that done. And we begin to have more and more confidence in what we've learned to date.

Funny, I keep reading about new fossils and new evidence that support evolution, not about new fossils and new evidence that are problematic for evolution. Then when I read the opposition, I read really strange things.

Now I know you and Barry are good, decent people and you want to do the right thing and I really respect your stance against Calvanism, for example, but . . .

I'm sorry . . .

the idea that the speed of light has been decreasing over the past mere 10,000 years by magnitudes of several million fold is kind of over the top.

I really wish you well and don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but it just can't be true!

 

I have no problems with theories whatsoever. As long as they are not taught as fact until confirmed.

If an astronomer wants to theorize there are 6 additional planets, fine. But don't teach it as a scientific fact to young people until the planets are actually discovered.

You may read about new fossils that support evolution everyday of the week. But this is because evolutionists are biased. If they see any resemblance between one life form and another they claim it means both animals have a common ancestor.

As I said to UTEOTW, really, evolution believes that all animals came from a single form. He said from a single gene pool, whatever that means.

All animals have many similarities to many other animals. Fish have backbones, so do we. That does not prove we came from a common ancestor. Almost every creature on earth has eyes. That does not mean we have a common ancestor.

And as I have said repeatedly, evolutionist ignore the many differences. The whale and camel may have a similar ankle bone. They probably have many similarites. But they also have many differences.

The Bible says we are different from the animals.

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

1Cr 15:40 [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.

1Cr 15:41 [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.

I don't know about you, but I don't have skin like a snake.

But I wonder....

 

"So what if gravitational effects are observed? This does not prove the Dark Matter exists."

Please tell me just what you are talking about? It makes no sense.

We have observed several different kinds of gravitational effects that indicate that there is about 5 times as much mass there as there is visible matter. We call this missing matter dark matter because it is not seen. What is so hard about that? Its effects are observed. Directly.

Denying the obvious evidence for dark matter is the kind of thing you get into when you go down the false path of YE. You soon get to the point where you doubt everything. YOu get to the point where you make outlandish claims like the one above where it is claimed that maybe God interferes in every single measurement where dark matter is detected in order to test our faith. If you cnnot believe repeatable tests about how the universe works then you cannot say for sure that anything is real or that anything is as it seems.

You might as well be a follower of Last Thursdayism.

"Astronomers have been looking for Dark Matter for years and have not found it. Just because someone can create a type of dark matter in the lab does not mean it is present in space."

Astronomers do not look for the actual dark matter. High energy physics guys in labs do. The astronomers have done their part by showing multiple independent observations that are best explained by dark matter. Now it is up to the high energy physics guys to show what exactly it is.

"I don't care if you list 10 pages of evolutionists that support punk eek as you call it. It has no real scientific evidence. "

Long explanations don't work. Short explanations don't work. The only thing I can come up with is that you are purposely not understanding PE such that you can continue to makes claims that it says things that it really does not and so that you can keep claiming that it has no evidence even when parts of the evidence are presented for you.

Why don't you tell us, in your own words, what it is that you think that PE clains.

"It is a fantastic theory that says transitional fossils cannot be found because evolution speeds up incredibly for very short periods of time. But fossils with big differences and only slight similarites can be found because evolution slows down for long periods leaving fossils."

[SIGH]

No. No. No.

The smallest differences are lost due do rapid change and small populations IN MOST CASES. We have examples of these rapid changes. Both fossil and modern. The changes that are recorded are still quite small in many cases. You jest don't get fossils of every single variation that ever lived.

 

"2. The reason, and the only reason, long-agers insist on dark matter is because they need it to support the long age ideas. It is totally unneeded in a recent creation."

Wrong.

Dark matter is theorized because of its effects. The three primary effects I can think of are gravitational lensing, galaxy rotation and CMB effects. I have outlined all of these in great deal for you in the past and have not received responses. Instead the same assertions are saved and made again later with out addressing the actual reasons that dark matter is postulated.

That it is important to the flatness aspect of inflation is secondary.

Speaking of which, we were promised weeks ago that the full objects raised on the "Galaxy Rotation" thread that you successfully lobbied to have closed without the key points addressed would be answered on your web page. I think the plan was that the full quotations of the objections would be placed on the web page discussion section and then fully addressed. They were not there when I checked most recently.

Do we need a new thread instead?

"4. You are right that punctuated equilibrium (punk eek) has no evidence. It is a theory started by Gould and Eldridge and born out of desperation and lack of fossil evidence for evolution. "

It is a theory born out of observations such as rapid change in small populations in the present, the rarity of fossilization and the pattern of fossils when we are lucky enough to get very finely divided transitional series.

 

"Evolutionists do not like to talk about the Cambrian Explosion. This is when many thousands of complicated life forms suddenly appeared, many exactly the same as they appear today. This supports creationism, but is a huge problem for evolution. There are no transitional forms whatsoever."

Another case where you have made a claim, ignored the response and come back to make the same claim without ever addressing the objections from the first time around.

Please tell me what modern forms are found in the Cambrian. Any telost fish? Any sharks? Any amphibians? And reptiles? Any mammals? And birds? And angiosperms? Any insects? Any grasses? Any gynosperms?

What? None of these are found there? Do you have any explaantion of why this is?

Have you never heard of the transitions leading up to the Cambrian? Maybe your YE sources fail to tell you about things such as the Burgess Shale. Too bad they must hide the data from you to make their case.

The best that can be said is that many of the basic body plans, or phyla, first appeared in the Cambrian. But, as was shown to you before, the differences between the phyla at that time were very slight indeed. There are even examples of organisms intermediate between phyla from that time.

But we should not be surprised. YOu seem content to make baseless assertions and link to webpages seemingly at random. You do not seem willing to have an actual discussion on any one topic. You seem willing to repeat the same clains even after substantial objections are raised without ever addressing those objections. YOu seem completely unwilling to answer any wuestions directed towards you.

In short, you have been well trained to be a typical YE poster.

So, did you ever look at those radiometric links that directly addressed the link you posted? What did you think?

Do you have any plausible, testible theory to explain the whale observations that I have detailed for you outside of common descent?

Do you have any juicy quotes from real scientists who really accept evolution who really say that there are no transitionals complete with a link to where we can read the whole publications from which the quote was taken? No? I bet you will claim again soon that you have such quotes, however.

"Dark Matter is something that was invented to provide mathematical solutions to serious problems with the Big Bang."

Nope.

It is observed.

It is only secondary that it also is important to the flatness apsect of inflation.

"If they see any resemblance between one life form and another they claim it means both animals have a common ancestor."

You still don't get it. It is not simply simularities. It is the details involved and the pattern of the simularities. These are not explainable outside of common descent.

"He said from a single gene pool, whatever that means."

Just that when you get back to bacteria and before, there is a lot of lateral gene transfer. It may not make sense to talk of a single "first" life form from which everything developed. It may make more sense to talk of a group of life all swapping genetic information between them.

 

"It survives by declaring its interpretation of data is the only possible one, despite the fact that the data may be trending in exactly the opposite direction and despite the fact that other, valid interpretations of the same data exist."

This is one of the most infuriating claims of YEers. That we all have the same data and it is simply a matter of interpretation.

I have been trying for for nearly a year to get someone to address ALL of the observations concerning whale evolution. No takers.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/23.html

I have been trying for longer than the whales to get someone to explain the genetic observations concerning human evolution. No takers.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html

More recently, I have not even beeb able to get any takers on giving an alternate to all of the genetic observations that indicate how the genome of all life shows the results of evolutionary change through mechanisms such as duplication and mutation.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html

The whale stuff has been spread all over various threads. The fossil record going back to the cetartiodactyls. The genetic record that shows the same. The vestiges. The atavisms. The ontogeny. The olfactory pseudogenes. And so on.

But the claims keep coming in about it all being a matter of interpretation.

[YAWN]

 

Good job Helen.
And I see here some a claiming that evolution is an observable fact.What I want to know is which of you is 4 1/2 billion years old?

 

Bill, what is observable is simple variation. Your kids look different from you. A dog can have a variety of looks in the puppies unless the dog is too inbred. A virus or bacteria can mutate into a slightly different form. We still have humans, dogs, viruses, and bacteria, respectively. There is nothing but speculation which would say that one basic type of organism could ever change into another.

UTE, please tell me, why would dark matter be needed in a young universe?

 

Helen, could you please provide those 12 references about God stretching out the heavens that you mentioned, and also explain why you said they were "always in the past completed tense", even though at least two of them aren't? (Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22.)

 

"UTE, please tell me, why would dark matter be needed in a young universe?"

Young, old, intermediate, eternal, whatever...

I see where you are going, I think.

You are going to doubt the CMB measurements of dark matter because you will doubt all conclusions about what the measurements of the CMB mean. (Though I am unsure quite how you deal with the very details of the CMB. http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/outreach/all_papers.cfm You have alluded to the stretching of the heavens in the past but this general allusion is insufficient to deal with the particular details that are observed. Do you yet have a theory for the details?)

You will say that if galaxies are young then you do not need the extra mass to hold them together. On the contrary, they may be moving too fast to stay together but they have simply not had time to disperse.

But what about gravitational lensing? In another post, I gave you a detailed account of one type of lensing event. The Einstein Ring. This gives a method to directly measure the mass of the lensing object. Dark matter is needed to explain the missing mass in these cases of the direct measurement of the mass of a lensing galaxy. It does not matter the age of the universe. The lensing is observed. The details give us the mass. The measured mass is somewhere around 5 times greater than what is observed. This difference is also consistent with measurments from the CMB and the galaxy rotational velocities.

 

There, see, the exact phenomenon Ute has been talking about. Its as if someone cut down a tree, counted the rings, said the tree was that many old, and then were told no, you are just speculating based on arbitrary conclusions from what you see there. Sorry, folks, the rings really tell us something.

We're not talking about observing random variation here. As Ute has carefully documented, the variations suggest and support common descent.

Helen, Dark Matter is not something anybody ever dreamed of until the evidence for it was found. It then fits. Its as if the universe were a great puzzle to be figured out and then look, we found another piece! And it fits over here!

"over here", in this context, is a part of the puzzle we don't have very well fixed up yet, we all know that. That's one reason its so exciting, compared to yet another viral insertion correspondence that just yet again proves all over again how some species are of common descent. We already KNEW that.

Your question is as if you were making another version of the puzzle, one that leaves out a lot of the pieces anyway, and you say "why would I need that piece, too?"

Real scientists are taking all the pieces and trying to fit them together. They've got some of the the puzzle put together very well. Other parts they are working on.

Its no use saying "why do we need that piece?" We are stuck with having it and working it into the puzzle.

God made something out there that works. It is to His glory that we are able to trace out some of it and discover some more of His wonderful creation!

 

You know very little from the tree rings unless you know the conditions under which the tree was growing, I'm afraid. It is not unusual for a tree to put on two or even more rings a year given appropriate conditions. In the meantime, in a tropical climate, the growth rate is even and there are NO rings.

In the meantime, the 'evidence' for dark matter is the need for it based on an old universe. I still would like to know if UTE (not you, Paul) thinks dark matter would be 'needed' in a young universe and, if so, why.

We know about intergalactic dust and dust clouds. That we have real evidence for. We do NOT have real evidence for dark matter -- only the need for it if the cosmos is billions of years old.

Paul, you wrote 'Its no use saying "why do we need that piece?" We are stuck with having it and working it into the puzzle.' Yet that is EXACTLY what evolutionists and other old age folk, scientists or not, are doing. You are ignoring data from physics, geology, astronomy, genetics, and biology (at the least) in order to try to shore up the idea of old age and evolution.

 

"In the meantime, the 'evidence' for dark matter is the need for it based on an old universe. I still would like to know if UTE (not you, Paul) thinks dark matter would be 'needed' in a young universe and, if so, why."

I believe that I was extremely clear. I'll give longer answers to clear up any remaining confusion.

In the case of gravitational lensing, dark matter would be needed in a universe of any age. There is clear mathematics that allows one to calculate the mass of a lensing object. Such a direct measurement of mass requires that a universe of any age account for the unseen mass.

For the CMB, it is unclear whether or not dark matter would be required. The reason it is unclear is because I know of no specific hypothesis to account for the details of the CMB ( http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/outreach/all_papers.cfm ) in a young universe. Even without the dark matter discussion, YE ideas need a good, testible hypothesis on CMB.

In the case of galaxy rotation, I again think that it is unclear. Strictly speaking, the galaxies could have been formed as is. Ignoring the difficulties in that for a moment, if the galaxies were young, then they could be moving faster than the gravity would allow and the material remain in orbit if they simply had not had time to fly apart yet.

But again, the issues come in the details. For example, we need a reason for the spirals of the spiral galaxies. I have heard your allusions to putting your hands in water and pulling them apart. This is incomplete. It does not deal with why the elliptical galaxies are not spiral. It does not deal with the interacting pairs and groups of galaxies where many millions of years of gravitational interaction and recorded by the shapes of the galaxies.

And of course for your specific idea, there is the unresolved issue of the measured rotational speeds of the galaxies not matching what would be expected.

 

"You know very little from the tree rings unless you know the conditions under which the tree was growing, I'm afraid. It is not unusual for a tree to put on two or even more rings a year given appropriate conditions. In the meantime, in a tropical climate, the growth rate is even and there are NO rings."

Do we use tree rings from tropical climates to measure time into the past? No. Red herring.

There are circumstances that will cause a tree to produce multiple rings. Sure. However, the rings can be successfully compared to other data for a reliability check. They can be compared to rings from distant locales. They can be compared using C14 dating. They can be compared using varves from various locales. They can be compared using ice core data from different places. They can be compared using radiometric techniques other than C14. Coral for example.

 

One other thing about the spiral arms of galaxies.

Why in a young universe would they be the site of som much star formation? In other words, why are they so blue? In a young universe, there has not been time ofr star formation to have occurred.

 

JWI

I found a few things regarding some of the subjects you have been mentioning.

With regards to transitional forms, here is a recent article on some fossil discoveries about the evolution of the birds from dinosaurs.

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/051014_flying_dino.html

Regarding the Cambrian..

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

 

Ute, have you read the latest Scientific American dated October 2005? There's a fascinating article about the formation of spiral arms in Galaxies. The formation of spirals has been problematic ever since the dark matter discoveries - because the material in galaxies that we observe does NOT rotate slower at the outer edges, the very phenomenon that was the first CLUE to dark matter.

Well, on page 43 and following we have a new explanation for the formation of galaxy spirals. If the article is correct galaxies normally grow and shed spirals as a consequence of the way the orbits of the stars, and the gas that is gravitationally drawn to the stars, peridocally align and dissapate. It involves the creation of fresh stars as gas clouds are compressed together in this process - and we all know it is the new, hot, bright stars that outline the spirals of the galaxies.

Its a must read for those of us who are intrigued by the wonders of God's universe.

 

(sigh) I cut down a tree and count the rings. I say its been alive that many years. You come along and say "in a tropical climate . . . " - uh, we're standing here in Oregon looking at this tree, why are we talking about tropical climates?

You claim "not unusual". So you think this tree instead of being 100 years old could possibly be 200 or 300 years old? Nonsense. Maybe 101 or 102.

The conditions that cause such "double ringing" would have to be very weird, involving a mini-winter in the middle of the summer, yet with good solid time both sides of the "mini winter" to actually establish a ring. Its not going to happen every year. Its not going to happen MOST years.

This is an odd stance. Apparantly my own explanation is satisfactory but Ute's, to your way of thinking (though I fail to see any difference in the meaning of what we have each posted) fails and therefore you continue to press Ute because if Ute's language fails some esoteric test you have in mind (and my language did not) then you've disproved old universe cosmology.

NOT!

Old universe cosmology stands or falls on the evidence. The evidence is overwhelmingly for an old univers. Evaluating evidence is not a matter of symantecs. Its a matter of seeing and understanding the evidence. Therefore when you say this:

you utterly ignore the history of the dark matter idea. The dark matter came, puzzlingly, FIRST. It LATER proved helpful in explaining some features of the universe.

I can only assume that in this paragraph you are alluding not to dark matter alone but to the whole genre of scientific evidence for evolution.

It's to broad for any reply, except a broad based reply in kind. So here goes:

No I'm not.