Science Disproves Evolution

[jerryR34]

Pahu, on 13 Jun 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Pahu: Where is that overwhelming evidence?

 

 

 

I hope you are not saying your word walls are evidence of anything.  I've refuted many of them in this thread...they are old and tired attacks on real science.  I noticed there was a grand total of 1 citation in your outburst that was from the 21st century.  You only attack science...please try providing natural evidence of the God of the Bible, otherwise you make science and God look foolish.  God is about faith.

Edited June 13, 2014 by jerryR34

[Guest]

....You only attack science....

 

....please try providing natural evidence of the God of the Bible....

 

....otherwise you make science....

 

....and God look foolish....

 

....God is about faith....

 

 

Faith Is About Evidence

 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

 

And About The Power Of God Almighty

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 1:3

 

And While Many Of Today's Critical Thinkers Know Scientism Is About Fools

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

They Also Know That Too Many So Called Modern Day "Great" Men Of Science Are All About Fables

 

You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”? Isaiah 29:16 (ESV)

 

And Not About The Truth

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

~

 

Beloved,

 

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

 

Whom Will You Worship....

 

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[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.

 

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.

 

Im not quote mining I have read this whole thread.

[BoddhiBody]

[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.

 

Helium doesn't escape by simple thermal-gravitational processes on Earth. This is not Jupiter. Earth's helium escapes from the poles. There is no discrepancy between its rate of escape and Earth's age, except when you assume Earth is actually much much bigger than it is, which it isn't, obviously.

 

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.

 

 

The lack of diffusion in rocks close to the surface doesn't dictate the age of the rock itself, but the onset of higher temperatures, which would be recent considering the rock closer to the surface is not subject to temperatures like the deeper rock. Go fish.

 

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.

 

Absolutely doesn't work. The material overlying oil deposits is enough to sustain the pressure beneath them. What you're saying is like saying that lava should just entirely dissipate from beneath the Earth's surface because of the pressure it's under. It's nonsense. It's under pressure because of what's above it, thus that pressure is sustained. Just like water under pressure turns into OH and sits inside rocks under the surface of the Earth. The surface doesn't magically disappear. It moves, and sometimes water comes out. Hence geysers and hot springs. This argument is actually so nonsensical I can't believe I'm dignifying it with a response.

 

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.

 

Erosion. Earthquakes. Tsunamis. Rising Sea Levels. Shifting Tectonics. The fact that the entire Earth's sedimentary rock has not been tested to see how much of it is volcanic. Does none of this mean anything to you?

 

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.

 

This claim is based on the idea that cement hardens at the same rate as sedimentary deposits. I don't think anything else is needed to refute this, but I'll give it anyway. Sediments are carried by oceans and end up on other land masses. Duh. Topsoil gets transported between lands. Not to mention again, sea levels rise and dip constantly, covering different lands. Lands that may have been dry for many, many hundreds of thousands or millions of years before they were covered by the seas.

 

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.

 

Does matter simply disappear or does it end up in different places? This is ridiculous.

 

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.

 

Argument from ignorance. 'No known method' does not mean 'no method'. Besides, calculating the methods of removal of these elements in rivers is not accurate, so much so that its margin of error leaves room for a state of equilibrium. You forgot deposition of these elements, too - all of which are heavier than water.

 

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.

 

These are all massive overestimates for how many subterranean meteorites should be found and it assumes they should be easy to find. Ridiculous. Its literally like looking for needles in a haystack and saying, 'there should be more needles found so far, thus evolution is false'.

 

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.

 

Aggghh! Deposition and sedimentation of solids. Ocean currents and carriage of materials. 16 feet of dust is NOTHING over 4 billion years. It would be spread out over an entire Earth, washed and changed, churned up and covered in ice, moved and deposited over the entire Earth AGAIN and AGAIN until its unfindable. Earth's crust does have a lot of nickel. Meteoric dust also burns into TINY, TINY particles, enough to make the effect of such dust negligible in its deposits of solid nickel. 

 

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.

 

Lol this is theargument they teach in schools as a great historic example of a claim that doesn't take everything into account. Kelvin claimed this a hundred years ago and the very moment that the energy from radioactive decay was discovered was when he himself refuted his own claim. Still citing this is just plain ignorance.

 

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]

 

The moon is receding faster than usual. These calculations assume it always receded at the same rate. They have been proven to be false. Thompson, 1999. Go fish.

 

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.]

 

As relates to this and your above claim about meteoric dust, Peterson's measurements of the amount of dust landing on Earth and the moon are plain wrong (which are the measurements this nonsense is based on). They are wrong by a factor of about 1000. There is FAR less dust descending than he thought. even most creationists don't use this one anymore.

 

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.”

 

Lower viscosities for rock require MASSIVE temperatures. The moon doesn't have 'em. Temperatures on Mercury and Venus may be hot enough to melt lead, but Mercury is made of Iron and Silicate while Venus is pretty much a tectonically inactive planet, with an atmosphere so thick it destroys everything that enters it. Measuring crater creep is ridiculous there. Go fish.

 

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]

 

Oh yea, let's take relatively new information on the heat of the mantle of the moon with old information about its center being cold and misrepresent Short's study entirely. No. You can't have it both ways. If the mantle is hot, the centre is hotter, just like Short says. Go fish.

 

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.]

 

Yes there is evidence - the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. All your evidence is OLD. We can verify the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt with telescopic evidence now, and we have. Go fish.

 

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.

 

The rate of expulsion of material was also greater back then, as was the temperature, melting comets and causing water to become OH, vast amounts of which (more than all the water on Earth's surface combined) has just been discovered this week in rock underneath the Earth's surface, thus the comet mystery is solved. Go fish.

 

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.]

 

They're both much larger than Earth - Saturn and Jupiter. Gravitational heat and radioactive decay in these planets accounts for nearly all their heat output. Since they're distance far enough from the sun to recieve little heat from it, it's absolutely NO surprise that their heat output is greater than the energy they get from the sun. Go fish.

 

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]

 

The sun also exerts an unfathomable gravitational force, shredding rocks into small dust constantly. The more comes in, the more it gets shredded. This theory ignores the replenishment of rocky material. Go fish.

 

 

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.

 

Same as above. The replenishment clouds past Pluto have been proven. This 'evidence' is out of date. Go fish.

 

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.

 

The remnants exist forever, but as they spread out, become nearly impossible to see. This is just ignorant of our current telescopic capabilities. Only the biggest Supernovas are currently still detectable, like SNR 0450-709, which exploded several hundred thousand years ago. That's the exception to the current rule considering our telescopic capability. But it's enough to disprove these claims. Go fish.

 

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.

 

In space, close proximity does not imply two objects are gravitationally bound. Sometimes stars are far enough away to have little to no gravitational effect on one another, likewise, two objects going different directions does not necissarily mean they were 'together' and are 'moving away'. They could simply be passing each other too fast to be gravitationally bound. Again, your 'evidence' is old. Look for V Rubin's work on the matter. Go fish.

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.]

 

Motion adds weight. See above. The second reference in blue explains the first discovery. You disproved your own point. Go fish.

 

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?

Evolution teaches the evolution of species. It says nothing about how life began. It only explains how life evolved once it was established. If you want to believe evolution is the result of the God who generated the energy of the universe, go right ahead. Evolutionary theory doesn't stop you or impede you in that.

 

Regardless of that, all your evidence for the young Earth is outdated, not well presented and goes against scientific consensus. It's old, and it's from a creationist website that doesn't seem to be making very up-do-date, genuine, honest scientific claims.

Edited June 16, 2014 by BoddhiBody

[coheir]

All this evolving; seems like mountain people would have evolved hoofs to make life easier and city people would have evolved wheels of some sort instead of feet to better their life in the city. Desert prople would evole pads on feet to better travel the sand. Havent seen it yet though.

[BoddhiBody]

All this evolving; seems like mountain people would have evolved hoofs to make life easier and city people would have evolved wheels of some sort instead of feet to better their life in the city. Desert prople would evole pads on feet to better travel the sand. Havent seen it yet though.

And maybe more people might have evolved rational brains able to comprehend the world around them in logical terms. Haven't seen too many of those either.

 

It takes many millions of years, Coheir. Your response shows a real lack of understanding.

Edited June 16, 2014 by BoddhiBody

[Pahu]

Pahu, on 13 Jun 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Pahu: Where is that overwhelming evidence?

 

 

 

I hope you are not saying your word walls are evidence of anything.  I've refuted many of them in this thread...they are old and tired attacks on real science.  I noticed there was a grand total of 1 citation in your outburst that was from the 21st century.  You only attack science...please try providing natural evidence of the God of the Bible, otherwise you make science and God look foolish.  God is about faith.

 

 

Science Proves God

 

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

 

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

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

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

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

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[From Reincarnation in the Bible?]

[coheir]

 

All this evolving; seems like mountain people would have evolved hoofs to make life easier and city people would have evolved wheels of some sort instead of feet to better their life in the city. Desert prople would evole pads on feet to better travel the sand. Havent seen it yet though.

And maybe more people might have evolved rational brains able to comprehend the world around them in logical terms. Haven't seen too many of those either.

 

It takes many millions of years, Coheir. Your response shows a real lack of understanding.

 

They claim men have been around for 2.5 millions of years. Its more of a lack of belief in 

evolution.

[Guest]

All this evolving; seems like mountain people would have evolved hoofs to make life easier and city people would have evolved wheels of some sort instead of feet to better their life in the city. Desert people would evolute pads on feet to better travel in the sand. Haven't seen it yet though.

And maybe more people might have evolved rational brains able to comprehend the world around them in logical terms. Haven't seen too many of those either.

 

It takes many millions of years, Coheir. Your response shows a real lack of understanding.

 

They claim men have been around for 2.5 millions of years. It's more of a lack of belief in 

evolution.

 

 

Is It Rational That The Blind Think To Talk

 

How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"? Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"? Isaiah 29:16 (NLT)

 

Of The Power

 

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

 

And Grace

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

Of God

 

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. John 10:10

 

Almighty?

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

[jerryR34]

 

Pahu, on 13 Jun 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Pahu: Where is that overwhelming evidence?

 

 

 

I hope you are not saying your word walls are evidence of anything.  I've refuted many of them in this thread...they are old and tired attacks on real science.  I noticed there was a grand total of 1 citation in your outburst that was from the 21st century.  You only attack science...please try providing natural evidence of the God of the Bible, otherwise you make science and God look foolish.  God is about faith.

 

 

Science Proves God

 

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

 

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

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

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

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

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[From Reincarnation in the Bible?]

 

Your whole post falls apart at number 4.  Define nothing.