So...how were things "created"?

[Scotracer]

Since there's a certain sector of religious faith that believes everything was "created" rather than forming over billions of years due to natural processes, I feel the need to pose a question:

How were these things created?

Science is used to increase the sum of knowledge of mankind. Simply stating something was created doesn't really help, does it? So, please tell me and everyone else just how these things were created.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 8 Post 80:

Empirical science must account for why people believe in a supreme being.

No it doesn't. Those who claim this supreme being exists must show they speak truth. Whether or not they use science to support their claim is on them.

The Law of Causality
No material thing can create itself. Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The effect is never quantitatively greater or qualitatively superior to the cause.

But it can be created by other forces. Babies are a great example. In the case of babies there is much data to suggest natural forces are at work.

Applying the law of causality allows us to conclude that Grand Canyon was caused by something greater than itself.

Then what caused this "supreme being"?

Or is he exempt from the laws you seek to apply to the universe?

Evolutionists embrace the idea that an "accumulation of mutations" must exist in sufficient quality and/or quantity for a new species to emerge.

Supported by reams of data, and reasonable and logical conclusions thereof.

Look how Scotracer tried to debunk my theory that flapping leaves create wind currents:

You've admitted yourself that was a hypothetical scenario. Any claims regarding such could rightly be considered hypothetical as well. Good science seldom relies solely on hypotheticals to reach conclusions - that's left to the philosophizers.

He immediately perceived...

Just wanted to show I didn't miss this part. Falls under hypotheticals as above.

How does one explain the formation of a human being?

Sex. And then observed natural processes. If one wants to claim God is ultimately responsible for such, I just don't see any support.

Our prima facie intuition rejects the idea that man formed by the forces of wind and water.

Yet many theists will claim it was from wind and dust.

How does one explain atheism? Theists trace its cause to an illogical deduction of the law of causality and/or an illogical or deliberate choice to evade a living God. Is it illogical to give up what cannot be kept to gain that which cannot be lost?

Is it logical to believe in something for which we have no means of verification? Especially when following claims are made that assault the senses, and are under the same non-verification status.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

Empirical science must account for why people believe in a supreme being.

What about why they believe in the tooth fairy. Maybe their parents told them about it.

Likewise, for the Universe to expand at an accelerated rate, evolutionists employ unseen dark matter in sufficient quantities in order to satisfy the unforgiving law of causality.

Evolution does not now, nor has it ever had a single thing to say about the expansion of the Universe. Nor does Dark Matter have anything to do with causality.

How does one explain the formation of a human being?

Well, when a man loves a woman very, very much...wait, maybe you should ask your parents. I think this demonstrates the need for sex education in the schools.

How does one explain atheism? Theists trace its cause to an illogical deduction of the law of causality and/or an illogical or deliberate choice to evade a living God. Is it illogical to give up what cannot be kept to gain that which cannot be lost?

The rejection of superstitious non-sense explains it pretty well.

Grumpy

[micatala]

I find it tedious and useless to quote the endless logical falacies and outright falsehoods from this poster. Every time he is corrected he waits a while and just repeats...

It's hard to see your own face without a mirror. Try this one:

The Moon prevents the Earth wobbling when it spins.

Oh, and who told you this??? Does Venus "Wobble"? How about Mars? The Earth has a bit of wobble, but not enough to be seriously notable, if anything, the moon causes more, not less instability.

NASA
The Moon is more than a pretty accessory in our night sky. It stabilizes Earth's wobble... - source

StarDate Online
And the Moon acts to stabilize a "wobble" in Earth's axis. -source

Space.com
Mostly due to Mars' lack of a stabilizing moon, its tilt can wobble as much as 10 degrees from the current 25-degree angle. -source

NASA
There is a consistent offset of the polar inertial axis from the rotational pole of 0.5 degrees for all the solutions and indicates a wobble of the Venus pole (Yoder and Ward, 1979) - source

I believe Alan Clarke is correct and grumpy is incorrect that the moon acts to decrease the earths wobble. In fact, this was also reported on a PBS special I just watched concerning exploration of Mars. Mars has smaller moons and wobbles rather a lot.

However, in citing NASA and these other sources, I think Alan Clarke should beware of being hoisted on his own petard. The scientists involved in Mars exploration not only noted that the moon decreases the earth's wobble and that Mars wobbles a lot, but they noted that 5 million years ago, the wobbly pattern of Mars had its north pole pointing much more towards the sun, creating conditions more like earth's polar regions and making it at least possible for liquid water to exist there.



I would ask Alan Clarke if he accepts the statement that Mars was around 5 million years ago, as well as the other scientific facts presented by NASA (4.5 billion year old earth, 13 plus billion year old universe, etc.). If not, why does Alan Clarke selectively quote NASA? How does he decide on which facts to quote and which to ignore or disbelieve?

[Alan Clarke]

You know your ultimate destination (death), but you don't know now nor will know then, the exact cause for it....

Lack of oxygen to the brain.

I think you're on to something:

Luke 18:19-20 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus answering him saith, Search for the best oxygen pump money can buy.

WARNING: The above verse was taken from the NIV (Newly Inspired Version).

In order for you to determine this, something about you will have to be transformed...

I take that to mean "you must become a believer".

You're already a believer. The question is whether or not your belief has any validity.

Time required to validate theory
Spontaneous generation (2 weeks - 1 year)
Mendelian Genetics (7 years) *
Evolution (1 M - 3 B years)

Let's add another:

God theories (2 thousand years and counting)

You may be required to wait but for me it was different. I received an IMMEDIATE confirmation when I made an initial "leap of faith". The "leap" was similar to how you put your trust in certain individuals. You'll never know if that attractive-looking employment opportunity is the true dream job unless you take a leap of faith. You'll never know if a certain girl is the right one for you unless you swallow your pride and introduce yourself. In my case, I swallowed my pride and took Jesus at his word when I read this:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I already "loved" Jesus character and how he handled the religious and government leaders. I already knew the "commandments" and my miserable failure at following them. The only thing I lacked was I had never responded to Jesus' words with any EXPECTATION that he was actually alive or capable of transacting anything such as sending a "Comforter". When I read his words, I decided my new approach would be to continue loving him and following his commandments to the best of my ability, but in addition, I would EXPECT Jesus to send me the promised "Spirit of truth". If Jesus was not what he described himself to be, then nothing would happen, I could dismiss his words as metaphorical and pass, I could pity church-goers, and I could attend atheist rallys with Grumpy. Within one hour of my making that decision, I literally transcended my former self in ways that are difficult to describe but obviously related to my step of faith. After 34 years, nothing has changed except an increase in Christs profound workings in my life. It all started with my taking him at his word. Click here for a more detailed story.

I'll skip over the attempt to refute the ToE, as it's failure is not evidence for creationist claims.

If the ToE fails then all is not lost because you have yoga and Cymatics to fall back on:

The science of Cymatics has shown how vibration / frequency creates order from chaos and we know the Universe is filled with vibrations and frequencies.

Darwin wrote his own obituary. Why dont you at least give him credit for his insight?

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?

Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (source: Origin of Species, pgs. 143, 144, 149, 230)

It is conceivable that a single pair of genetically-rich cats on Noahs ark could account for all modern-day cats if you allow for natural selection and mutations to REDUCE information to achieve ocelots and the like. I am not a geneticist but I suggest this so you can study the possibility on your own.

If, if , if. There's no need to consider genetic material in terms of "information". It is a chemical compound. No more, no less. It reacts in a fashion consistent with known physical laws.

I dont know where you are getting your information but what I do know is that the genetic material for a human has 3.2 billion base pairs of precisely-oriented and precisely-placed components. Wikipedia refers to these as instructions, a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, and genetic information. Your referring to this as only a chemical compound is reminiscent of Darwin thinking that a cell was just a blob of protoplasm surrounded by a membrane. Incomplete knowledge and simplistic perceptions give birth to aphids, fleas, mice, and crocodiles from plant dew, decaying matter, dirty hay, and rotting sunken logs respectively. All of Aristotles disproven ideas are legitimate to evolutionists who believe that Aristotle simply wasnt patient enough. Had he waited longer, all of these animals would have appeared. Shall we add man from bacteria to the list?

Why should we call a lion and a tiger two different species if they can interbreed to produce offspring?

Various reasons. Among them the fact they rarely, to never interbreed in the wild. This interbreeding is quite difficult when one lives in Africa and the other in Asia.

Pygmies rarely to never interbreed in the wild with blue-eyed European men of 6.5+ ft. stature. Perhaps we should re-classify Pygmies as Homo sapiens micro and tall Europeans as Homo sapiens macro. (click photos)

Does anyone not sin?

Hard to tell when we can't verify God's opinion on sin.

Im glad that you at least avoided saying, Its hard to tell what sin is. which shows that there is some remaining hope for you. So, there seems to be some indication as to what you think of sin. Its not good right? What you may not know is that it is HORRIBLE. It is so horrible in fact that it goes hand-in-hand with the death penalty. But it need not end there for you. If you can humble yourself to admit you are a sinner, then the judge may have mercy on you. However, you must have a good attorney. The best attorney I know is the one who accepts the penalty for you. If you laugh at the judicial system, then youve sealed your fate.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Your argument is chunky with post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacies.

If we could locate a person with any of the following attributes, that would weaken considerably my claim that "sin always results in death."

pheph fallacy.

Joey, your post hoc ergo procter hoc rebuttal is excellent so Ill subsist. I indulged a bit in my gangster/sin/death satire. What's worse, I diverted from the Biblical teaching which acknowledges that many who commit the most grievous sins sometimes live a long life. But this anomaly does not alter an unchangeable fact: All men die.

Psalm 92:7 When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I still contend that death is a direct consequence of sin. According to your theory, a beneficial trait that should be naturally selected is longevity. All of the mutations and natural selecting in Earths history have not produced a single mammal, bird, fish, or reptile that does not die. Has your mechanism not had enough time to work?

[Alan Clarke]

[I would ask Alan Clarke if he accepts the statement that Mars was around 5 million years ago, as well as the other scientific facts presented by NASA (4.5 billion year old earth, 13 plus billion year old universe, etc.). If not, why does Alan Clarke selectively quote NASA? How does he decide on which facts to quote and which to ignore or disbelieve?

I can best explain it using the story of the 3 blind men groping at an elephant trying to discern what an elephant is like. One man grabbing the elephants leg decides an elephant is like a tree whereas another grabbing the tail thinks an elephant is like a rope. An outside observer who has the benefit of vision can see the folly in the interpretations but he understands why each contains a "part" of the truth. One blind man looking at long-age isotopes says, "Ahh Haa! The Earth is 4.5 billion years old!" Another looking at carbon 14 isotopes says, "Ahh Haa! The Earth is 50,000 years old!" A third, grabbing the elephants genitals, says "Ahh Haa! It's growing! In 2 million years it will reach the Moon!" For me, the last fallacy illustrates why evolutionists believe that microevolution will eventually turn bacteria into humans.

[Grumpy]

micatala

I believe Alan Clarke is correct and grumpy is incorrect that the moon acts to decrease the earths wobble. In fact, this was also reported on a PBS special I just watched concerning exploration of Mars. Mars has smaller moons and wobbles rather a lot.

It puts one in mind of the old saw, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, for a minute or so."

When I taught school, the Earth was the ONLY planet that was known to wobble. I guess I have not kept up with the advancement of science in this case.

I would ask Alan Clarke if he accepts the statement that Mars was around 5 million years ago, as well as the other scientific facts presented by NASA (4.5 billion year old earth, 13 plus billion year old universe, etc.). If not, why does Alan Clarke selectively quote NASA? How does he decide on which facts to quote and which to ignore or disbelieve?

It points out the glaring error of "Creationist Science" in that it has everything backwards. They start with the answers and then look for anything that will support those answers. They ignore most of the evidence because it does not support their answers. Science starts with the known facts(evidence) and then tries to come up with explanations that account for ALL the known facts. There are, of course, no answers in Genesis, it's all myth. But, notice, the Creationists are absolutely sure they are correct(after all, their god told them so), scientists are never sure and keep testing what they think they know, who is wiser?

Doubt is an incentive to truth, and patient inquiry leadeth the way.
Hosea Ballou( 1771-1852) American Clergyman, Founder of Universalism

Doubt is the beginning, not the end, of wisdom.
George Iles

Doubt is the father of invention.
Galileo( 1564-1642) Italian Astronomer and Mathematician

Great doubts...deep wisdom. Small doubts... little wisdom.
Chinese Proverb

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell

True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.
Akhenaton?( c. B.C. 1375) Egyptian King

Think about it.

Grumpy

[Alan Clarke]

They [creationists] ignore most of the evidence because it does not support their answers. Science starts with the known facts (evidence) and then tries to come up with explanations that account for ALL the known facts.

Grumpy, to put your idea of facts into proper perspective, why dont we resort to another atheist? Im sure you can appreciate this as you yourself resort to Augustine in appealing to my rationale. Friedrich Nietzsche coined the phrase God is dead in several of his works. In his view, modern science and secular Europe had effectively killed the Christian God, who had served as the basis for meaning and value in the West for more than a thousand years.

There are no facts, only interpretations.

All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses.

From this you should be able to understand that facts are not necessarily evidence as you stated, but they are only interpretations as Nietzsche stated. What is the basis for your interpretations? Without God, your choice is limited to only from the senses. In effect, your entire insistence upon factual evidences is really nothing more than an appeal for every one to trust Grumpys senses. Arent you being rather presumptuous? I know you must be aggravated when people doubt you but you have already conceded to the fact that you are not to be trusted:

I guess I have not kept up with the advancement of science in this case.

Can you imagine where science would be today if we based our interpretations on such shaky ground? Not only your inability to stay abreast with current advancements harms your credibility, but your highly-subjective a priori belief system which abhors a personal God taints your senses in a way that we cannot be sure whether what you are seeing is actually indicative of reality. Your input on this forum is appreciated, but to dogmatically insist that others should follow you hook, line, and sinker on matters such as the Earths age is no more credible than asking every one to discontinue chocolate ice cream because your taste buds tell you vanilla is better. You have no facts. They are only your interpretations.

[Alan Clarke]

They [creationists] ignore most of the evidence because it does not support their answers. Science starts with the known facts (evidence) and then tries to come up with explanations that account for ALL the known facts.

In any scientific pursuit, there is always a search for the cause of an effect. The cause must always be quantitatively and/or qualitatively greater than the effect.

Q: Why causes a tree leaf to flap?
A: The kinetic energy of the wind.

Q: What causes the wind to blow?
A: The heat differential produced by the Sun.

Q: What created the Sun?
A: ??

As each question progresses, notice how the quantity and quality of the cause also progresses. Notice also that I designated the last answer with question marks because of its controversial nature. The cause must be greater than the Sun. Many evolutionists believe that a giant swirling molecular gas cloud collapsed approximately 4.6 billion years ago. Lets fill in that ugly-looking missing blank so that the Grumpys scientific method doesnt look foolish. Even though Grumpy wasnt there to observe what happened, he has faith that there was a cause greater than the effect, so the hypothesis that the gas cloud was gigantic serves him well as long as gigantic means that the total mass and energy is greater than that of the Sun.

Q: What created the Sun?
A: Gigantic swirling gas cloud.

There! The last answer will look much more impressive than a blank when adorning school text books and should build confidence that the author knows exactly what he is talking about. Unfortunately, reality dictates that anytime one starts to add guesses on top of guesses, the model begins to take on the appearance of a six-inch high ice cream cone, melting on a hot summer day, in the hand of a three-year old child.

Q: What created the swirling gas cloud?
A: Nothing

The last answer has a large consensus among scientists (surprise!):

While the concept of a universe being created from nothing sounds improbable, it is perfectly consistent with the laws of conservation of energy because its total energy value is zero... The ultimate conclusion was that, on the contrary to popular belief, it was possible for the universe to suddenly appear from nothing. (source)

Q: What created nothing?
A: No need to answer! But if one insists, nothing created nothing. *

Voila! There you have it. Evolutionists have utilized logic to construct the ultimate model that cannot be refuted using Grumpys much-hailed scientific method which accepts only natural causes. As long as the first cause is not the dreaded God which is to be avoided at all possible costs, nothing sounds quite reasonable. After all, nothing will never impose morality or accountability. What could be more appealing to a runaway teen, a child immersed in Candy Land, a Hells Angels biker, or an embittered old atheist with an axe to grind? Whether Grumpy admits it or not, his decision to kick God out as a possible "first cause" affects his every subsequent interpretation. He will attempt to account for the Universe and Life by violating the laws of causality and thermodynamics. He will in effect utilize tools that can build a perpetual motion machine. Theists consider natural causes. Atheists consider ONLY natural causes. Even though it is impossible to see God or gravity, it is not impossible to observe their effects. The story of Gideon illustrates this principle:

And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said,

Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said.

And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water.

And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.

And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.

Skeptics refuse the above experiment, fearing that if an answer follows, they will have to bear a weight of responsibility as did Gideon. If you want to try something similar to Gideon, construct your own criteria before submitting your question to God since you'll be more convinced by an experiment that you designed than that of another. Grumpy nevertheless plodes full spead ahead while providing absolutely ZERO LOGIC for his decision to eliminate God as a "first cause". After creating his ZERO LOGIC starting point, he ends up with a ZERO LOGIC conclusion (i.e. nothing created nothing). Whats worse, the conclusions yielded midway in his scientific investigation are riddled with holes.

Lets backtrack and look at the gigantic swirling gas cloud hypothesis. Not only the Sun, but the whole solar system was supposedly created from this spinning cloud. According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, any object created within the swirling cloud should be spinning in the same direction.



Does science support a gigantic swirling gas cloud for the formation of our solar system?

Backward-Spinning Planets
All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus,[c] and Pluto rotate backwards.[d]

Backward Orbits
Each of the almost 200 known moons in the solar system should orbit its planet in the same direction, but more than 30 have backward orbits.[e] Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Tipped Orbits
Moons - The orbit of each of these moons should lie very near the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earths moon, are in highly inclined orbits.[f]
Planets - The orbital planes of the planets should lie in the equatorial plane of the Sun. Instead, the orbital planes of the planets typically deviate from the Suns equatorial plane by 7 degrees, a significant amount.

Angular Momentum
The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun.[g]

WARNING! Prepare yourself for an onslaught of ad hoc explanations to explain the backward spins: asteroids, inner-planetary collisions, unaccounted-for matter exploding, etc.

As you can see, Grumpys a priori belief system has nothing to do with real science since the evidence does not support it. In the full sense of the word, his human-centered dogmatic belief system could be classified as a myth:

I guess I have not kept up with the advancement of science in this case.

I appreciate Grumpys humble admission but to continue on a path that propagates more of the same, while leading others astray, negates his apology. Fewer pitfalls await those who are fortunate to have not discounted what they are not sure of. Is Grumpy 100% certain there is no God? Of course not. Unfortunately, he built his entire premise on that assumption and ended up with nothing to explain everything.

There are, of course, no answers in Genesis, it's all myth.

What is most disturbing is this: I have visited multiple people in nursing homes. Many have no families or loved ones to care for them. Some have relinquished hope completely, closed themselves off from society, and resorted to talking to themselves. Grumpy's mantra, there are, of course, no answers is all too familiar.

But, notice, the Creationists are absolutely sure they are correct (after all, their god told them so), scientists are never sure and keep testing what they think they know, who is wiser?

Grumpy, as time passes, you can answer this question for yourself by gazing often into a mirror. Your countenance will provide a clue to the state of your inner soul. If your avatar or your anonymity Grumpy is how you see yourself, could you live with yourself for eternity? People who have such attitudes are often plagued by stomach ulcers because of over-secretion of stomach acids. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

References
[c] Uranus spin axis is tilted 98. In other words, Uranus spins on its side and slightly backwards. Evolutionists have incorrectly speculated that Uranus must have been tipped over by a giant impact. However, such an impact would not have changed the orbital planes of Uranus larger moons, which are also tipped over.

[d] The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2003 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), p. F2.

[e] Ibid.

[f] Ibid.

The Moons orbital plane is inclined 18.5 " 28.5 to the Earths equatorial plane. (The Moons orbital plane precesses between those values over an 18.6-year cycle.) This is a considerable inclination when one recognizes that the Moon possesses 82.9% of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system. No other planet-satellite system comes close to this amount.

Theories that for centuries claimed to show how the Moon evolved can now be rejected because of this fact alone. A more recent theory claims that a Mars-size body collided with the early Earth and kicked up debris that formed the Moon. Ward and Canup acknowledge that

Recent models of this process predict that the orbit of the newly formed Moon should be in, or very near [less than 1], the Earths equatorial plane. William R. Ward and Robin M. Canup, Origin of the Moons Orbital Inclination from Resonant Disk Interactions, Nature, Vol. 403, 17 February 2000, p. 741.

Nevertheless, speculative ways to circumvent this problem continue to be suggested. Even if some theory could explain the Moons high orbital inclination and angular momentum, other problems remain. [See Origin of the Moon on page 28.]

[g] Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 16.

Fred Hoyle, The Cosmology of the Solar System (Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1979), pp. 11"12.

One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum. Frank D. Stacey, Physics of the Earth (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969), p. 4.

Some have proposed transferring angular momentum from the Sun to the planets by magnetic linking. McCrea states:

However, I scarcely think it has yet been established that the postulated processes would inevitably occur, or that if they did they would operate with the extreme efficiency needed in order to achieve the required distribution of angular momentum. William Hunter McCrea, Origin of the Solar System, Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), p. 8.

* Which is more logical? Nothing created everything or an eternal God created everything?

[Wyvern]

Hey Alan why not simply address the OP instead of trying to disprove everything. You have postulated that god created everything, why not put the same effort into proving your god that you put into trying to disprove science?

Science has a pretty good track record of explaining how the world works. Religion on the other hand never attempts to explain anything, it makes declarations and then states you should accept it on faith. Try doing that in the real world and see the reactions you get. You sound like all those fundies that disparage science while at the same time gladly use all the gifts made possible through it. At least the fundies that refuse their children medical care although horrible that it usually ends up badly at least they aren't hypocrites.

[Alan Clarke]

Problems with Swirling Gas Cloud
Theory for Solar System Formation

In an earlier post I used arguments presented by Dr. Walt Brown to refute this theory. But I need not confine myself to creationists since Wikipedia provides information that refutes this theory as well:

Faint young Sun problem
Theoretical models of the Sun's development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth's surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop. However, the geological record demonstrates that the Earth has remained at a fairly constant temperature throughout its history, and in fact that the young Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today. The consensus among scientists is that the young Earth's atmosphere contained much larger quantities of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane and/or ammonia) than are present today, which trapped enough heat to compensate for the lesser amount of solar energy reaching the planet.

Notice that the creationist canopy theory is described in the closing sentences, the young Earth's atmosphere contained much larger quantities of greenhouse gases. This explains why Antarctica once contained forests. Also, notice the multiple problems created by a backwards theory which assumes the solar system evolved by natural causes in a simple --> complex direction instead of what is actually observed: a complex system that is slowly degrading over time as dictated by thermodynamic laws: complex --> simple (increase in entropy). The time required for biological evolution to change bacteria into man is threatened since the Sun doesnt produce enough heat in its earlier stages of supposed stellar evolution.

What Al Gore and Evolutionists Don't Like To Talk About

Present anomalies
The Sun is presently behaving unexpectedly in a number of ways.

It is in the midst of an unusual sunspot minimum, lasting far longer and with a higher percentage of spotless days than normal; since May 2008, predictions of an imminent rise in activity have been regularly made and as regularly confuted.

It is measurably dimmer than is usual during a sunspot minimum.

Over the last two decades, the solar wind's speed has dropped 3%, its temperature 13%, and its density 20%.

Its magnetic field is at less than half strength compared to the minimum of 22 years ago. The entire heliosphere, which fills the solar system, has shrunk as a result, resulting in an increase in the level of cosmic radiation striking the Earth and its atmosphere.

One would think that if the Sun was 4.5 billion years old, certain features of it would not be changing so drastically in the small time window of our human lifespan. The creationist model on the other hand predicts noticeable and major changes within human lifespans by adopting the Bible's 6000 year-old age for the solar system.

Q: Why did recent fast melting of polar ice caps surprise scientists?
A: Evolution/uniformitarian theory predicts a 4.5B year-old Earth should not change appreciably in a small window of time.

Also, notice that all changes are in the direction of greater to lesser usable energy as predicted by the 2nd law of thermodynamics (increased entropy) and creationist theory. Since stellar evolution theory posits the exact opposite of simple --> complex (decreased entropy), all of these phenomena are classified as anomalies in Wikipedia. For creationists, these phenomena would be classified as successful predictions. Look at the last sentence: resulting in an increase in the level of cosmic radiation striking the Earth. If the Earth is bombarded by excessive cosmic radiation, this will increase the number of lethal mutations. I suppose evolutionists will try to interpret this as a positive development since macroevolution supposedly thrives on radiation. Too bad the mutated fruit flies cant speak for themselves: their mouth parts turned into legs


This past journal illustration by T.C. Kaufman and colleagues from Indiana University shows how when the "pb" (proboscipedia) gene in the fruit fly " the fruit flys homologue or equivalent gene to the Hoxa2 gene being studied by Nazarali, Doucette and Wolf " is mutated, it causes a transformation of the fruit flys mouth parts (slide A) into legs (slide B).

Mutated Human Finds Use For Foot in Mouth

Amazing Accelerated Weight Loss Plan Really Works!
Click here for details!