Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

I think one of the hardest things to do, especially people from western based societies is to admit to not knowing something. The fact of the matter is there is not a person living on this planet who knows the answer to this. We have a million "facts" based off partial pieces of information and/or speculation which in and of its self makes it no longer facts. Since when are facts subjective? By definition that is not possible. Does anyone know what a fact is anymore? Fact: A thing that is known or proved to be true. Truth: Conformity with fact or reality; a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

The problem is when people will accept one fact but not the next. A fact is a fact whether you like it or not. They are not subjective, a fact doesn't differ based off ones view point, religion, race, sex, country or for any other factors. That being said ignoring a fact to believe in something unproven is unintelligent. Plain and simple. Would I like there to be a GOD or a higher power? Yes, most likely I would but since Ive never met one I don't know for sure. Do I think there is? I don't know.

So far, so good. We are all ignorant.

For all any of us know, an alien sneezed and we are the genetic mutation of its boogers. It seems absurd but no more so than a deity coming down and blowing life into dirt to make humans.
Unless there are Facts to disprove something I don't believe any theory/idea should be
tossed off as untrue. The truth may turn out to be something we literally wouldn't be able to fathom. On the same token if there are two ideas, a good example evolution and creation. Evolution has facts. Period. Creation no facts. Period. That's not an argument nor meant to be open for discussion, it is fact.

Where are those facts supporting evolution?

Now are there enough facts to completely discredit creation? No there isn't especially if we are talking general creation and not just Christian creation. So to me the logical step is to give credit to the facts and not speculation. Therefore evolution seems the most likely situation but again I just don't know.

Actually, there is scientific evidence supporting creation:

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]

[Malcolm Wright]

Woohoo!
A quote from something other than 'In the Beginning'! I'm celebrating with a popsicle.

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

So far we agree.

2. The universe had a beginning.

We don't actually know this. Please present evidence of this.
I thought the currently accepted hypothesis is that the universe expanded from a singularity, beyond which we cannot see in time. To assume nothing existed before the singularity is a hefty assumption.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

See above.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

See above.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

See above.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

See above.
This one should have tipped you off that you were probably making a stupid assumption on point 2.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

Presto chango!

8. Life exists.

Ok.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

This law may or may not be universal.

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

We don't know that.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Presto Chango!

[Serinty]

This attitude is what I find dull. Why start a post about something if you are unable to accept others opinions? Or for that matter why is it so hard to simply say there is a maybe or a possibility of something not coinciding with your beliefs? Are you really that strong in your convictions that it blinds you to anything else, to be open to the possibility of something other than your own opinion? It feels as though I am talking with, I would say with a child but my children have enough sense to understand they may be wrong. I wont list anything more on evolutionary facts because I saw enough posted, and if you are unable to accept even the possibility that you may be wrong then this entire conversation is mute and can go only go in circles. I for one am a fan of being enlightened and learning new things (facts to be specific) in conversation whether it coincides with my own beliefs or not whats important to me is not continuing in a dull predictable manner.

[Ratbag]

2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

I would love to see ANY evidence from ANYONE on ANY of these three points.....

yeah yeah... I Lurk, and yes I see M has beat me to the punch too... lol flies past and snatches Malcoms popsicle and curls up in the basket in the corner...

NOW we have a discussion.....

[hadit]

We don't actually know this. Please present evidence of this.
I thought the currently accepted hypothesis is that the universe expanded from a singularity, beyond which we cannot see in time. To assume nothing existed before the singularity is a hefty assumption.

Physics is going to have to advance a good deal before we can confidently explain why black holes, which are supposed to be singularities, never allow anything to escape, but the singularity that contained the universe did.

[jwreck]

The fact is we are like babies in the crib learning to use our eyes. Even once our eyes are fully developed we still only understand the tiny bit of the world we can see. Declaring any universal truth at this point is akin to a two year old explaining how the world works based on what he's seen in his house.

[Malcolm Wright]

I would love to see ANY evidence from ANYONE on ANY of these three points.....

yeah yeah... I Lurk, and yes I see M has beat me to the punch too... lol flies past and snatches Malcoms popsicle and curls up in the basket in the corner...

NOW we have a discussion.....

Now now - there's enough popsicles to go around...
Although maybe mine tastes better

[the incredible b]

i like wordjokes

http://www.popcycle.nl/

[trgfbv]

Whatever the answer is, it sure isn't some made up shit by Creationists.
Or
As George Carlin said, "Intelligent Design is just Creationism dressed in a cheap suit."

[Malcolm Wright]

Whatever the answer is, it sure isn't some made up shit by Creationists.
Or
As George Carlin said, "Intelligent Design is just Creationism dressed in a cheap suit."

I agree.

But Intelligent Design only presents so poorly because it is argued by creationists, by and large. Free from their Christian paradigm, they would find much more compelling arguments for intelligence being present in the universe's 'design'. It is their desire to make the evidence point to an omniscient creator who doesn't like fornication that is their downfall in my view

M.

[Pahu]

Human Artifacts

At various times and places, man-made objects have been found encased in coal. Examples include a thimble (a), an iron pot (b), an iron instrument (c) an 8-karat gold chain (d), three throwing-spears (e), and a metallic vessel inlaid with silver (f). Other “out-of-place artifacts” have been found inside deeply buried rocks: nails (g), a screw (h), a strange coin (i) a tiny ceramic doll (j), and other objects of obvious human manufacture (k). By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man. Again, something is wrong.

a. J. Q. Adams, “Eve’s Thimble,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, October 1883, pp. 331–332.

b. Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Human Footprints in Rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, March 1971, pp. 201–202.

c. John Buchanan, “Discovery of an Iron Instrument Lately Found Imbedded in a Natural Seam of Coal in the Neighbourhood of Glasgow,” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part 2, Section IV, 1853.

d. “A Necklace of a Prehistoric God,” Morrisonville Times (Morrisonville, Illinois), 11 June 1891, p. 1.

e. Robin Dennell, “The World’s Oldest Spears,” Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 767–768.

Hartmut Thieme, “Lower Palaeolithic Hunting Spears from Germany,” Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 807–810.

f. “A Relic of a By-Gone Age,” Scientific American, Vol. 7, 5 June 1852, p. 298.

g. David Brewster, “Queries and Statements Concerning a Nail Found Imbedded in a Block of Sandstone Obtained from Kingoodie (Mylnfield) Quarry, North Britain,” reported to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1844.

Rene Noorbergen, Secrets of the Lost Races (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1977), p. 42.

h. Ibid.

i. J. R. Jochmans, “Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth,” Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1979, p. 1.

j. Robert E. Gentet and Edward C. Lain, “The Nampa Image—An Ancient Artifact?” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, March 1999, pp. 203–210.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 297–300.

G. Frederick Wright, “The Idaho Find,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 2, 1889, pp. 379–381.

G. Frederick Wright, “An Archaeological Discovery in Idaho,” Scribner’s Magazine, Vol. 7, 1890, pp. 235–238.

k. Frank Calvert, “On the Probable Existence of Man during the Miocene Period,” Anthropological Institute Journal, Vol. 3, 1873, pp. 127–129.

J. B. Browne, “Singular Impression in Marble,” The American Journal of Science and Arts, January 1831, p. 361.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Ratbag]

coal being an easily abraded and quickly recompacted substance found in many areas of shallow depth and these areas being very commonly habited for the mining of coal right back to when the ochres were used as face paints I find that completely unsurprising..... point is?

By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man. Again, something is wrong.

What is wrong is this is an only partially explained misquote of these discoveries and an attempt to misguide people.... Trgfvb... while my mind might be agreeing with you, my sensibilities are saying.... that's just not very gentlemanly

[trgfbv]

coal being an easily abraded and quickly recompacted substance found in many areas of shallow depth and these areas being very commonly habited for the mining of coal right back to when the ochres were used as face paints I find that completely unsurprising..... point is?

What is wrong is this is an only partially explained misquote of these discoveries and an attempt to misguide people.... Trgfvb... while my mind might be agreeing with you, my sensibilities are saying.... that's just not very gentlemanly

"Gentlemanly" is a requirement on a thread held hostage by a nut ball?

[Ratbag]

Wouldn't know about that... I'm pretty new about

[Pahu]

Parallel Layers

Because no worldwide or even continental unconformity exists in Earth’s sedimentary layers, those layers must have been deposited rapidly. (An unconformity represents a time break of unknown duration—for example, an erosional surface between two adjacent strata.) Parallel layers (called conformities) imply continuous, relatively rapid deposition. Because unconformities
are simply local phenomena (a), one can trace continuous paths, which sometimes move horizontally, from the bottom to the top of the stratigraphic record that avoid these time breaks. The sedimentary layers along those paths must have been deposited rapidly and continuously as a unit (b).

Frequently, two adjacent and parallel sedimentary layers contain such different index fossils that evolutionists conclude they were deposited hundreds of millions of years apart. However, because the adjacent layers are conformable, they must have been deposited without interruption or erosion. [For an explanation of how conformable layers can have such different fossils, see pages 186-197].

Often, in sequences showing no sign of disturbance, the layer considered older by evolutionists is on top! [See “Out-of-Sequence Fossils”].

Evolutionary dating rules are self-contradictory (c).

a. Geologists have known this for many years. [See Archibald Geikie, Text-Book of Geology (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1882), p. 602.]

b. Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, General Edition (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), p. 113.

c. “Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on.” William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219.

George McCready Price, The New Geology, 2nd edition (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1923), pp. 486, 500, 504, 506, 543, 620–627.

George McCready Price, Evolutionary Geology and the New Catastrophism (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1926), pp. 90–104.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

[Ratbag]

Becomes bored with this discussion at once again not receiving any reply from Pahu *yawwwwwwn*

[trgfbv]

Becomes bored with this discussion at once again not receiving any reply from Pahu *yawwwwwwn*

You should consider not seeing a reply a blessing. Incoherence is a time waster.

[Pahu]

A Young Universe?

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence:

Helium

One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium then enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young (a).

a. “What Happened to the Earth’s Helium?” New Scientist, Vol. 24, 3 December 1964, pp. 631–632.

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10–14.

Melvin A. Cook, “Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium?” Nature, Vol. 179, 26 January 1957, p. 213.

Joseph W. Chamberlain, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres (New York: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 371–372.

From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

[Malcolm Wright]

Well, concerning Pahu's latest cut and paste, a poster named Abner1 on another BB that Pahu spams with exactly the same posts he spams us with here, had this to say:

And here's a little science to counter Pahu's deceptive article on helium in Earth's atmosphere:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ts/helium.html

Not that he ever gets bogged down in science, but it's occasionally nice to point out the inaccuracies.

So not only does Pahu spam multiple BB's with the same ridiculous cut and pastes - he continues to use debunked materials, hoping that getting busted on one BB means he can still pull the wool over people's eyes elsewhere.

Pahu - you are a profoundly disturbed and disingenuous individual.

[Pahu]

Lead and Helium Diffusion

Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found (a).

Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals (b). Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old (c). Furthermore, the radioactive decay that produced all that helium must have happened quite rapidly, because the helium is trapped in young zircons.

a. “Taken together, these results strongly suggest that there has been little or no differential Pb loss which can be attributed to the higher temperatures existing at greater depths.” Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Science, 16 April 1982, p. 296.

Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, October 1982, pp. 13–14.

b. Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, April 1983, p. 13.

c. “In fact, considering the Precambrian age of the granite cores, our results show an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained at higher temperatures, and the reason for this certainly needs further investigation ...” Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 9, No. 10, October 1982, p. 1130.

Robert V. Gentry, personal communication, 24 February 1984.

D. Russell Humphreys et al., “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 2003), pp. 175–195.

From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown