Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The following is just a concise summary of my **link removed **at my apologetics website,  **name removed ***

1. Human Population Growth:

Annual population growth rates exceed 1% in most of the world's countries, and at a 1% growth rate one goes from 8 people to 7 billion in just 2,071 years. Even if assuming population grew just half as fast as it does today, at a 0.50% growth rate, human civilization would still be only 4,130 years old. And if dropping down to rates just 1/5th the rates seen today, at a 0.20% growth rate, 8 individuals still grow to 7 billion in just 6,849 years.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2002rank.html

For an Evolutionist to argue that human population has been around millions of years they must argue that growth has been at a standstill all that time, and that human population did not begin growing substantially until the past 10,000 years. This is a strong evidence the world is younger.

2. Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Multiple instances have now been documented of dinosaur soft tissue including flexible blood vessels and preserved dinosaur skin. Even large numbers of dinosaur eggs with the soft eggshells preserved by massive amounts of sediment after being flooded out of their nests were discovered. While iron has been shown to be capable of preserving soft tissue for 2 years, it does not explain how the organic material could have been preserved for tens of millions, contrary to all predictions of evolution.

Examples:

A) 2005 discovery of T-Rex soft tissue.

B) 2009 discovery of hadrosaur soft tissue.

C) 2013 discovery of hadrosaur soft tissue.

D) 2013 lufengosaurus egg soft tissue.

3. Transitional Forms

Darwin's falsifiable prediction that the fossil record would produce the required transitions between core types of life has been utterly proven false. Thus his original model of phyletic gradualism was largely abandoned after 1972 when Gould and Eldredge created a new theory, Punctuated Equilibrium, proposing evolution just sped up too fast for the transitions to appear in the fossil record - a convenient way of denying the fossil record's evidence to move the goalposts.

Evolution: Library: Punctuated Equilibrium
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_3/j11_3_292-298.pdf

Transitions listed today in Wikipedia's list of transitional forms are the same types of life seen today, ancient snails and nautiloids (e.g. Ammonoidea, Nautiloidea) which are similar to snails and nautiloids seen today. Ancient octopi (e.g. Palaeoctopus, Proteroctopus, Vampyronassa) which are strikingly similar to octopi seen today. There are ancient cockroaches (Aphthoroblattina), butterflies (Archaeolepis), spiders (Attercopus, Eoplectreurys), bees (Melittosphex), ants (Sphecomyrma), and leaf insects (Eophyllium), similar to insects today. There are ancient pangolins (Eomanis). There are ancient deer (Heteroprox), camels (Protylopus), and antelope (Eotragus). Etc. However, what is generally lacking are the transitions between these core types of life. Microevolution is compatible with the Genesis 1 account where species were told to speciate after their kinds, and does not infer a common ancestor.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A number of bipedal fossils have been discovered in recent years, and the oldest hominids in humanity's family tree are all now recognized to have walked upright and had unusual complexity similar to modern man, such as advanced faces. Orrorin tugenensis walked upright and was in an advanced stage of evolution. Sahelanthropus tchadensis discovered walked upright and had the face of a hominid half its age. Ardipithecus ramidus walked upright and was so advanced it disproved the popular apes to humans theory. Footprints discovered in 2009 showed Erectus walked upright. And Lucy, aka Afarensis, walked upright per a new study in 2011.

* Ardipithecus:

Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found

* Orrorin:

BBC News | SCI/TECH | 'Oldest' ape-man fossils unearthed

* Sahelanthropus:

Palaeoanthropology: Hominid revelations from Chad : Article : Nature
Facelift seals standing of oldest hominid : Nature News

Oldest member of human family found : Nature News

* Erectus:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/science/27foot.html

* Afarensis:

"Lucy" Was No Swinger, Walked Like Us, Fossil Suggests

On top of this a large number of alleged missing links have been discovered to have coexisted so that their evolving from one another as had been claimed is highly unlikedly. Most notably Afarensis and Ramidus coexisted, Neanderthals and Humans coexisted, and Habilis and Erectus coexisted.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Finds test human origins theory
A New Discovery in Human Evolution - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Skull May Alter Experts' View Of Human Descent's Branches - NYTimes.com
Fossils paint messy picture of human origins - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

Oldest <i>Homo Sapiens</i> Fossils Found, Experts Say

4. Microevolutionary Rates

Microevolutionary rates today are consistent with a young earth, rather than millions or billions of years.

Rapid Evolution

Examples include Australia's cane toads which evolved longer legs and heat tolerance within a few decades, Italian wall lizards which evolved larger heads and new gut structures within a few decades, flowering plants, and rodents. That they can adapt so quickly suggests Earth is far younger, and that a common ancestor is false or we should be able to see the transitions between core types of life occur.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
PLOS Biology: Rapid Evolution of Enormous, Multichromosomal Genomes in Flowering Plant Mitochondria with Exceptionally High Mutation Rates
PLOS ONE: Recent and Widespread Rapid Morphological Change in Rodents

Edited by ncn
link to personal web site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have removed the link in your OP.

 

Please keep in mind that this is not about your website, it is about this site,advertising and adding links.

We currently have over 67, 000 members on this site. 

Imagine what it would be like if everyone who chose to do so began advertising their own personal blog or website? 

We, a ministry for Christ, would become no more than an online advertising billboard, losing the mission we are called to do.

 

Just a friendly reminder,

 

Please keep in mind that we all do a bit of teaching in what we write, but teaching in general is not allowed on the boards.

Only those who are in Worthy Ministry are allowed to teach.

 

If you had an answer all along and through your questioning, you were leading up to what you believe.

This is teaching.

The questions are not necessary when you already have an answer in mind.

Present your thoughts first and open it up for a discussion.

That is the difference between teaching and discussing.

If we allowed every member to "teach", imagine what sort of teaching we would find.

 

God Bless. 

 

Nigel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You put forward some good arguments.

 

One of my favorites topics relates to the Purdue and Israel Geological Survey studies.  These studies put complete doubt on the "age of the earth" and currently accepted radiometric dates.

 

Through their studies you can see a direct correlation between solar/cosmic penetration of the magnetic field and drops in decay rates. The weaker the penetration , the faster the decay. The stronger the penetration, the slower the decay.  This relationship can be seen during solar flares, between summer and winter, and even at the daily peaks that naturally occur at midnight (midnight is when the solar wind penetrates the magnetic field at right angles, creating most penetration).

 

The current scientific position is that these changes are negligible, but this lacks logic when applied to history. If small reductions in solar/cosmic penetration cause small increases in decay, of course massive reductions in solar/cosmic penetration would cause massive increases in decay rates.  And history shows the magnetic field was vastly stronger than today's magnetic field, and would have therefore caused vast increases in radiometric decay rates in the past. All assumptions of the constancy of radiometric decay are illogical and incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply, is the old earth theory actually contradictory to biblical teaching? What are the thoughts on beliving in such things as the gap theory, and an ancient universe, as being in accordance with Christianity?

Or is the belief in an ancient earth antagonistic to being a Christian? From my own studies, I have not observed that the bible explicity states how old the earth is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing any arguments for a young earth. Evolution could be completely false and it wouldn't mean the earth is young. Creation could be true and it wouldn't mean the earth is young.

Edited by Bonky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Bonky, the reason I ask is because I honestly do not know what I believe concerning this subject. Regardless of what is true, I personally do not see that evidence for an old earth/old universe would negate biblical teaching... and I dare say that it would certainly not negate a believer's faith, because in my eyes an old earth does not prove the bible to be false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing any arguments for a young earth. Evolution could be completely false and it wouldn't mean the earth is young. Creation could be true and it wouldn't mean the earth is young.

 

=============================================================================

 

I haven't seen One "Valid" argument for an Old Earth.

 

Young Earth Evidence:

1.  Genesis

2.  Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years.  A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years.

Question:  Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years?

3.  Helium in Zircons. http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

4.  Jupiter gives off twice as much heat as it receives from the sun...if it were Billions of years old it would be an Icicle!

5.  Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.

http://creation.com/...ge-of-the-earth

6.  Recession of the Moon...it would have been touching the Earth @ 1.4-1.5 Billion Years ago

7.  The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Hydrogen/ Helium Ratio and Luminosity.  The average Temp of the Earth today is 15C (59 degrees F) so the average temperature 3.5 billion years ago would have been -2C (28 degrees F).  The Planet would've been engulfed with ICE!  And once there, the feedback loop keeps it there.

8.  Dinosaur Soft Tissue

9.  Recorded History

 

Here's 101 reasons:  http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth if you got some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

=============================================================================

 

I haven't seen One "Valid" argument for an Old Earth.

The title of the thread is "Arguments for Young Earth Creationism".

 

Young Earth Evidence:

1.  Genesis

2.  Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years.  A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years.

Question:  Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years?

3.  Helium in Zircons. http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

4.  Jupiter gives off twice as much heat as it receives from the sun...if it were Billions of years old it would be an Icicle!

5.  Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.

http://creation.com/...ge-of-the-earth

6.  Recession of the Moon...it would have been touching the Earth @ 1.4-1.5 Billion Years ago

7.  The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Hydrogen/ Helium Ratio and Luminosity.  The average Temp of the Earth today is 15C (59 degrees F) so the average temperature 3.5 billion years ago would have been -2C (28 degrees F).  The Planet would've been engulfed with ICE!  And once there, the feedback loop keeps it there.

8.  Dinosaur Soft Tissue

9.  Recorded History

 

Here's 101 reasons:  http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth if you got some time.

Once again, you're not confirming a young earth, you're merely laying out arguments that attempt to cast doubt on billions or millions of years. The Earth could still be 50,000 years old and it would be way too old for a biblical timeframe. You, and many others seem to think, if I can cast any doubt on billions of years, I automatically win. That's not exactly how this works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Once again, you're not confirming a young earth, you're merely laying out arguments that attempt to cast doubt on billions or millions of years. The Earth could still be 50,000 years old and it would be way too old for a biblical timeframe. You, and many others seem to think, if I can cast any doubt on billions of years, I automatically win. That's not exactly how this works.

 

 

 

====================================================================================

 

 

The title of the thread is "Arguments for Young Earth Creationism".

 

So? I wasn't replying to the Title of the Thread, I was responding directly to Your statement......"I'm not seeing any arguments for a young earth."  Then proceeded to give evidences.

 

 

Once again, you're not confirming a young earth, you're merely laying out arguments that attempt to cast doubt on billions or millions of years.

 

That's Factually Incorrect. SEE:

 

Helium in Zircons.

 

Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.

 

Since it took you just over 10 minutes to retort...you probably didn't look @ them closely.

 

 

The Earth could still be 50,000 years old and it would be way too old for a biblical timeframe

 

Factually Incorrect.

 

As long as there was no Death/Disease/Thorns before Adam sinned....it would still line up with Scripture.

 

 

if I can cast any doubt on billions of years

 

Yes, it's easy.  Just Introduce the Scientific Method and ALL techniques Vapor Lock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? I wasn't replying to the Title of the Thread, I was responding directly to Your statement......"I'm not seeing any arguments for a young earth."  Then proceeded to give evidences.

In essence you weren't replying to the topic. The topic is "Evidences for a young earth". We shouldn't be surprised that we're not finding evidences offered for an old one.

 

 

Once again, you're not confirming a young earth, you're merely laying out arguments that attempt to cast doubt on billions or millions of years.

 

That's Factually Incorrect. SEE:

 

Helium in Zircons.

Humphreys has a lot of critics, even creationists who are critics of his research. I wouldn't call this strong evidence at all.

 

Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.

 

Since it took you just over 10 minutes to retort...you probably didn't look @ them closely.

I don't care about Uranus or Neptune, the subject is Earth.

 

 

The Earth could still be 50,000 years old and it would be way too old for a biblical timeframe

 

Factually Incorrect.

 

As long as there was no Death/Disease/Thorns before Adam sinned....it would still line up with Scripture.

Then where do the 6000 - 10,000 year ages of the Earth come from? Not from a vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By KiwiChristian
      Yes, this is LONG. No need for you to tell me that, or tell me that no-one will read it.
       
      The Fine Tuning of the Universe as Evidence for the Existence of God 
      Bible Reading: Psalm 19:1-14; Revelation 4:1-11.
      Youtube.com video: “Fine Tuning of the Universe – Reasonable Faith.” 
      Memory Verse. Proverbs 3:19 " The LORD by wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has he established the heavens. 
      Aim: To consider some proofs for the existence of a Creator God Who intervenes in human affairs. 
      Introduction: Some people think that science and evolution have disproved God.
      This is a very out-dated idea. The more we learn about the universe and the Bible, the more convinced we become of the existence of an infinitely intelligent designer of the universe. 
      I. Bible Verses Teaching the Greatness of God as the Designer of the Universe “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” Romans 11:33. “Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?” Job 38:33. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” Psalm 19:1. “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: & the heavens are the work of thy hands” Psalm 102:25 “To him that by wisdom made the heavens:” Psalm 136:5. “The LORD by wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has he established the heavens. Pro 3:19. “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth” Prov 8:27 “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;” Isaiah 44:24. “Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.” Isaiah 48:13. “He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.” Jeremiah 10:12. “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” Revelation 4:11. 
      II. The Fine Tuning of the Constants of the Universe From galaxies down to subatomic particles, the very structure of the universe is determined by finely tuned values of physical constants, such as: 1. The Speed of Light. C = 299,792,458 m/second. 2. The Gravitational constant. G = 6.673 x 10‾ ˡˡ m3/kg/sec2 3. Planck’s Constant = 1.0547148 x 10‾34 m²kg/ sec² 4. Planck Mass-Energy = 1.2209 x 10²² MeV 5. Electron mass = 0.511 MeV; Proton mass = 938.3 MeV; Neutron mass = 939.6 MeV. 6. Cosmological constant = (2.3 x 10‾³ eV)‾4 7. Hubble constant = 71 km/sec/Mpc Each of these numbers has been carefully dialled to an astonishingly precise value that falls between an exceedingly narrow, life permitting range. If any one of these numbers were altered by a very small amount, no physical life of any kind could exist anywhere. There would be no stars, no planets, no life, no chemical elements. Consider Gravity. The force of gravity is determined by the gravitational constant “G”. F = Gmm/r² . If this constant “G” varied by 1 part in 10 to the power of 60 parts, none of us would exist. This is 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If the Gravitational constant had been out by just 1 of these infinitesimally small increments, the universe would have expanded and thinned out so rapidly that no stars could form and life could not exist, or it would have collapsed back on itself with the same result of no stars, no planets and no life forming. Consider the Expansion rate of the universe. This is driven by the Cosmological constant “lambda” ‘ᴧ’. A change in this constant by 1 part in 10 to the power of 120, would cause the universe to expand too rapidly or too slowly, in either case causing the universe to be life prohibiting. Consider the Mass and Energy of the early universe.
      If these were not evenly distributed to a precision of 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 with 122 zeroes, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind. 1685 Our universe only permits physical interactive life only because these and many other numbers have been independently and exquisitely balanced on a razor’s edge. “Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine tuning.” Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at Cambridge University. “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Stephen Hawking, Theoretical physicist and Cosmologist, Cambridge. “These special features are surprising and unlikely.” David Deutsch, Physicist at Oxford University.
      Question: What is the best explanation for this astoundingly precise fine tuning of these constants?
      Answer: The Fine Tuning of the universe is due either to a) Necessity, b) Chance, or c) Design.
      Which of these is more likely? a) Necessity? These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. There is no reason or evidence to suggest that fine tuning is necessary. b) Chance? No! Is fine tuning of the universal constants a matter of luck? The probabilities are so remote as to put fine tuning beyond the realms of chance. Some guess and imagine a universe generator that produces so many universes that a life permitting universe will one day pop out. There is no scientific evidence for this multiverse. It has not been detected, observed, measured or proved. A universe generator would require an enormous amount of fine tuning. c) Design of these constants and the fine tuning of the universe for life is the best explanation. “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics… and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.
      The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me to be so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Fred Hoyle. “It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.’ Paul Davies, Physicist, winner of Templeton Prize, Faraday Prize, Kelvin Medal. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork; Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.” Psalm 19:1,2. 
      III. Other Examples of Fine Tuned Constants that are Exactly Life- Permitting. 
      Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible by accident. 
      What is the probability of all of these constants being exactly right? 
      Evolution had nothing to do with this. 
      1. Strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen would form; if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form. 
      2. Weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; if smaller: too little helium would be produced from “big bang”. 
      3. Gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form. 
      4. Electromagnetic force constant if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry 
      5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support. if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements. 
      6. Ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above 
      7. Polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result 8. Mass of the neutrino. if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form. if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
      IV. Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support 
      1. Parent star distance from center of galaxy (9) (p = 0.2) if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky planet formation if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible 
      2. Parent star distance from closest spiral arm (9) (p = 0.1) if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets 
      3. Number of stars in the planetary system (10) (p = 0.2) if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for life if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry 
      4. Parent star mass (10) (p = 0.001) if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn up too quickly to support life if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be insufficient for photosynthesis 
      5. Parent star metallicity (9) (p = 0.05) if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy element concentrations would be poisonous to life 
      6. Parent star color (9) (p = 0.4) if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life if bluer: same result 
      7. H3+ production (23) (p = 0.1) if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry would never form if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life 
      8. Parent star luminosity (11) (p = 0.0001) if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop 
      9. Surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001) if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane for life if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life 
      10. Distance of earth from parent star (13) (p = 0.001) if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle 
      11. Orbital eccentricity (p = 0.3) if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life 
      12. Axial tilt (9) (p = 0.3) if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to sustain diverse life-forms. if lesser: same result 
      13. Rotation period (11) (p = 0.1) if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life 
      14. Magnetic field (20) (p = 0.01) if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe if weaker: planetary surface & ozone layer would be inadequately protected from hard solar & stellar radiation 
      15. Thickness of crust (15) (p = 0.01) if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life 
      16. Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) (9) (p = 0.1) if greater: runaway glaciation would develop. if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop 
      17. Asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1) if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements 1687 
      18. Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (25) (p = 0.1) if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly 
      19. Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (21) (p = 0.01) if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis 
      20. Water vapor quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life 
      21. Ozone quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life; insufficient UV radiation for life if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation would be too intense for life 
      22. Oxygen quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily, destabilizing Earth's ecosystem if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe 
      23. Seismic activity (16) (p = 0.1) if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonate buildup 
      24. Volcanic activity (26) if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be insufficient for advanced life support if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged 
      25. Soil mineralization (9) (p = 0.1). if nutrient poorer or if nutrient richer : diversity & complexity of lifeforms would be limited: same result 
      26. Gravitational interaction with a moon (17) (p = 0.1) if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe for life if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation. Size, distance and number of moons are right. 
      27. Jupiter distance (18) (p = 0.1) if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent asteroid and comet collisions if lesser: Jupiter's gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 
      28. Jupiter mass (19) (p = 0.1) if greater: Jupiter's gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions 
      29. Atmospheric pressure (9) (p = 0.1) if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support life if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth's surface 
      30. Atmospheric transparency (9) (p = 0.01) if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support 
      31. Chlorine quantity in atmosphere (9) (p = 0.1) if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms 
      32. Iron quantity in oceans and soils (9) (p = 0.1). if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient. if very small: no life would be possible 
      33. Quantity of soil sulfur (9) (p = 0.1). if lesser: plants would die from protein deficiency. if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle Taken from Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA
    • By jrad19
      What do you guys think?
       
       
    • By Realist
      This is an interesting list of accredited scientists who have put their careers on the line by signing this declaration for the world to see.
      “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
      selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
      evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
      http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660
×