Science Disproves Evolution

[phoneman-777]

Amen. God created in six days and rested the seventh day.  Period.

 

[coheir]

Just because something evolved to be different does not mean it has no common ancestor. A great example of this is the lemur. It's only found on one island on Earth, because that island separated from the rest of Africa and the species there were in isolation for so long. The platypus is actually part of an order of species called 'monotremes', of which some evolved to give rise to marsupials and other mammals.

 

There are other monotremes (mammals that lay eggs) such as echidnas, (which look strikingly like hedgehogs), and if you look, there are actually three or more separate suborders of monotreme, with different genus, all in all 20 or more different species in total. Marsupials are everywhere too, as are Australosphedina fossils and those of many other egg-laying mammals similar to the platypus. The difference is the platypus is probably the only of its particular genus within the monotreme order that survived natural selection. The platypus is part of a near extinct family called Ornithohynchidae, genus ornithorhynchus. 

 

There are evolutionary links to the platypus if you look.

 

 

I dont see many in the statement below.

 

Nov 18, 2009 |By Charles Q. Choi

Scientific American

 

 

 

Nicole Duplaix Getty Images

Only two kinds of egg-laying mammals are left on the planet today—the duck-billed platypus and the echidna, or spiny anteater.

[Pahu]

The First Cell 1

 

If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell (a).

 

a. “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.

 

Yet, after such acknowledgments, Dawkins, an avowed atheist and perhaps the world’s leading Darwinian, tries to show that life came about by chance without an intelligent designer.  Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life.

 

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”  Denton, p. 264.

 

“Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.” Ibid. p. 342.

 

“We have seen that self-replicating systems capable of Darwinian evolution appear too complex to have arisen suddenly from a prebiotic soup. This conclusion applies both to nucleic acid systems and to hypothetical protein-based genetic systems.” Shapiro, p. 207.

 

“We do not understand how this gap in organization was closed, and this remains the most crucial unsolved problem concerning the origin of life.” Ibid. p. 299.

 

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences35.html

[jerryR34]

 

a. “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.

 

 

quote mining...why don't you post more of The Blind Watchmaker, or better yet, read it?

 

 

 

"We animals are the most complicated things in the known universe. The universe that we know, of course, is a tiny fragment of the actual universe. There may be yet more complicated objects than us on other planets, and some of them may already know about us. But this doesn't alter the point that I want to make. Complicated things, everywhere, deserve a very special kind of explanation. We want to know how they came into existence and why they are so complicated. The explanation, as I shall argue, is likely to be broadly the same for complicated things everywhere in the universe; the same for us, for chimpanzees, worms, oak trees and monsters from outer space. On the other hand, it will not be the same for what I shall call 'simple' things, such as rocks, clouds, rivers, galaxies and quarks. These are the stuff of physics. Chimps and dogs and bats and cockroaches and people and worms and dandelions and bacteria and galactic aliens are the stuff of biology.

The difference is one of complexity of design. Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design. At first sight, man-made artefacts like computers and cars will seem to provide exceptions. They are complicated and obviously designed for a purpose, yet they are not alive, and they are made of metal and plastic rather than of flesh and blood. In this book they will be firmly treated as biological objects.

The reader's reaction to this may be to ask, 'Yes, but are they really biological objects?' Words are our servants, not our masters. For different purposes we find it convenient to use words in different senses. Most cookery books class lobsters as fish. Zoologists can  

       

 

                               

become quite apoplectic about this, pointing out that lobsters could with greater justice call humans fish, since fish are far closer kin to humans than they are to lobsters. And, talking of justice and lobsters, I understand that a court of law recently had to decide whether lobsters were insects or 'animals' (it bore upon whether people should be allowed to boil them alive). Zoologically speaking, lobsters are certainly not insects. They are animals, but then so are insects and so are we. There is little point in getting worked up about the way different people use words (although in my nonprofessional life I am quite prepared to get worked up about people who boil lobsters alive). Cooks and lawyers need to use words in their own special ways, and so do I in this book. Never mind whether cars and computers are 'really' biological objects. The point is that if anything of that degree of complexity were found on a planet, we should have no hesitation in concluding that life existed, or had once existed, on that planet. Machines are the direct products of living objects; they derive their complexity and design from living objects, and they are diagnostic of the existence of life on a planet. The same goes for fossils, skeletons and dead bodies. "

[coheir]

 

 

a. “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.

 

 

quote mining...why don't you post more of The Blind Watchmaker, or better yet, read it?

 

 

 

"We animals are the most complicated things in the known universe. The universe that we know, of course, is a tiny fragment of the actual universe. There may be yet more complicated objects than us on other planets, and some of them may already know about us. But this doesn't alter the point that I want to make. Complicated things, everywhere, deserve a very special kind of explanation. We want to know how they came into existence and why they are so complicated. The explanation, as I shall argue, is likely to be broadly the same for complicated things everywhere in the universe; the same for us, for chimpanzees, worms, oak trees and monsters from outer space. On the other hand, it will not be the same for what I shall call 'simple' things, such as rocks, clouds, rivers, galaxies and quarks. These are the stuff of physics. Chimps and dogs and bats and cockroaches and people and worms and dandelions and bacteria and galactic aliens are the stuff of biology.

The difference is one of complexity of design. Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design. At first sight, man-made artefacts like computers and cars will seem to provide exceptions. They are complicated and obviously designed for a purpose, yet they are not alive, and they are made of metal and plastic rather than of flesh and blood. In this book they will be firmly treated as biological objects.

The reader's reaction to this may be to ask, 'Yes, but are they really biological objects?' Words are our servants, not our masters. For different purposes we find it convenient to use words in different senses. Most cookery books class lobsters as fish. Zoologists can  

       

 

                               

become quite apoplectic about this, pointing out that lobsters could with greater justice call humans fish, since fish are far closer kin to humans than they are to lobsters. And, talking of justice and lobsters, I understand that a court of law recently had to decide whether lobsters were insects or 'animals' (it bore upon whether people should be allowed to boil them alive). Zoologically speaking, lobsters are certainly not insects. They are animals, but then so are insects and so are we. There is little point in getting worked up about the way different people use words (although in my nonprofessional life I am quite prepared to get worked up about people who boil lobsters alive). Cooks and lawyers need to use words in their own special ways, and so do I in this book. Never mind whether cars and computers are 'really' biological objects. The point is that if anything of that degree of complexity were found on a planet, we should have no hesitation in concluding that life existed, or had once existed, on that planet. Machines are the direct products of living objects; they derive their complexity and design from living objects, and they are diagnostic of the existence of life on a planet. The same goes for fossils, skeletons and dead bodies. "

 

(although in my nonprofessional life I am quite prepared to get worked up about people who boil lobsters alive).

 

If a person is saved and believes on Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior he will be saved even though he cooks lobster in this traditional manner. On the other hand a non believer who never cooks lobster in this manner will end up thrown in the fire alive. Not pointing fingers just thinking with my fingers.

[BoddhiBody]

 

Just because something evolved to be different does not mean it has no common ancestor. A great example of this is the lemur. It's only found on one island on Earth, because that island separated from the rest of Africa and the species there were in isolation for so long. The platypus is actually part of an order of species called 'monotremes', of which some evolved to give rise to marsupials and other mammals.

 

There are other monotremes (mammals that lay eggs) such as echidnas, (which look strikingly like hedgehogs), and if you look, there are actually three or more separate suborders of monotreme, with different genus, all in all 20 or more different species in total. Marsupials are everywhere too, as are Australosphedina fossils and those of many other egg-laying mammals similar to the platypus. The difference is the platypus is probably the only of its particular genus within the monotreme order that survived natural selection. The platypus is part of a near extinct family called Ornithohynchidae, genus ornithorhynchus. 

 

There are evolutionary links to the platypus if you look.

 

 

I dont see many in the statement below.

 

Nov 18, 2009 |By Charles Q. Choi

Scientific American

 

 

 

Nicole Duplaix Getty Images

Only two kinds of egg-laying mammals are left on the planet today—the duck-billed platypus and the echidna, or spiny anteater.

 

Hence the part about fossils of extinct animals (non surviving monotremes), and about few monotremes surviving to this day and age. Perhaps you should read entire posts rather than scan them for something to jump on. It makes you look silly.

Edited June 13, 2014 by BoddhiBody

[BoddhiBody]

 

The First Cell 1

 

If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell (a).

 

a. “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.

 

Yet, after such acknowledgments, Dawkins, an avowed atheist and perhaps the world’s leading Darwinian, tries to show that life came about by chance without an intelligent designer.  Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life.

 

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”  Denton, p. 264.

 

“Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.” Ibid. p. 342.

 

“We have seen that self-replicating systems capable of Darwinian evolution appear too complex to have arisen suddenly from a prebiotic soup. This conclusion applies both to nucleic acid systems and to hypothetical protein-based genetic systems.” Shapiro, p. 207.

 

“We do not understand how this gap in organization was closed, and this remains the most crucial unsolved problem concerning the origin of life.” Ibid. p. 299.

 

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences35.html

 

Evolution is not abiogenesis. The origin of life is not the same thing as Darwin's theory on the origin of species. They are two very different scientific concepts. Abiogenesis is becoming less difficult to prove - it has been shown that amino acids can be formed from certain molecules under certain conditions - while evolution has overwhelming evidence. I'm sure if you read recent scientific journals from decent scientists instead of quoting things from thirty years ago that you found on a creationist website, you might realize that . Any reputable scientists will accept that evolution happens. Whether or not they believe life itself was formed by natural processes or by the hand of God doesn't matter because evolution is NOT the same thing as the birth of life. The only time this theory throws up issues is for people who believe the world's 6000 years old, and honestly, anyone who believes that is unable to hear reason.The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the process by which life itself came to be, only its progress once it was established. Thus, a believer of intelligent design can certainly stop burying their head in the sand and recognize evolutionary processes.

 

There is a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. And there is a distinction between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.

 

Abiogenesis just means the becoming of simple life from inorganic substances. Spontaneous generation is the sudden appearance of complex life from inorganic material without evolution in between. The latter is the YEC dogma and it is not supported by any honest evidence we have of life.

 

Intelligent design, you should be aware, does NOT have to be mutually exclusive with evolution. There are plenty of religious scientists who believe that the hand of God guided the processes of the development of life, but ANY of them who are reputable will recognize the overwhelming evidence for evolution. They mightn't believe that life formed 'by itself' to begin with, but it's irrelevant because again, evolution is NOT the same as abiogenesis.

 

Your original post proved nothing except for your own misunderstanding of evolutionary processes and how natural selection leads to organisms who have not mutated the mechanisms for survival that their peers have being at an evolutionary disadvantage.

Edited June 13, 2014 by BoddhiBody

[Pahu]

 

BoddhiBody: Evolution is not abiogenesis. The origin of life is not the same thing as Darwin's theory on the origin of species. They are two very different scientific concepts. Abiogenesis is becoming less difficult to prove - it has been shown that amino acids can be formed from certain molecules under certain conditions - while evolution has overwhelming evidence.

 

Pahu: Technically you are right but Darwin did speculate life came from a warm pond. Semantics aside, in the broader sense evolution does include the beginning of life.

 

 

BoddhiBody: Abiogenesis is becoming less difficult to prove - it has been shown that amino acids can be formed from certain molecules under certain conditions - while evolution has overwhelming evidence. 

 

Pahu: Where is that overwhelming evidence?

 

 

The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted in 1953, are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life” can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:

 

1) These “building blocks” are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory.

2) Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.

3) Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.

4) Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness. 

5) Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)

 

In fact, most of what was produced in the Miller-Urey experiments was a sludge of simple organic chemicals that are not found in living organisms. Only about 2% was amino acids. Of this 2%, 95% was the simplest amino acid of all, glycine.

 

Chemist Robert Shapiro describes the widespread current acceptance of the results of Miller and Urey's experiments as “mythology rather than science.”

 

Oxygen is deadly to the Miller-Urey experiments: the 'building blocks of life' simply would not have formed in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Oxygen reacts with methane to form carbon dioxide and water, and with ammonia to form nitrogen oxides and water. If you introduce oxygen into the apparatus, along with methane and hydrogen, and then put a spark through it, you do not get amino acids: you get an explosion.

 

But scientists still often claim that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain oxygen. When asked why, they reply that oxygen-less conditions are needed for life to develop. Now, call me naive, but in any other circumstances I think we would say this was arguing in a circle.

 

“All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.” Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.

 

“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.”  Kenyon, p. A-23.

 

All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.

 

Further Reading: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

 

[continue]

[Pahu]

[continued]

 

BoddhiBody: Any reputable scientists will accept that evolution happens.

 

Pahu:

 

 

 

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1

 

 

 

Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

 

[continue]

[Pahu]

[continued]

 

BoddhiBody: Whether or not they believe life itself was formed by natural processes or by the hand of God doesn't matter because evolution is NOT the same thing as the birth of life. The only time this theory throws up issues is for people who believe the world's 6000 years old, and honestly, anyone who believes that is unable to hear reason.

 

Pahu: 

 

Age of the Earth

 

 

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 actual 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.

 

 

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 ©. 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.

 

 

Excess Fluid Pressure

 

 

Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock (a). If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently (b).

 

a. “It is certain that at the present time large areas of the Gulf Coast are underlain by zones containing water under pressure almost high enough to float the overlying rocks.” Parke A. Dickey, Calcutta R. Shriram, and William R. Paine, “Abnormal Pressures in Deep Wells of Southwestern Louisiana,” Science, Vol. 160, No. 3828, 10 May 1968, p. 614.

 

b. “Some geologists find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years. Creationists also use this currently puzzling situation as evidence that oil was formed less than 10,000 years ago.” Stansfield, p. 82. [stansfield had no alternative explanation.]

 

Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, p. 341.

 

 

Volcanic Debris

 

 

Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average. At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.5 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed for removing or transforming all the missing volcanic sediments. Therefore, Earth’s sediments seem to be much younger than 4.5 billion years (a).

 

a. Ariel A. Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, pp. 75–76.

 

“It has been estimated that just four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutín [a Mexican volcano that erupted in 1943] and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts.” Stansfield, p. 81.

 

 

River Sediments

 

 

More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport is diminishing as looser topsoil is removed and as erosion smooths out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year. So, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old (a).

 

a. Stuart E. Nevins, “Evolution: The Ocean Says No!” Symposium on Creation V (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), pp. 77–83.

 

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 69–71.

 

 

Continental Erosion

 

 

The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years (a). However, evolutionists believe that fossils of animals and plants at high elevations have somehow avoided this erosion for more than 300 million years. Something is wrong.

 

a. Nevins, pp. 80–81.

 

George C. Kennedy, “The Origin of Continents, Mountain Ranges, and Ocean Basins,” American Scientist, Vol. 47, December 1959, pp. 491–504.

 

Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” pp. 65–67.

 

“North America is now being eroded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years ...” Dott and Batten, p. 133.

 

 

Dissolved Metals

 

 

Rivers carry dissolved elements such as copper, gold, lead, mercury, nickel, silicon, sodium, tin, and uranium into the oceans at very rapid rates when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. In other words, far fewer than a million years’ worth of metals are dissolved in the oceans (a). There is no known means by which large amounts of these elements can come out of solution. Therefore, the oceans must be much younger than a million years.

 

a. “... most metals are markedly undersaturated with respect to their least soluble compounds, and the supply of metals during geological time has been more than sufficient to attain saturation.” Peter G. Brewer, “Minor Elements in Sea Water,” Chemical Oceanography, editors J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Academic Press, 1975), p. 427.

 

 

Shallow Meteorites

 

 

Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface (a). (Unsuccessful searches have been made for these deep—and very valuable—meteorites, including in the Grand Canyon and along conveyor belts in coal processing plants.) Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers (b).

 

If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found immediately above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.

 

Similar conclusions can be made about ancient rock slides which are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock ©.

 

a. Fritz Heide, Meteorites (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 119.

 

Peter A. Steveson, “Meteoritic Evidence for a Young Earth,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, June 1975, pp. 23–25.

 

“...neither tektites nor other meteorites have been found in any of the ancient geologic formations...” Ralph Stair, “Tektites and the Lost Planet,” The Scientific Monthly, July 1956, p. 11.

 

“No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column.” William Henry Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 144.

 

“...the astronomer Olbers had noticed: that there are no ‘fossil’ meteorites known, from any period older than the middle of the Quaternary. The quantity of coal mined during the last century amounted to many billions of tons, and with it about a thousand meteorites should have been dug out, if during the time the coal deposits were formed the meteorite frequency had been the same as it is today. Equally complete is the absence of meteorites in any other geologically old material that has been excavated in the course of technical operations.” F. A. Paneth, “The Frequency of Meteorite Falls throughout the Ages,” Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 2, editor Arthur Beer (New York: Pergamon Press, 1956), p. 1681.

 

“I have interviewed the late Dr. G. P. Merrill, of the U.S. National Museum, and Dr. G. T. Prior, of the British Natural History Museum, both well-known students of meteorites, and neither man knew of a single occurrence of a meteorite in sedimentary rocks.” W. A. Tarr, “Meteorites in Sedimentary Rocks?” Science, Vol. 75, 1 January 1932, pp. 17–18.

 

“No meteorites have been found in the geological column.” Stansfield, p. 81.

 

“In view of the connection of comets, meteors, and meteorites, the absence of meteorites in old deposits in the crust of the earth is very significant. It has been estimated that at least 500 meteorites should have been found in already worked coal seams, whereas none has been identified in strata older than the Quaternary epoch (about 1 million years ago). This suggests a very recent origin of meteorites and, by inference, of comets.” N. T. Bobrovnikoff, “Comets,” Astrophysics, editor J. A. Hynek (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), p. 352.

 

b. Hans Pettersson, “Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust,” Scientific American, Vol. 202, February 1960, pp. 123–129.

 

c. “Examples of ancient rock slides have been identified from the geologic column in few instances.” William Henry Twenhofel, Treatise on Sedimentation, Vol. 1, 2nd edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1961), p. 102.

 

 

Meteoritic Dust

 

 

Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young (a).

 

a. Steveson, pp. 23–25.

 

 

Rapid Cooling

 

 

If the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions about the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth (a). The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.

 

a. Harold S. Slusher and Thomas P. Gamwell, Age of the Earth, ICR Technical Monograph No. 7 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).

 

Leonard R. Ingersoll et al., Heat Conduction: With Engineering, Geological and Other Applications, revised edition (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), pp. 99–107.

 

 

Moon Recession

 

 

As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first observed this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.6-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume. [For details see pages: 501-504]

 

 

Moon Dust and Debris

 

 

If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67th of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon. [For details see pages: 506-509]

 

 

Figure 31: Moon Dust and Debris. Concern that astronauts and equipment would sink into a sea of dust was so great that two missions (Ranger and Surveyor) were sent to the Moon for a closer look. The anticipated problem, which turned out not to exist, arose from the belief that the Moon is billions of years old.

 

a. Before instruments were sent to the Moon, Isaac Asimov made some interesting, but false, predictions. After estimating the great depths of dust that should be on the Moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by stating:

 

“I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight.” Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, January 1959, p. 36.

 

Lyttleton felt that the dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.” Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72.

 

Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [see Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585–604.]

 

Fears about the dust thickness were reduced when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern still remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [see transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p. 1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.]

 

 

Crater Creep

 

 

A tall pile of tar will slowly flow downhill, ultimately spreading into a nearly horizontal sheet of tar. Most material, under pressure, “creeps” in this way, although rocks deform very, very slowly.

 

Calculations show that the growing upward bulges of large crater floors on the Moon should occur to their current extent in only 10,000 to 10,000,000 years (a). Large, steep-walled craters exist even on Venus and Mercury, where gravity is greater, and temperatures are hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, creep rates on those planets should be even greater. Most large craters on the Moon, Venus, and Mercury are thought to have formed more than 4,000,000,000 years ago. Because these craters show no sign of “creep,” these bodies seem to be relatively young.

 

 

Figure 32: Young Craters. Large craters on the Moon have high, steep walls that should be slowly slumping and deep floors that should be bulging upward. Little deformation exists, so these craters appear relatively young. Similar conclusions can be drawn for Venus and Mercury.

 

a. Glenn R. Morton, Harold S. Slusher, and Richard E. Mandock, “The Age of Lunar Craters,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, September 1983, pp. 105–108.

 

The above study drew upon the work of Z. F. Danes, which was described as follows:

“The history of a circular crater in a highly viscous medium is derived from the hydrodynamic equations of motion by Z. F. Danes. The variation in shape of the crater in the course of time is expressed as a function of a time constant, T, that involves viscosity and density of the medium, acceleration of gravity, and radius of the crater lip. Correspondence between theoretical crater shapes and the observed ones is good. However the time constant, T, is surprisingly short if commonly accepted viscosity values are used.” Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-A (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. A 127.

 

Since Danes work was published, rocks from the Moon have been returned to Earth and their viscosity has been measured. Their values fall in the range of 10^21 to 10^22 poises. According to the Geological Survey paper just quoted, “If viscosities of lunar rocks were around 10^21 to 10^22 poises, the ages of large craters would have to be only 10^4 to 10^7 years.”

 

 

Hot Moon

 

 

A surprising amount of heat is flowing out of the Moon from just below its surface, and yet the Moon’s interior is relatively cold (a). Because it has not yet cooled off, the Moon is much younger than most people had guessed, or relatively recent events have altered the Moon’s heat flow (b)— or both.

 

a. “ [The following is] a somewhat surprising outcome considering the size of the Moon and the assumption that most of its heat energy had been lost....These unexpectedly high lunar [heat flow] values seem to indicate the Moon’s interior is much hotter than most thermal models had anticipated. If the temperature gradient in the lower regolith is extrapolated to great depths, the lunar interior would appear to be at least partly molten—a condition contradicted by other evidence.” Nicholas M. Short, Planetary Geology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975), p. 184.

 

b. The unexpectedly large heat flow may be a consequence of large impacts occurring on the lunar surface at the time of Earth’s global flood. [ See Figure 153]

 

 

Young Comets

 

 

As comets pass near the Sun, some of their mass vaporizes, producing a long tail and other debris (a). Comets also fragment frequently or crash into the Sun (b) or planets. Typical comets should disintegrate after several hundred orbits. For many comets this is less than 10,000 years. There is no evidence for a distant shell of cometary material surrounding the solar system, and there is no known way to add comets to the solar system at rates that even remotely balance their destruction. Actually, the gravity of planets tends to expel comets from the solar system rather than capture them ©. So, comets and the solar system appear to be less than 10,000 years old. [For more on comets, see: “The Origin of Comets”]

 

a. Ron Cowen, “Comets: Mudballs of the Solar System,” Science News, Vol. 141, 14 March 1992, pp. 170–171.

 

b. Ray Jayawardhana, “Keeping Tabs on Cometary Breakups,” Science, Vol. 264, 13 May 1994, p. 907.

 

c. “Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.” Sagan and Druyan, p. 210.

 

However, Sagan and Druyan believed that the Oort cloud exists, and went on to predict (p. 211) that “with the refinement of our scientific instruments, and the development of space missions to go far beyond Pluto,” the cloud will be seen, measured, and studied.

 

d. Raymond A. Lyttleton, “The Non-Existence of the Oort Cometary Shell,” Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, December 1974, p. 393.

 

If comet formation accompanies star formation, as evolutionists claim, then many comets should have been expelled from other stars. Some expelled comets should have passed through our solar system in recent years. No incoming comet has ever been observed with an interstellar (i.e. hyperbolic) orbit. [see Wetherill, p. 470.]

 

 

Small Comets

 

 

Photographs taken from Earth-orbiting satellites show small, ice-filled comets striking Earth’s upper atmosphere at an average rate of one every three seconds (a).

 

 

Figure 33: Small Comets. The Dynamic Explorer satellite took this picture in ultraviolet light showing small comets (the dark spots) colliding with Earth’s upper atmosphere. The comets begin to break up 800 miles above the Earth’s surface, then frictional heating vaporizes the pieces and their descent stops at an elevation of about 35 miles. The water vapor, which soon dissipates, blocks ultraviolet light from Earth, producing the dark spots. The northern lights are shown by the halo.

 

Each comet adds 20–40 tons of water to the Earth’s atmosphere. If this influx began when evolutionists say the Earth started to evolve, all our oceans would have come from small comets. Actually, impact rates were undoubtedly greater in the past, because the planets have swept many of these comets from the solar system. Therefore, small comets would have placed much more water on Earth than is here today. Obviously, this did not happen, so oceans look young. [see also pages 287 and 295

 

a. Louis A. Frank with Patrick Huyghe, The Big Splash (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990).

 

Richard Monastersky, “Comet Controversy Caught on Film,” Science News, Vol. 133, 28 May 1988, p. 340.

 

Timothy M. Beardsley, “Ice Storm,” Scientific American, Vol. 258, June 1988, p. 24.

 

Jonathan Eberhart, “A Bunch of Little Comets—But Just a Little Bunch,” Science News, Vol. 132, 29 August 1987, p. 132.

 

Richard A. Kerr, “In Search of Elusive Little Comets,” Science, Vol. 240, 10 June 1988, pp. 1403–1404.

 

Richard A. Kerr, “Double Exposures Reveal Mini-Comets?” Science, Vol. 243, 13 January 1989, pp. 170–171.

 

Richard Monastersky, “Small Comet Controversy Flares Again,” Science News, Vol. 137, 9 June 1990, p. 365.

 

 

Hot Planets

 

 

Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune each radiate away more than twice the heat energy they receive from the Sun (a). Uranus (b) and Venus © also radiate too much heat. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from nuclear fusion (d), radioactive decay, gravitational contraction, or phase changes (e) within those planets. This suggests that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off (f).

 

a. H. H. Aumann and C. M. Gillespie Jr., “The Internal Powers and Effective Temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, July 1969, pp. L69–L72.

 

“Jupiter radiates into space rather more than twice the energy it receives from space.” G. H. A. Cole, The Structure of Planets (New York: Crane, Russak & Co., Inc., 1978), p. 114.

 

M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Puzzle That Is Saturn,” Science, 18 September 1981, p. 1351.

 

Jonathan Eberhart, “Neptune’s Inner Warmth,” Science News, Vol. 112, 12 November 1977, p. 316.

 

b. Ibid.

 

c. “The Mystery of Venus’ Internal Heat,” New Scientist, Vol. 88, 13 November 1980, p. 437.

 

d. To initiate nuclear fusion, a body must be at least ten times as massive as Jupiter. [see Andrew P. Ingersoll, “Jupiter and Saturn,” Scientific American, Vol. 245, December 1981, p. 92.]

 

e. Ingersoll and others once proposed that Saturn and Jupiter could generate internal heat if their helium gas liquefied or their liquid hydrogen solidified. Neither is possible, because each planet’s temperature greatly exceeds the critical temperatures of helium and hydrogen. (The critical temperature of a particular gas is that temperature above which no amount of pressure can squeeze it into a liquid or solid.) Even if the temperature were cold enough to permit gases to liquefy, what could initiate nucleation? When I mentioned this in a private conversation with Ingersoll in December 1981, he quickly acknowledged his error.

 

f. Paul M. Steidl, “The Solar System: An Assessment of Recent Evidence—Planets, Comets, and Asteroids,” Design and Origins in Astronomy, editor George Mulfinger Jr. (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1983), pp. 87, 91, 100.

 

Jupiter would have rapidly cooled to its present temperature, even if it had been an unreasonably hot 20,000 kelvins when it formed. Evolutionary models require too much time. [see Edwin V. Bishop and Wendell C. DeMarcus, “Thermal Histories of Jupiter Models,” Icarus, Vol. 12, May 1970, pp. 317–330.]

 

 

Solar Wind

 

 

The Sun’s radiation applies an outward force on particles orbiting the Sun. Particles less than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have been “blown out” of the solar system if it were billions of years old. Yet these particles are still orbiting the Sun. (a) Conclusion: the solar system appears young.

 

a. After showing abundant photographic evidence for the presence of micrometeorites as small as 10^-15 g that “struck every square centimeter of the lunar surface,” Stuart Ross Taylor stated:

 

“It has been thought previously that radiation pressure would have swept less massive particles out of the inner solar system, but there is a finite flux below 10^-14 g.” Stuart Ross Taylor, Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View (New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1975), p. 90.

 

Large lunar impacts are continually churning up and overturning the lunar surface. Therefore, for these micrometeorite impacts to blanket the surface so completely, they must have been recent. [For more details see: Figure 155]

 

 

Poynting-Robertson Effect

 

 

Dust particles larger than about a 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter form a large disk-shaped cloud that orbits the Sun between the orbits of Venus and the asteroid belt. This cloud produces zodiacal light (a). Forces acting on these particles should spiral most of them into the Sun in less than 10,000 years. (This is called the Poynting-Robertson effect. ) Known forces and sources of replenishment cannot maintain this cloud, so the solar system is probably less than 10,000 years old.

 

This is how the Poynting-Robertson effect works: Rain falling on a speeding car tends to strike the front of the car and slow it down slightly. Likewise, the Sun’s rays that strike particles orbiting the Sun tend to slow them down, causing them to spiral into the Sun. Thus, the Sun’s radiation and gravity act as a giant vacuum cleaner that pulls in about 100,000 tons of nearby micrometeoroids per day. Disintegrating comets and asteroids add dust at less than half the rate at which it is being destroyed (b).

 

A disintegrating comet becomes a cluster of particles called a meteor stream. The Poynting-Robertson effect causes smaller particles in a meteor stream to spiral into the Sun more rapidly than larger particles. After about 10,000 years, these orbits should be visibly segregated by particle size. Because this segregation is generally not seen, meteor streams are probably a recent phenomenon ©.

 

Huge quantities of microscopic dust particles also have been discovered around some stars (d). Yet, according to the theory of stellar evolution, those stars are many millions of years old, so that dust should have been removed by stellar wind and the Poynting-Robertson effect. Until some process is discovered that continually resupplies vast amounts of dust, one should consider whether the “millions of years” are imaginary.

 

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

To understand the origin of zodiacal light, see page 319.

 

b. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 60–61.

 

Harold S. Slusher and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System: A Study of the Poynting-Robertson Effect and Extinction of Interplanetary Dust, ICR Technical Monograph No. 6, revised edition (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978).

 

c. Stanley P. Wyatt Jr. and Fred L. Whipple, “The Poynting-Robertson Effect on Meteor Orbits,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 3, January 1950, pp. 134–141.

 

Ron Cowen, “Meteorites: To Stream or Not to Stream,” Science News, Vol. 142, 1 August 1992, p. 71.

 

d. David A. Weintraub, “Comets in Collision,” Nature, Vol. 351, 6 June 1991, pp. 440–441.

 

 

Supernova Remnants

 

 

In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so (a). These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen (b). So, the Milky Way looks young.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...rab_nebula.jpg " />

Figure 34: The Crab Nebula. In A.D. 1054, Chinese observers (and perhaps Anasazi Indians in New Mexico and Arizona) witnessed and described a supernova. It was visible in daylight for 23 days and briefly was as bright as a full moon. Today, the remnants from that explosion comprise the Crab Nebula.

 

a. “An application of the present results to the [Milky Way] Galaxy yields one supernova per 26 (± 10 estimated error) years in very good agreement with the evidence from historical supernovae.” G. A. Tammann, “On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.

 

• A more recent technique that surveyed thousands of galaxies, including smaller galaxies, concluded that

... the time between [supernova] explosions is 100 years or more.” Michael S. Turner, “Yes, Things Really Are Going Faster,” Science, Vol. 299, 31 January 2003, p. 663.

 

b. Keith Davies, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1994), pp. 175–184.

 

“Where have all the remnants gone?” Astronomy Survey Committee of the National Research Council, Challenges to Astronomy and Astrophysics (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983), p. 166.

 

 

Connected Galaxies

 

 

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.

 

 

Unstable Galaxies

 

 

Computer simulations of the motions of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable; they should completely change their shape in only a small fraction of the universe’s assumed evolutionary age (a). The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.

 

a. David Fleischer, “The Galaxy Maker,” Science Digest, October 1981, Vol. 89, pp. 12, 116.

 

 

Galaxy Clusters

 

 

Hundreds of rapidly moving galaxies often cluster tightly together. Their relative velocities, as inferred by the redshifts of their light, are so high that these clusters should be flying apart, because each cluster’s visible mass is much too small to hold its galaxies together gravitationally (a). Because galaxies within clusters are so close together, they have not been flying apart for very long.

 

A similar statement can be made concerning many stars in spiral galaxies and gas clouds that surround some galaxies (b). These stars and gas clouds have such high relative velocities that they should have broken their “gravitational bonds” long ago if they were billions of years old. If the redshifted starlight always indicates a star’s velocity, then a billion-year-old universe is completely inconsistent with what is observed.

 

These observations have led some to conclude, not that the universe is young, but that unseen, undetected mass—called dark matter—is holding these stars and galaxies together. For this to work, about 80% of the mass in the universe must be invisible—and hidden in the right places. However, many experiments have shown that the needed “missing mass” does not exist ©. Some researchers are still searching, because the alternative is a young universe. See Missing Mass.

 

a. “In 1933 the late Fritz Zwicky pointed out that the galaxies of the Coma cluster are moving too fast: there is not enough visible mass in the galaxies to bind the cluster together by gravity. Subsequent observations verified this ‘missing’ mass in other clusters.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe,” Science, Vol. 219, 4 March 1983, p. 1050.

 

b. Faye Flam, “NASA PR: Hype or Public Education?” Science, Vol. 260, 4 June 1993, pp. 1417–1418.

 

“It turns out that in almost every case the velocities of the individual galaxies are high enough to allow them to escape from the cluster. In effect, the clusters are ‘boiling.’ This statement is certainly true if we assume that the only gravitational force present is that exerted by visible matter, but it is true even if we assume that every galaxy in the cluster, like the Milky Way, is surrounded by a halo of dark matter that contains 90 percent of the mass of the galaxy.” Trefil, p. 93.

 

Gerardus D. Bouw, “Galaxy Clusters and the Mass Anomaly,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 14, September 1977, pp. 108–112.

 

Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible, pp. 179–185.

 

Silk, The Big Bang, pp. 188–191.

 

Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.

 

Halton M. Arp, “NGC-1199,” Astronomy, Vol. 6, September 1978, p. 15.

 

Halton M. Arp, “Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts,” Astrophysical Journal, 15 July 1980, pp. 469–474.

 

c. A huge dust ring has been observed orbiting two galaxies. The measured orbital velocity of this ring allows the calculation of the mass of the two galaxies and any hidden mass. There was little hidden mass. Statistical analyses of 155 other small galactic groups also suggest that there is not enough hidden mass to hold them together. [see Stephen E. Schneider, “Neutral Hydrogen in the M96 Group: The Galaxies and the Intergalactic Ring,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 343, 1 August 1989, pp. 94–106.]

 

Conclusion

 

All dating techniques, especially the few that suggest vast ages, presume that a process observed today has proceeded at a known, but not necessarily constant, rate. This assumption may be grossly inaccurate. Projecting present processes and rates far back in time is more likely to produce errors than extrapolation over a much shorter time. Furthermore, a much better understanding usually exists for dating “clocks” that show a young Earth and a young universe.

 

This contrary evidence understandably disturbs those who have always been told that the Earth is billions of years old. Can you imagine how disturbing such evidence is to confirmed evolutionists?

 

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1260517

 

BoddhiBody: Abiogenesis just means the becoming of simple life from inorganic substances. Spontaneous generation is the sudden appearance of complex life from inorganic material without evolution in between. The latter is the YEC dogma and it is not supported by any honest evidence we have of life.

 

Pahu: Actually, it is evolutionists who believe in the spontaneous generation of life from lifeless matter.

 

BoddhiBody: Intelligent design, you should be aware, does NOT have to be mutually exclusive with evolution.

 

Pahu: Intelligent design teaches the cause of everything is by an Intelligent Designer. Evolution teaches the cause of everything is by unintelligent, mindless, natural events. The two teachings are mutually exclusive.

 

BoddhiBody: There are plenty of religious scientists who believe that the hand of God guided the processes of the development of life, but ANY of them who are reputable will recognize the overwhelming evidence for evolution. 

 

Pahu: Where is that overwhelming evidence?