Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Evolving Planets? 1

Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from just the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting the Sun. (a). Orbiting particles are much more likely to be scattered or expelled by their gravitational attraction than they are to be permanently pulled together. Experiments have shown that colliding particles almost always fragment rather than stick together (b). (Similar difficulties exist in trying to form a moon from particles orbiting a planet.)

Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. “Growing a planet” by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling (c).

a. Very special conditions are required to capture and then merge orbiting bodies. They are discussed more fully starting on page 281.

b. John F. Kerridge and James F. Vedder, “An Experimental Approach to Circumsolar Accretion,” Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), pp. 282–283.

“It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54.

c. Tim Folger, “This Battered Earth,” Discover, January 1994, p. 33.

“‘We came to the conclusion,’ says Lissauer, ‘that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, [the observed] prograde rotation just can’t be explained,’ The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.” Richard A. Kerr, “Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets,” Science, Vol. 258, 23 October 1992, p. 548.

Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine, “Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?” Science, Vol. 259, 15 January 1993, pp. 350–354.

Some believe that the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) gained their spins through a few very large and improbable impacts. However, this appeal to large or improbable impacts will not work for the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), which have the most spin energy. Such impacts on these gaseous planets would be even more improbable, because they move more slowly and are so far from the center of the solar system. Besides, impacts from large rocks would not account for the composition of the giant planets—basically hydrogen and helium.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Evolving Planets? 2

The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons (d):

a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases—hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the giant planets.

b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, several times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates (e). (Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)

c. Stars like our Sun—even those which evolutionists say are young—do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter (f).

Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations (g). The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve. [See “Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?” on page 418.]

Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.

d. “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.

“Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn—the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass—and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.” Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,” Science, Vol. 298, 29 November 2002, p. 1698.

e. This idea has a further difficulty. If, as the solar system began to form, a large, rocky planet quickly formed near Jupiter’s orbit, why didn’t a rocky planet form in the adjacent asteroid belt where we see more than 200,000 rocky bodies (asteroids) today?

f. B. Zuckerman et al., “Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion around Young Stars,” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, pp. 494–496.

g. “In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, [what evolutionists believe is] the lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’” Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,” Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.

Renu Malhotra, “Chaotic Planet Formation,” Nature, Vol. 402, 9 December 1999, pp. 599–600.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Planetary Rings


Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune (a). Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved (b).


Figure 24: Planetary Rings. The rings of Saturn, Uranus, and Jupiter (left to right) are forming today and steadily breaking up. Rings are not composed of debris remaining after planets evolved.

Actually, rings have nothing to do with a planet’s origin. Rings form when material is expelled from a moon by a volcano, a geyser, or the impact of a comet or meteorite (c). Debris that escapes a moon because of its weak gravity and a giant planet’s gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished, they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years (d). Because a planet’s gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.

a. William K. Hartmann, Moons and Planets, 3rd edition (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993), p. 143.

b. Similar faulty logic claims that, because we see comets, asteroids, and meteoroids, the solar system must have evolved.

c. “Geysers on Enceladus replenish the E ring.” Richard A. Kerr, “At Last, a Supportive Parent for Saturn’s Youngest Ring,” Science, Vol. 309, 9 September 2005, p. 1660.

“Saturn’s moons are bombarded by comets or micro-meteoroids. Those collisions knock off ice particles and send them into orbit around Saturn, forming rings.” Ron Cowen, “Ring Shots,” Science News, Vol. 170, 21 October 2006, p. 263.

This has also been observed for Jupiter’s rings. Jupiter has a few moons large enough to be hit frequently by meteoroids or comets, small enough to have little gravity so the debris can escape the moon, and close enough to Jupiter that tidal effects can spread the moon’s debris into rings. [See Ron Cowen, “Mooning Over the Dust Rings of Jupiter,” Science News, Vol. 154, 12 September 1998, pp. 182–183. See also Gretchen Vogel, “Tiny Moon Source of Jupiter’s Ring,” Science, Vol. 281, 25 September 1998, p. 1951.]

d. “Yet nonstop erosion poses a difficult problem for the very existence of Saturn’s opaque rings—the expected bombardment rate would pulverize the entire system in only 10,000 years! Most of this material is merely redeposited elsewhere in the rings, but even if only a tiny fraction is truly lost (as ionized vapor, for example), it becomes a real trick to maintain the rings since the formation of the solar system [as imagined by evolutionists].” Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Ringed Planets: Still Mysterious—II,” Sky & Telescope, Vol. 69, January 1985, p. 22.

Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Saturn: Jewel of the Solar System,” The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp. 12–15.

Also, water in Saturn’s rings is rapidly ionized and transported along magnetic lines to certain latitudes on Saturn. The Hubble Space Telescope has detected this water concentration in Saturn’s atmosphere. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Slow Leak Seen in Saturn’s Rings,” Science, Vol. 274, 29 November 1996, p. 1468.]

Richard A. Simpson and Ellis D. Miner, “Uranus: Beneath That Bland Exterior,” The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp. 16–18.

“Saturn’s rings (as well as the recently discovered ring system around Uranus) are unstable, therefore recent formations.” S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky, “Comets and the Cosmogony of the Solar System,” Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, editor A. H. Delsemme (Toledo, Ohio: The University of Toledo, 1977), p. 473.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Malcolm Wright]

Pahu spam makes Malcolm sad. Lol

[Going Postal]

Trillions of universes?

Parallel universes

http://www.wbur.org/npr/132932268/a-...rses-may-exist

[Going Postal]

Intelligently designed——Everything in creation—from the largest galaxy to the smallest atom—reveals the fact that it was planned, designed, and constructed by an Intelligent Being of the highest intellect and capabilities.

And this Being is the one presented to us in the Wholly Babble? The one that went down, found man building together in peace (ie Tower of Babel story), said, "NO, NO, NO!!!" Changed our language into a multitude and been fighting ever since. That Intelligent Being of the highest intellect and capabilities?

Here's what really happened.

Son (who thinks his dad knows everything): Dad, why that man talk funny?
Dad: uh, uh, uh.
Son: (expectantly waiting for Dad to shed knowledge on this peculiar thing...)
Dad: well son, in a land far away...

[Dinar Agapova]

Are you stupid people everyone knows evolution is bullshit ask any deeply religious pastor

[Pahu]

Origin of the Moon


Evolutionary theories for the origin of the Moon are highly speculative and completely inadequate (a). The Moon could not have spun off from Earth, because its orbital plane is too highly inclined. Nor could it have formed from the same material as Earth, because the relative abundances of its elements are too dissimilar from those of Earth (b). The Moon’s nearly circular orbit is also strong evidence that it was never torn from nor captured by Earth (c). If the Moon formed from particles orbiting Earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the Moon’s orbit; none are.

Some claim that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor. If so, many small moons should have formed (d). The impactor’s glancing blow would either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent that Earth would end up spinning too fast (e). Besides, part of Earth’s surface and mantle would have melted, but none of the indicators of that melting have been found (f). Also, small particles splashed from Earth would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space. However, Apollo astronauts found on the Moon tiny glass beads that had erupted as molten material from inside the Moon but had dissolved water inside! The total amount of water that was once inside the moon probably equaled that in the Caribbean Sea (g).

These explanations have many other problems. Understanding them caused one expert to joke, “The best explanation [for the Moon] was observational error—the Moon does not exist (h).” Similar difficulties exist for evolutionary explanations of the other (almost 200) known moons in the solar system.

But the Moon does exist. If it was not pulled or splashed from Earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one hypothesis remains: the Moon was created in its present orbit. [See “Evolving Planets?” on page 30, and “Moon Recession,” “Moon Dust and Debris,” and “Hot Moon” on page 40.]

a. “The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative.” Robert C. Haymes, Introduction to Space Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), p. 209.

On 10 November 1971, Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-winning chemist and lunar scientist, stated “I do not know the origin of the moon, I’m not sure of my own or any other’s models, I’d lay odds against any of the models proposed being correct.” Robert Treash, “Magnetic Remanence in Lunar Rocks,” Pensee, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 1972, p. 22.

“In astronomical terms, therefore, the Moon must be classed as a well-known object, but astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from. This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme.” David W. Hughes, “The Open Question in Selenology,” Nature, Vol. 327, 28 May 1987, p. 291.

b. Haymes, p. 209.

c. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 77–79.

M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Origin of the Moon,” Science, Vol. 216, 7 May 1982, pp. 606–607.

“If the Moon had separated from the Earth, it would either have broken away completely or returned, but it could not have gone into orbit.” Stacey, p. 38.

d. “We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met.” Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, “Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427.

e. “...no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed.” Shigeru Ida et al., “Lunar Accretion from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Nature, No. 2, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, p. 357.

f. “A collision big and hot enough to yield the moon’s magma ocean would have melted at least part of Earth’s surface as well. But geologists could not find any evidence that the mantle had ever melted. If it had, they expected to find that iron-loving elements such as nickel, tungsten, and cobalt had been drawn from Earth’s upper layers into its iron core. Instead, the concentration of iron-loving elements, called siderophiles, remains relatively high in Earth’s mantle. And other elements that should have segregated in a liquid mantle were instead commingled.” Karen Wright, “Where Did the Moon Come From?” Discover, Vol. 24, February 2003, pp. 65–66.

g. “This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says [Erik] Hauri. ‘It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water,’ he says. ‘That’s a really, really difficult knot to untie.’ ” Nell Greenfieldboyce, quoting Erik Hauri, “Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past,” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92383117, 12 July 2008. [See Endnote 60 on page 304.]

h. Jack J. Lissauer, “It’s Not Easy to Make the Moon,” Nature, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, pp. 327–328.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Going Postal]

^^

So, some aliens came by a garden planet (or candidate for garden status) and decided to install a moon (for tidal effects; great thing tides). These aliens doesn't have to be the idiot in the Wholly Babble.

[Pahu]

Evolution of the Solar System?

Evolutionists claim the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4.6 billion years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun. (To understand why, see "Poynting-Robertson Effect" here ) Particles should still be falling into the Sun’s upper atmosphere, burning up, and giving off an easily measured, infrared glow. Measurements taken during the solar eclipse of 11 July 1991, showed no such glow (a). So the assumed “millions of years” and this explanation for the solar system’s origin are probably wrong.

Disks of gas and dust sometimes surround stars. That does not mean planets are forming in those disks. Some disks formed from matter suddenly expelled from the star (b). Other disks formed (via gravity and the laws of physics) from impact debris or other matter near the star. Early astronomers called the disks planetary nebula, because they mistakenly thought they contained evolving planets.

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

“...interplanetary dust is not highly concentrated around the sun. In situ measurements made with impact detectors aboard the two Helios probes, which reached a heliocentric distance of 60 [solar radii], have also shown that the spatial IDP [interplanetary dust particles] density gradually levels off inside ~100 solar radii.

“Our two-dimensional IR [infrared] observations have shown unambiguously that a prominent circumsolar dust ring did not exist at the time of the 11 July 1991 solar eclipse. Consistent with these results, a second recent IR eclipse experiment also found no evidence of surface brightness enhancements.” P. Lamy et al., “No Evidence of a Circumsolar Dust Ring from Infrared Observations of the 1991 Solar Eclipse,” Science, Vol. 257, 4 September 1992, p. 1379.

b. L. F. Miranda et al., “Water-Maser Emission from a Planetary Nebula with a Magnetic Torus,” Nature, Vol. 414, 15 November 2001, pp. 284–286.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Malcolm Wright]

Back in my DA days, there was another fellow quite like this Pahu chap. Can't remember his name. Always spamming with long-winded, free-associating weirdness. Displayed a high degree of what I'll call net Asperger's, for lack of a better term - was just interested in posting his stuff compulsively, with no real interest in (or capacity for) dialogue. Is Pahu the same person I am thinking of perhaps?

Pahu: why are you so vehemently opposed to evolution? It is actually not a threat to a belief in God, despite what some folks would like to have you believe... I mean you come across as quite manic about this - you've got an incredible amount of stamina for posting reams against a very broad spectrum of theories which you seem to want to bunch under the label 'evolutionary'... what are your motivations? Why do these theories bother you so much?

[colonel]

Back in my DA days, there was another fellow quite like this Pahu chap. Can't remember his name.

Kathaksung perhaps? Never did have the patience to get through one of his posts.

Very nice to hear you're still alive and well Malcolm!

[Pahu]

Back in my DA days, there was another fellow quite like this Pahu chap. Can't remember his name. Always spamming with long-winded, free-associating weirdness. Displayed a high degree of what I'll call net Asperger's, for lack of a better term - was just interested in posting his stuff compulsively, with no real interest in (or capacity for) dialogue. Is Pahu the same person I am thinking of perhaps?

Pahu: why are you so vehemently opposed to evolution? It is actually not a threat to a belief in God, despite what some folks would like to have you believe... I mean you come across as quite manic about this - you've got an incredible amount of stamina for posting reams against a very broad spectrum of theories which you seem to want to bunch under the label 'evolutionary'... what are your motivations? Why do these theories bother you so much?

The reason I am so vehemently opposed to evolution is because the idea leads to destructive actions. For example:

Opinions about origins have profound social consequences and even affect the way we think. Consider the following perspectives and some responses. Notice that all these perspectives presume evolution occurred, despite the scientific evidence. We recognize that some people believe that God used evolution to create and that evolution is compatible with the Bible; however, a careful reading shows, in dozens of ways, that it is not.

1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?

2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes?
Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.

3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil?
Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t.

4. Survival of the Fittest. If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved.

5. Communism. Friederich Engels, one of the founders of communism, wrote Karl Marx, another founder, and strongly recommended Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. In response, Marx wrote Engels that Darwin’s book “contains the basis in natural history for our view [communism].” Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined.
Joseph Stalin, ruthless dictator of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953, killed millions of his people. Stalin read Darwin’s book as a student at a church-based school and urged others to read it. During that time, he became an atheist.

6. Personal Responsibility. If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.
Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.
Response: We were created for a purpose, so we have great responsibility, and our Creator will hold us accountable. More will be expected from those who have been given more.

7. Relativism. There are no absolutes, moral or otherwise (except the fact that there are absolutely no absolutes). Your belief is just as good as mine; your truth is just as good as my truth.
Response: Obviously, the One who created the universe, life, and humans has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes—and He has.

8. Social Darwinism. If life evolved, then the human mind evolved. So did products of the human mind and all social institutions: law, government, science, education, religion, language, economics, industry—civilization itself.
Response: Technology progresses, information accumulates, and civilization often improves, but humans remain humans—with all our frailties and shortcomings.

9. Secular Humanism. If the “molecules-to-monkeys-to-man” idea is correct, then man is the highest form of being. Man should be the object of greatest concern, not some fictitious Creator that man actually created.
Response: That philosophy is called secular humanism (a humane, intellectual-sounding term) that claims God is irrelevant and the Bible is fiction. Secular humanism will decline as people increasingly learn the scientific flaws of evolution.

10. New Age Movement. If people slowly evolved up from bacteria, then aren’t we evolving toward God? Aren’t we evolving a new consciousness? Aren’t we evolving into a glorious New Age?
Response: These beliefs, built on evolution, continue to spread like a cancer, even in many churches in the world. New age beliefs also will decline as the scientific errors of evolution become known.

11. Marriage. If marriage is a cultural development, begun by ignorant tribes thousands of years ago, then why not change that custom, as we do other out-of-date customs? Animals don’t marry; why should people? After all, we’re just animals. If people are a product of natural processes, then why not do what comes naturally? What’s wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage as long as no one is hurt?
Response: God instituted marriage when He created a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, and said they should become one.

12. Racism. If humans evolved up from some apelike creature, then some people must have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others.
Response: But that’s racism. That’s the twisted logic Hitler used to try to establish his Aryan master race and to justify killing six million Jews in the Holocaust. This does not mean that evolutionists are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers of a century ago were extreme racists. However, evolution has provided the main rationale for racism. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “Biological arguments for racism ... increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” People with darker skin have suffered greatly from evolutionary racism. Belief in evolution has also caused others to suffer even more. They are victims of a greater holocaust going on all around us—abortion.

13. Abortion. We dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn’t it the mother’s right? Shouldn’t she have a “choice” in such a personal matter? After all, a fetus has no name or personality. During its first three months, it’s just a tiny glob of tissue—no more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn’t a fetus, having less value than an adult, be “terminated” if adults or society would benefit? This will help solve our population problem. We must guide our destiny.
Response: Abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent, defenseless, developing (but completely human) baby. Calling an unborn child merely a “fetus” is dehumanizing. Nor should we speak of “terminating a pregnancy.” That is simply a euphemism for killing a very young human.

Nine years after Darwin published his theory of evolution, Professor Ernst Haeckel announced that animal embryos, including unborn humans, pass through stages that mimic their evolutionary steps. Human embryos begin as microscopic spheres, because, Haeckel said, humans evolved from bacteria, which are sometimes microscopic spheres. Later, unborn babies look like fish, because humans evolved from fish. Still later, human embryos look like chimpanzees, because humans evolved from some apelike ancestor. So, human embryos are not yet human. Can you see the errors in this logic? Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship.

Haeckel faked his drawings to fit his theory. In the following 130 years, hundreds of textbook writers copied these drawings, popularizing the theory. It has since been taught as fact worldwide, even in medical schools. Today the theory is completely discredited, although it is still taught.

Unborn children are human. Each adult’s body has about 100 trillion cells. When you were just one cell inside your mother, all the marvelous, complex information that physically defines you and every organ in your body was there. Although you were tiny and immature, you were completely human when you were one cell. While you were in your mother’s womb, she was your support system, just as medical support systems are needed by some sick or elderly people. Needing a support system does not remove a person from the human race or justify killing that person.

Although these matters have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or false, they have much to do with the importance of the issue and the adverse consequences of teaching that evolution is a fact. These social problems did not originate with evolution, but they follow logically from evolution. No doubt most evolutionists are as opposed as creationists to many of these social problems, but from an evolutionist perspective these behaviors are easily justified, rationalized, or tolerated. Evolution, while not the cause of evil, can usually defend or justify such behavior—with seeming scientific credibility.

Obviously, the creator of a complex machine can best provide its operating instructions. Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes. By what logic could anyone oppose these thirteen viewpoints if there were no moral absolutes? Without moral absolutes, “right” and “wrong” will be decided by whoever is in control, but that will change from time to time. A false understanding of origins has subtle and far-reaching consequences.

[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ412

[optimus]

Ban pahu.

[Malcolm Wright]

Hey! Good to 'see' you too...
Kathaksung! That was the guy! Good memory you got there. All this definitely reminds me of his style.

[Malcolm Wright]

Pahu

I think I understand what is going on.
You're upset because our world views are being shaped by a solely materialist view point, which you have come to define and personify as evolutionist. Your definition of evolution theory is very broad, overly so I would say, but regardless it seems that this is the crux of your problems with it.

If I am understanding you right, then I'm sympathetic to where you are coming from. I just think that rather than attacking evolution, it would be wiser to seek balance.

The way I see it, its not the theory of evolution that is wrong or harmful, it is the lack of a spiritual tradition in many people's lives that leaves them with a solely material understanding of our origins. Yes, we are the descendants of uni-cellular lifeforms. Yes, we were once cavemen, and apes before that. But that is only a history of the evolution of the physical vehicle humans have embodied - not a history of our souls.

Rather than feeling challenged by it, I think it would help you to recognize that it just needs to be balanced with a recognition that that purely materialist concept of what humans are is not the whole story.

Please don't take this as a slight, but I get the feeling you have resorted to ranting against evolution not because it is wrong, but because your faith does not supply a compelling way of understanding an evolution of our souls to balance our understanding of the evolution of our physical vehicles.

If you can consider this with a level head without knee-jerking into a long list of what you see as satisfying Christian explanations of who we are - ask yourself why other faiths like Hinduism and Buddhism don't seem to have the huge problems so many Christians do with evolution? It is because they have no reason to feel insecure: they see clearly that while evolution at least partially explains the mechanism of how lifeforms change over time, their faiths provide a framework for how souls evolve.

Christianity does not provide such a framework. There are indications that it may have in the past, as reincarnation seems to have been part of Jesus' understanding, before the Roman church declared reincarnation to be a heresy in the 6th century AD.

I may be wrong, but if I am, what other explanation is there for your need to attack evolution, rather than simply provide a compelling spiritual road map that complements evolution rather than existing in conflict with it?

M

[Pahu]

Faint Young Sun


If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.5 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25–30% less heat during its first 600 million years than it radiates today (a). (A drop in the Sun’s radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.) Had this happened anytime in the past, let alone for 600 million years, the ice’s mirror like surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun’s radiation into outer space, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If it had, all agree that life could not have evolved.

Evolutionists first tried to solve this “faint young Sun” problem by assuming Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it (b). Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age” (c).

A second approach assumes that Earth’s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases, and at high concentrations methane produces a haze that would have cooled Earth’s surface rather than warming it (d). Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic (e).

A third approach assumes that Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable (f).

Evolutionists have never explained in any of these approaches how such drastic changes could occur in almost perfect step with the slow increase in the Sun’s radiation. Until some evidence supports such “special pleadings,” it does not appear that the Sun evolved (g).

If the Sun, a typical and well-studied star, did not evolve, then why presume other stars did?

a. Gregory S. Jenkins et al., “Precambrian Climate: The Effects of Land Area and Earth’s Rotation Rate,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, 20 May 1993, pp. 8785–8791.

This paper acknowledges that if the Earth rotated almost twice as fast as it does today, this problem would be lessened—but not solved. Still required are a flooded Earth and an atmosphere with 30–300 times more carbon dioxide than today.

b. Let’s assume an old Earth and at least a fifth of the atmospheric carbon dioxide needed to prevent a runaway ice age had been present throughout the Earth’s first 2,750,000,000 years. That carbon dioxide would have combined with weathered rocks to produce large amounts of the mineral siderite (FeCO3). Siderite is missing from ancient soils, showing that the concentrations of carbon dioxide needed to prevent a frozen Earth were never present. [See Rob Rye et al., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations before 2.2 Billion Years Ago,” Nature, Vol. 378, 7 December 1995, pp. 603–605.]

“There is no direct evidence to show that carbon dioxide levels were ever a thousand times higher.” Gregory Jenkins, as quoted by Tim Folger, “The Fast Young Earth,” Discover, November 1993, p. 32.

c. William R. Kuhn, “Avoiding a Permanent Ice Age,” Nature, Vol. 359, 17 September 1992, p. 196.

d. “The methane greenhouse effect is limited, however, because organic haze starts to form [chemically] at CH4/CO2 ratios higher than ~0.1, and this creates an anti-greenhouse effect that cools the surface if the haze becomes too thick.” James F. Kasting, “Faint Young Sun Redux,” Nature, Vol. 464, 1 April 2010, p. 688.

e. In 1972, Carl Sagan and George H. Mullen first proposed that the early Earth had lots of heat-trapping methane and ammonia. They had no evidence for early methane and ammonia; they simply were looking for something that might have warmed the Earth, so there would have been no runaway deep freeze and life could have evolved. At the time of Sagan’s death (1996), he was still looking.

f. “Despite all of these proposed warming mechanisms, there are still reasons to think that the faint young Sun problem is not yet solved. Ice albedo feedback has been neglected in all of these one-dimensional climate calculations.” Kasting, p. 688.

g. For a frank admission of these and other “special pleadings,” see Carl Sagan and Christopher Chyba, “The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases,” Science, Vol. 276, 23 May 1997, pp. 1217–1221.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Yes, we are the descendants of uni-cellular lifeforms. Yes, we were once cavemen, and apes before that. But that is only a history of the evolution of the physical vehicle humans have embodied - not a history of our souls.

I appreciate your understanding of the situation. The problem is that there is no evidence to support the notion that we are the descendants of unicellular life forms, and were once cavemen, and apes before that. That is evidence free speculation. If you know of any evidence supporting your assertions, please share them with us.

[jwreck]

I appreciate your understanding of the situation. The problem is that there is no evidence to support the notion that we are the descendants of unicellular life forms, and were once cavemen, and apes before that. That is evidence free speculation. If you know of any evidence supporting your assertions, please share them with us.

[Malcolm Wright]

I appreciate your understanding of the situation. The problem is that there is no evidence to support the notion that we are the descendants of unicellular life forms, and were once cavemen, and apes before that. That is evidence free speculation. If you know of any evidence supporting your assertions, please share them with us.

I think you are missing the point. I'm not obsessed with evolution - although you quite obviously are a tad. I was trying to discuss with you the possible reasons for your obsession, not trying to argue evolution itself with you. That's obviously a fool's game as it is your biggest blond spot by definition, and I doubt we'll be able to have a rational conversation about it.

I will say this though - there is a reason evolution emerged as the most successful theory to describe the current biological state of the world. Its that no other coherent theory has proposed anything better. It doesn't mean that the theory of evolution as postulated by Darwin is perfect - many people have brought valid additional commentary and criticism to the table. But nobody has scientifically invalidated it as a whole.

Your deeper reasons for attacking it are very obviously seated beyond the realm of science - I wouldn't try to masquerade around that. When dealing with creating a paradigm for understanding the fossil record (which by the way is more evidence than you, Pahu, could ever hope to refute), the idea is not absolute proof: no such thing exists with such an enterprise. The idea is to unveil compelling ways of understanding how species came to be the way they are today. If you have a more compelling scientific way of understanding it - share it with your DA buddies.

Meanwhile, I'm far more interested in hearing why you find evolution so threatening, whereas the other major religions don't. I laid out my thoughts on why Christians seem to be the only ones so peeved by it - when you dare to, give it some thought and maybe share your impressions.

M