Science Disproves Evolution

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Pahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:07 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post #1

Post by Pahu »

[center]Image[/center]
Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two at any stage would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.a

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical,b and electricalc compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes that scientists can describe only in a general sense.d

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally� evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents� must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.e

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction.f But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. For example, Why do human females live past menopause? If there is no potential for reproduction, then according to evolution, there is no evolutionary reason to exist.

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.g

a . In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body� from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,� mammals—including each of us—would not exist.

The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged. [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

b . N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm,� Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.

c . Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,� Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.

u “When egg meets sperm in mammals, zinc sparks fly. ... [They] are needed to stimulate the transition from egg to embryo.� Ashley Yeager, “Images Reveal Secrets of Zinc Sparks,� Science News, Vol. 187, 10 January 2015, p. 14.

d . For example, how could meiosis evolve?

e . “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.� Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop,� Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

f . “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.� George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

u “So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams, 1975; John Maynard Smith, 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.� Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

u “The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.� Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,� New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.

u “Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.� Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?� Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

u “Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.� Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex,� Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

u “From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?� Nilsson, p. 1225.

u “One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.� [According to evolution, it should not.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex?� Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.

g . “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.� Pitman, p. 135.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp5214829

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2360
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2024 times
Been thanked: 798 times

Post #31

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to post 29 by Pahu]
I believe the story of the Garden of Eden is a parable or allegory.
Great, then you've changed your mind and agree with me. The stories are not fact and can't be due to the problems we have both outlined.

I assume you also concede the other points I made about us witnessing stars and planets forming.

Genesis is not scientifically accurate as you previously stated here:
Pahu wrote:


The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
I'm glad we've managed to agree on something. It's refreshing.

User avatar
Pahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:07 am

Post #32

Post by Pahu »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 28 by Pahu]
Egypt was to suffer the calamities of invasion and the deportation of captives. Although no precise historical records of these events have been discovered yet, they must have been the result of the invasion of Egypt by the Babylonians,
Babylon never conquered Egypt.
Battle of Carchemish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Battle of Carchemish was fought about 605 BC[1][2][3] between the allied armies of Egypt and Assyria against the armies of Babylonia, the Medes, Persians and Scythians.

Background

When the Assyrian capital Nineveh was overrun by the Medes, Scythians, Babylonians and their allies in 612 BC[citation needed], the Assyrians moved their capital to Harran. When Harran was captured by the alliance in 609 BC[citation needed], the capital was once again moved, this time to Carchemish, on the Euphrates river. Egypt (a former vassal of Assyria) was allied with the Assyrian king Ashur-uballit II, and marched in 609 BC[citation needed] to his aid against the Babylonians.

The Egyptian army of Pharaoh Necho II was delayed at Megiddo by the forces of King Josiah of Judah. Josiah was killed and his army was defeated. The dead body of Josiah was delivered to Jerusalem immediately and buried according to the customs of Judah's kings, near the grave of King David.

The Egyptians and Assyrians together crossed the Euphrates and laid siege to Harran, which they failed to retake. They then retreated to north western Assyria (in what is today north eastern Syria).

Battle

The Egyptians met the full might of the Babylonian and Median army led by Nebuchadnezzar II at Carchemish where the combined Egyptian and Assyrian forces were destroyed. Assyria ceased to exist as an independent power, and Egypt retreated and was no longer a significant force in the Ancient Near East. Babylonia reached its economic peak after 605 BC.[4]

Records of the battle

The Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle, now housed in the British Museum, claims that Nebuchadnezzar "crossed the river to go against the Egyptian army which lay in Karchemiš. They fought with each other and the Egyptian army withdrew before him. He accomplished their defeat and beat them to non-existence. As for the rest of the Egyptian army which had escaped from the defeat so quickly that no weapon had reached them, in the district of Hamath the Babylonian troops overtook and defeated them so that not a single man escaped to his own country. At that time Nebuchadnezzar conquered the whole area of Hamath."[5]

The battle is also mentioned and described in the Bible, in the Book of Jeremiah and 2 Chronicles.[6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carchemish
This 40-year period of desolation in Egypt is hard to pinpoint. Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt around 572 B.C. and carried many people off to Babylon, while others fled for safety to surrounding nations.
Attacked, not conquered.
History (see above) says Egypt was conquered by Babylon.
Also again, this is not desolation. The 'prophecy' is clear that Egypt was supposed to be uninhabited; this has NEVER happened.
In Ezekiel 29:15, the prophet says that Egypt would recover from a desolation (perhaps Babylon's attack about 2600 years ago), but that it would never again rule over other nations. Up until the time of Ezekiel, Egypt had been a world power for centuries, dominating many nations, including Israel. But for most of the past 2500 years, Egypt has been controlled by foreign powers, including the Romans, Ottomans and Europeans. Today, Egypt is an independent nation again. In 1948, 1967 and 1973, Egypt tried to dominate Israel but was unsuccessful each time, despite the fact that Egypt is 10 times larger than Israel. Egypt today, in many respects, is an impressive nation. But since the time of Ezekiel, it no longer rules over other nations.

Egypt had also been a mighty power in the Middle East. The period of its greatness was about 1600 B.C., when the armies of the conquering Pharaohs pressed southwards into the Sudan, westwards along the North African coast, and northwards through the land of Canaan (later Israel) and into Syria. The discovery of some of the ancient temples, monuments and tombs of Egypt has revealed the glory of the Pharaohs at the height of their power.

But from about 1400 B.C. Egyptian power began to decline, due to civil war and to the rise of Assyria, and later Babylon. Nevertheless, during the period of Israel's occupation of the land of Canaan, 1400-600 B.C., the Egyptians interfered periodically in the politics of the Middle East, with varying success. The Israelites, fearing invasion from the Assyrians or Babylonians, were often tempted to seek support from Egypt instead of relying in faith upon their God.

Now the prophets of Israel had something very definite to say about the destiny of the Egyptians. The prophet Ezekiel, whose pronouncements were made in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, from about 600 B.C. declared that as a result of the judgment of God, Egypt was to be desolate for 40 years. Then there was to be a revival, but not to the former glory and power:

“For forty years not a soul will pass that way, neither people nor animals. It will be completely uninhabited. I will make Egypt desolate, and it will be surrounded by other desolate nations. Its cities will be empty and desolate for forty years, surrounded by other desolate cities. I will scatter the Egyptians to distant lands.

“But the Sovereign Lord also says: At the end of the forty years I will bring the Egyptians home again from the nations to which they have been scattered. I will restore the prosperity of Egypt and bring its people back to the land of Pathros in southern Egypt from which they came. But Egypt will remain an unimportant, minor kingdom. It will be the lowliest of all the nations, never again great enough to rise above its neighbors.

“Then Israel will no longer be tempted to trust in Egypt for help. Egypt’s shattered condition will remind Israel of how sinful she was to trust Egypt in earlier days. Then Israel will know that I alone am the Sovereign Lord…This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will smash the idols of Egypt and the images at Memphis. There will be no rulers left in Egypt; anarchy will prevail throughout the land!� (Ezekiel 29:11-16; 30:13).

Again the sense of the prophecy is clear: Egypt was to suffer the calamities of invasion and the deportation of captives. Although no precise historical records of these events have been discovered yet, they must have been the result of the invasion of Egypt by the Babylonians, as Ezekiel himself prophesied (see Ezekiel 30:17-20). But that was not to be the end of Egypt. For after 40 years the captives were to return to their own land. Egypt as a kingdom was not to be destroyed: it was to survive but with greatly reduced power—"a lowly kingdom," never presuming to exert power over the surrounding nations any more.

And so it came to pass. From about 600 B.C. Egypt fell under the domination of a succession of conquering invaders: first the Babylonians in the 6th century B.C.; then the Persians, from the 6th to the 4th centuries; then the Greeks in the 4th century; then the Romans from the lst century B.C. to the 5th century A.D. They were followed by the Arabs and the Turks from the 7th century A.D. onwards. Even the British ruled in Egypt for a period in the 19th century. For 2500 years Egypt has remained, as Ezekiel prophesied it would, "a lowly kingdom", always dominated by others. But Egypt and the Egyptians did not disappear. They still exist, and they have even recovered a measure of independence in recent times, thanks to massive financial support from the U.S.A. and Saudi Arabia.

This 40-year period of desolation in Egypt is hard to pinpoint. Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt around 572 B.C. and carried many people off to Babylon, while others fled for safety to surrounding nations. Approximately 33 years later, Cyrus, king of the Persian Empire, conquered Babylon and allowed the nations that Babylon had conquered to return to their homelands. Adding a possible seven-year regrouping and travel period, this could then make up that 40-year time period. Since that time, Egypt has never returned to its previous dominance as a world power.
Long story short, when it comes to a clearly false prophecy in the Bible, you have to say that it does not mean what is written on the page. If it means something else entirely, then the text is useless and pointless. You're now talking about something completely different.
You are assuming that since there is no evidence for the 40 years of desolation, it did not happen. There was no evidence for the Hittite nation for centuries, and the ungodly used that as evidence the Bible is wrong, until archeologists dug up the remains.

Almost fifty times in the Old Testament, we can read about a people known as the Hittites. They were major players in Jewish history, and were listed as one of the nations that the children of Israel needed to conquer when entering the Promised Land (Joshua 11:3-4). Also, King David had among his army a valiant Hittite named Uriah, who was murdered by David because the king had committed adultery with his wife, Bathsheba. Without a doubt, the Old Testament frequently mentions the Hittites as a very real group of people. But for many years in secular history and in archaeology, the Hittites were as invisible as men from Mars. No solid archaeological evidence could be found that verified the existence of the Hittites. For this reason, many people scorned the biblical record and insisted that the absence of information concerning the Hittites proved that the Bible was filled with incorrect material.

However, the year 1906 saw many people changing their minds about both the Hittites and the Bible. An archaeologist, Hugo Winckler, visited a city in Turkey named Boghaz-Köy. Upon excavating portions of the city, he found a breathtaking number of human artifacts—including five temples, many sculptures, and a fortified castle. But more important, he found a huge storeroom filled with over 10,000 clay tablets. After completing the difficult task of deciphering the tablets, it was announced to the world that the Hittites had been found. The sight at Boghaz-Köy had been the Hittite capital city, Hattusha (see Price, 1997, p. 83).

All the people who had used the absence of archaeological evidence about the Hittites to mock the Bible’s accuracy were shamefaced and silent, and another small piece of evidence was added to the ever-growing mass of facts verifying the Bible’s accuracy.

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.a ... rticle=888

User avatar
Pahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:07 am

Post #33

Post by Pahu »

benchwarmer wrote: [Replying to post 29 by Pahu]
I believe the story of the Garden of Eden is a parable or allegory.
Great, then you've changed your mind and agree with me. The stories are not fact and can't be due to the problems we have both outlined.
Only about the Garden of Eden story.
I assume you also concede the other points I made about us witnessing stars and planets forming.
We have never witnessed the formation of stars and planets.
Genesis is not scientifically accurate as you previously stated here:
Pahu wrote:


The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
I'm glad we've managed to agree on something. It's refreshing.
You are ignoring what I said.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2360
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2024 times
Been thanked: 798 times

Post #34

Post by benchwarmer »

Pahu wrote:
benchwarmer wrote: [Replying to post 29 by Pahu]
I believe the story of the Garden of Eden is a parable or allegory.
Great, then you've changed your mind and agree with me. The stories are not fact and can't be due to the problems we have both outlined.
Only about the Garden of Eden story.
Which is in the Bible. So... Anyway let's drop that one.
Pahu wrote:
I assume you also concede the other points I made about us witnessing stars and planets forming.
We have never witnessed the formation of stars and planets.
I guess you didn't check out the links I gave you that prove we have indeed. If you don't want to believe the scientific evidence, that is your prerogative.
Pahu wrote:
Genesis is not scientifically accurate as you previously stated here:
Pahu wrote:


The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
I'm glad we've managed to agree on something. It's refreshing.
You are ignoring what I said.
The irony is interesting, given you ignored what I said. I say we shake hands, call it a truce and go our separate ways. Others who read this thread can look at what we have both presented and make their own conclusions.

All the best Pahu.

User avatar
Pahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:07 am

Post #35

Post by Pahu »

[center]Connected Galaxies[/center]


Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts. This happens too often for all examples to be coincidences (a). If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), these galaxies and quasars haven’t been moving apart for very long. If redshifts do not always imply velocities, many astronomical conclusions are in error.

a. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.

Fred Hoyle and Jayant V. Narlikar, “On the Nature of Mass,� Nature, Vol. 233, 3 September 1971, pp. 41–44.

William Kaufmann III, “The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth,� Science Digest, July 1981, pp. 76–81, 117.

Geoffrey Burbidge, “Redshift Rift,� Science 81, December 1981, p. 18.

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.

[From “In the Beginning� by Walt Brown]

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #36

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Pahu wrote: Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts.
Notice that the references cited are forty to fifty years old (ancient in rapidly advancing fields of study) – AND that the ideas presented have not gained acceptance by legitimate scientists.
Pahu wrote: Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.
Kindly cite credible, verifiable studies that yield the 10,000 year or less age of Earth and solar system – preferably from peer-reviewed scientific journals – not self-published books or articles from creationist (non-scientific) websites.
Walter T. Brown is a mechanical engineer – NOT an astronomer, astrophysicist, geologist, hydrologist. He developed the infamous “Hydroplate Theory� which is WAY out of his area of expertise and is NOT accepted by anyone outside his self-created “Center for Scientific Creation�. More recently he expanded into discussion of galaxies and time (again WAY out of his field). He dates Noah's flood at 3290 BCE (based on “astronomical data�).

I have debated the “Hydorplate Theory� and find it totally without support from geology and hydrology – subjects I have studied, researched and taught.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Pahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:07 am

Post #37

Post by Pahu »

Zzyzx wrote:
Pahu wrote: Galaxies frequently appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars that have vastly different redshifts.
Notice that the references cited are forty to fifty years old (ancient in rapidly advancing fields of study)...
Is truth changed by age? The facts are confirmed by scientists quoted in the endnotes.
AND that the ideas presented have not gained acceptance by legitimate scientists.
Where is evidence supporting your assertion?
Pahu wrote: Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.
Kindly cite credible, verifiable studies that yield the 10,000 year or less age of Earth and solar system – preferably from peer-reviewed scientific journals – not self-published books or articles from creationist (non-scientific) websites.
Review my posts.
Walter T. Brown is a mechanical engineer – NOT an astronomer, astrophysicist, geologist, hydrologist. He developed the infamous “Hydroplate Theory� which is WAY out of his area of expertise and is NOT accepted by anyone outside his self-created “Center for Scientific Creation�. More recently he expanded into discussion of galaxies and time (again WAY out of his field). He dates Noah's flood at 3290 BCE (based on “astronomical data�).
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

Getting a Masters Degree

Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia8.html

Getting into the Creation Movement

Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia22.html

Seminars and Debates

After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia24.html

Crossroads

He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.

So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia25.html

Learning Geology

Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.

Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia26.html

Geology

Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.

There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider� intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia27.html

Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.

His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia.html
I have debated the “Hydorplate Theory� and find it totally without support from geology and hydrology – subjects I have studied, researched and taught.
[center]The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview[/center]

New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under earth’s crust. Standard “textbook� explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined.

The Grand Canyon (pages 211–244)
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Earth’s Major Components
Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 155–192)
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Major Mountain Ranges
Frozen Mammoths (pages 261–291)
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 195–209)
Limestone (pages 253–258)
Metamorphic Rock
Plateaus
The Moho and Black Smokers
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets (pages 295–329)
Asteroids, Meteoroids and TNOs (pages 331–368)
Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 371–423)

Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of trillions of hydrogen bombs.1 The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.

But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, an ocean of water was under earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water (which will soon be explained) ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain earth’s major features.

Plate tectonics, currently the most widely taught theory in the earth sciences, has many little-known problems. According to this theory, earth’s crust is composed of many plates,2 each 30–60 miles thick. They move relative to each other, about an inch per year—at the rate a fingernail grows. Continents and oceans ride on top of these plates. Some continents, such as North America, are on more than one plate. For example, different parts of North America, separated by the San Andreas Fault running up through western California, are sliding past each other. (A fault is a large fracture in the earth along which slippage has occurred.) Supposedly, material deep inside the earth is rising toward the crest of the entire Mid-Oceanic Ridge. From there, the material divides and moves horizontally in opposite directions away from the ridge. This claimed motion, called seafloor spreading, is similar to that of two conveyor belts rising together from under a floor and then moving along the floor in opposite directions. If plate tectonics happens on earth, why is it not seen on other planets?3

Crisis in Earth Science. The most perplexing question in the earth sciences today is barely mentioned in classrooms and textbooks: What force moves plates over the globe?

The single most difficult question that faces the theory of plate tectonics today is the same question that led to the downfall of Wegener’s theory of continental drift almost three-quarters of a century ago. That is, what is the mechanism that drives the plate tectonic machine?�5

The hydroplate theory gives a surprisingly simple answer that will be clear by the end of the next chapter. It involves gravity, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, earth’s core, and water—lots of it. Be patient, and read the next 65 pages carefully.

Image
Figure 43: World Ocean Floor. Notice the characteristic margins of each continent. Seaward from each ocean beach is a shallow, gradually sloping continental shelf, then a relatively steep drop, called the continental slope. This strange pattern is worldwide. Why? For a better look at the typical shape of this margin, see Figure 46 on page 115. Also notice the different characteristics of (1) continents and ocean basins, and (2) the Atlantic and Pacific Basins. Ninety East Ridge is so named because it lies almost exactly along 90°E longitude. Its straight, 3,000-mile length, and curious north-south orientation aimed at the Himalayas are important clues to past events on earth. (Note: As one moves toward polar regions on this type of map projection, east-west distances are stretched and do not reflect true distances.)

Why does the Mid-Oceanic Ridge intersects itself in the Indian Ocean (shown by the black circle). Ask yourself how seafloor spreading could work there—moving away from that intersection point in four perpendicular directions. Answer: It can’t.As will be explained with many more examples in this and the next chapter, seafloor spreading is a myth. That alone falsifies plate tectonics. The hydroplate theory provides a simple explanation for that intersection point and the Mid-Oceanic Ridge.[see "Does Recently Declassified Data Falsify Plate Tectonics?" on page 502.]


Image
Figure 44: “Unlevel� Sea Level. An amazing technological development reveals details on ocean floors. In 1983, the U.S. Navy’s SEASAT satellite measured with a radar altimeter the satellite’s distance above the ocean surface with an accuracy of several inches! “Sea level� is far from level. Instead, the ocean surface “humps up� over mountains on the ocean floor and is depressed over trenches. The gravitational attraction of the Hawaiian Islands, for example, pulls the surrounding water toward it. This raises sea level there about 80 feet higher than it would be otherwise. The satellite’s data have been color coded to make this spectacular “picture� of the ocean surface. Darker areas show depressions in sea level. Notice that the ocean surface is depressed over long scars, called fracture zones, running generally perpendicular to the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Which theory explains this—the plate tectonic theory or the hydroplate theory? Also consider the nearly intersecting fracture zones in the South Pacific. Which theory explains them?

This technique for showing features on the ocean floor has steadily improved since 1983. Today, ridges and fracture zones can be seen in places that are inconsistent with the plate tectonic interpretation. For example a crooked fracture zone can be traced from South America to Africa, and oceanic ridges are found in the Gulf of Mexico. As you will see, both are consistent with the hydroplate theory.4
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
help3434
Guru
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: United States
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post #38

Post by help3434 »

Pahu wrote:

There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:

The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.

This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.

Conclusion

There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.

http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/
When you throw Occam's Razor out the window you can come up with all sorts of wacky and convoluted explanations. Fundie apologetics seems dependent on avoiding Occam's Razor in order to square dogma with empirical reality.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #39

Post by rikuoamero »

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.
The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
Pahu, that's from ICR, the Institute for Creation Research, the people you quoted from. While not quite as damning as say Ken Ham's Statement of Faith who explicitly says that he rejects any and all evidence that does not conform to the Bible, it's pretty damn close. They say the Bible is error-free, and is correct in terms of history and science in every word, infallible.
Thus, no matter what actual evidence I or anyone else digs up, they are not going to change their mind.

Can you look us in the eye (so to speak), and tell us with a straight face that such people are being intellectually honest, that you and they are indeed following the evidence?
I cannot trust what Ken Ham or ICR say. Anything they say is tainted because of these statements from them, where they declare one book to be infallible and any evidence found later that contradicts this book is rejected.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Post #40

Post by Willum »

Evolution is about advantage. Sexual reproduction has an advantage of being social. A homophobic creature probably couldn't evolve past a slug. Or then a fish with hermaphrodism.

Notice a trend? An evolutionary trend, as it were?

Post Reply