[_ Old Earth _] A number reasons why I find Evolution impossible to believe!

[VirginShallConceive]

Yes Jason I would agree that Adam was more perfect before than after. What I mean is that we didn't evolve to anything physically different. But true what you say.
A baby developing in the womb though VSC develops into a baby each and every time, "after its own kind". They don't evolve into something new!

Well, look at the development from the sperm and egg all the way to a senior citizen. From fetus all the way to senior citizen is a long journey of changes. From moment to moment, there isn't much change, but from fetus to senior citizen, there is much change. And the beauty of it is, you already accept this gradual change. Accepting Evolution is no different. Seriously.

Can you see the relation? It's a good comparison. I thought of it myself.

 

[Free Christian]

For me it boils down to this. I believe what the Creator said as to how He made the world and all that is in it. I believe through faith. Theory means little or nothing. Theory changes. Imagine the people who once fully believed and taught Evolution using some of the old things that later were found to be false. Like knee caps and pig teeth. They taught with full conviction as people do today. Imagine how some felt in their senior years, those who had taught thousands using those false examples, how they felt when they found out all their years of teaching were based upon falsehood!
When God tells me in Genesis that He made things in 1 day and clearly makes it understandable by saying "and then evening and morning" to clearly denote it was in 1 day and not over millions. I believe Him. When God made the animals there are clear examples of creatures we see and have today, that did not evolve. Gen 1 v 25 clearly says Cattle. Man keeps trying to explain the amazing Creator and His creation in his own simple ways by saying that we evolved. But Gods Word says otherwise, clearly. Man cannot accept the awesome power of Gods true creation so lowers it to something more acceptable to his own finite mind, something that is easier to believe. Im always reminded of Job 38 v 4 when evolutionists say we came from apes and so on "where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" I ask myself this question often in regards to what I believe or advocate. What if I am wrong, what harm have I done? I advocate believing God created the world and all that's in it in the time frame He says he did. That animals and man did not evolve. That God is all powerful. I advocate believing His Word and all that it teaches. What would be my crime if I was wrong? That I taught people to believe what God's word teaches in His Word? What if an evolutionist is wrong? They will be guilty of teaching that God created lesser humans or apes that evolved into others, in teaching the opposite of Gods true Word. Of rejecting His true awesome power of creation and lowering it to that of creating things that were not good enough and had to evolve into something better to survive because God made them not fit enough to go on and survive without mutating! I know which I would prefer to be guilty of doing!

 

[Barbarian]

For me it boils down to this. I believe what the Creator said as to how He made the world and all that is in it.

That rules out YE creationism, then. God says that life was brought forth by the Earth.

I believe through faith. Theory means little or nothing. Theory changes. Imagine the people who once fully believed and taught Evolution using some of the old things that later were found to be false. Like knee caps and pig teeth.

Evolutionary theory isn't about those things. Maybe it would be good to learn about it?

They taught with full conviction as people do today. Imagine how some felt in their senior years, those who had taught thousands using those false examples, how they felt when they found out all their years of teaching were based upon falsehood!

We certainly know more about it today, but as you have seen , Darwin's four points remain true as ever.

When God tells me in Genesis that He made things in 1 day and clearly makes it understandable by saying "and then evening and morning" to clearly denote it was in 1 day and not over millions.

A long time ago, Christians pointed out that it was a logical absurdity to believe in mornings and evenings with no sun to have them. "Yawm" can mean a lot of things, and in the Bible, it is used for "in my time", "a day", "an unspecified period of time", and of course, figuratively.

There has never been a Christian consensus on what the word meant in Genesis, but in general, they saw it as allegorical.

I believe Him. When God made the animals there are clear examples of creatures we see and have today, that did not evolve.

Show us one of those.

Gen 1 v 25 clearly says Cattle.

Cattle today are quite different than the aurochs from which they evolved.

What if I am wrong, what harm have I done?

Probably nothing to you; God won't send you to hell for denying how He created things. But you are raising an obstacle to many people who might otherwise come to Him, and you are also causing people to lose their faith, when they realize creationism cannot be true.

The real evil of YE creationism, is that it is an effective atheist-maker.

 

[Asyncritus]

Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly.
Richard Dawkins http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725171.500

Wrong again. Hopelessly wrong in fact.

Scientists have shown that beneficial mutations do occur to produce brand new alleles (variants of genes) that improve an organism's chances of survival in a particular environment. Natural selection has been demonstrated to increase the frequency of these alleles in a population.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

That may be so, but we are seeking accounts for the origin of species - and none have been forthcoming as a result of natural selection.

As I said in a previous post, quite loudly. natural selection CANNOT CREATE NEW SPECIES. The very word 'selection' should tell you that.

The theory, an integration of the work of Charles Darwin (natural selection) and Gregor Mendel (genetics), encompassed the biological processes of gene mutation and recombination, changes in the structure and function of chromosomes, reproductive isolation, and natural selection. Mayr presented his ideas in the seminal book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942).


The work of Ronald Fisher (who developed the required mathematical language and The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection),[3] J.B.S. Haldane (who introduced the concept of the "cost" of natural selection),[48] Sewall Wright (who elucidated the nature of selection and adaptation),[49] Theodosius Dobzhansky (who established the idea that mutation, by creating genetic diversity, supplied the raw material for natural selection:

The fact is, and it is transparently obvious to the meanest intellect, that damage to the blueprints of any functioning machine or organism, must result in impairment, not improvement.

DNA is the blueprint. Mutations are damaging to the DNA. How then can this result in the origin of any species?

And worse, how can damage to the DNA account for the origin of the Cambrian explosion of a zillion new species and other taxa? From what did they originate? This ridiculous 'common ancestor' for which there is no fossil evidence whatsoever?

Can you define random for us please.
Relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

And that includes the situation where p = 0.

Nope. Same as everyone else. "Random" in "random mutations" means that the mutations come in a random manner, and not in response to need. This was demonstrated by Luria and Delbruck, whose separate investigations earned them a joint Nobel.

They got a Nobel for THATTTTT????????!!!! I should have got that Nobel - in fact anybody with a bit of common sense should have done so too. That Nobel committee wants their heads looking into.

This is what I was taught it meant in school:
".. it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation.... Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution."Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), pp. 112-113.

Monod has it wrong. Because most innovations are the result of a number of mutations over a number of generations. So only a certain number of such mutations will be preserved to be further modified the next generation.

You have no proof of this, apart from wishful thinking.

And of course, that process cannot be random, since it's determined by natural selection.

So a Nobel prize winner says loudly 'Yes it's a random process' and barbarian says 'No, it's not.'

Hmmm. Who do we believe then?

Answer: If I had my druthers, I'd go for Monod, any time.

It's sad some are out for money. What about a professor of biology, what would motivate him to repudiate his own work?

Religious objections to the evidence.

Not at all.

In 1976 Professor Dean Kenyon repudiated the conclusion of his own evolutionary University textbook Biochemical Predestination (1969) which he had co-authored with Gary Steinman. His intensive research of amino acids and DNA caused him to reject Darwin's theory and accept Intelligent Design.

Then, in 1985, the atheist, Dr. Allan Rex Sandage, regarded as the greatest observational cosmologist in the world, told an American conference on science and religion that he had become a Christian, declaring:

"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science ... It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence ... Many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work."​

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/
​

To that list I may add Professor Anthony Flew, once the 'world's most notorious atheist' - a pholosopher - whose about turn from atheism was caused by the information he learned about DNA.

Well, let's take a look...

Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky
Genetics. 1935 July; 20(4): 377–391.

I am stunned that you could possibly reference this article, and call it a 'LANDMARK'. I've read it through - and NOWHERE DOES HE CLAIM THAT A NEW SPECIES AROSE BY MUTATION.

IF YOU THINK HE DID, CITE THE RELEVANT BIT, PLEASE.

Even organizations like the Institute for Creation Research (which has advocated the idea that new species, genera, and families have evolved) and "Answers in Genesis" now admit the fact of speciation.

This is your consistently presented strawman. Have you really read their work?

Let's see some citations please, about them claiming that 'new species, genera, and families have evolved'

. Kenyon was trying to waffle himself around the evidence by redefining speciation.

See above. And I'd like to see some proof of this statement.

they're still fruit flies.

And moose are still deer. Genetically and morphologically, fruit flies vary much more than deer.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But you ever seen a fruitfly becoming a housefly, or a tsetse fly or a completely new species? No? I thought not.

How come Dobzhansky didn't produce any such change after ruthlessly irradiating those thousands of generations of those poor fruitflies within an inch of their lives?

And how come Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki radiation did not produce a single beneficial mutation, but rather horrid genetic damage?

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly.
Richard Dawkins http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725171.500

Wrong again. Hopelessly wrong in fact.

As you learned Dawkins happens to be right about that. Nothing else can explain the observed facts.

Scientists have shown that beneficial mutations do occur to produce brand new alleles (variants of genes) that improve an organism's chances of survival in a particular environment. Natural selection has been demonstrated to increase the frequency of these alleles in a population.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

That may be so, but we are seeking accounts for the origin of species - and none have been forthcoming as a result of natural selection.

According to your own people, new species, genera, and families evolved as a result of natural selection after the flood.

As I said in a previous post, quite loudly. natural selection CANNOT CREATE NEW SPECIES.

You've been misled about that. For example, disruptive selection led to a very extensive series of speciations of flies in Hawaii. Would you like me to show you again?

DNA is the blueprint. Mutations are damaging to the DNA.

As you learned, earlier, they are often useful and natural selection makes Such mutations more frequent in the population.

How then can this result in the origin of any species?

Reproductive isolation. Even honest creationists admit the fact of speciation. Would you like to see that, again?

And worse, how can damage to the DNA account for the origin of the Cambrian explosion of a zillion new species and other taxa?

Random mutation and natural selection.

From what did they originate?

The rather extensive and worldwide Ediacaran fauna.

This ridiculous 'common ancestor' for which there is no fossil evidence whatsoever?

Surprise.

Can you define random for us please.

Relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.


Barbarian chuckles:
Nope. Same as everyone else. "Random" in "random mutations" means that the mutations come in a random manner, and not in response to need. This was demonstrated by Luria and Delbruck, whose separate investigations earned them a joint Nobel.

They got a Nobel for THATTTTT????????!!!!

Yep. Shut down the antiDarwinists who thought mutations were in response to need.

Barbarian observes:
Monod has it wrong. Because most innovations are the result of a number of mutations over a number of generations. So only a certain number of such mutations will be preserved to be further modified the next generation.
You have no proof of this, apart from wishful thinking.

And of course, that process cannot be random, since it's determined by natural selection.

So a Nobel prize winner says loudly 'Yes it's a random process' and barbarian says 'No, it's not.'

Demonstrably not. As you learned, Hall's experiment with bacteria showed that random mutation and natural selection were the way that new features evolve.

Hmmm. Who do we believe then?

The evidence. Surprise.

Answer: If I had my druthers, I'd go for Monod, any time.

Which is why reality keeps smacking you upside the head.

Note the few dissenters dissent for religious, not scientific reasons:

In 1976 Professor Dean Kenyon repudiated the conclusion of his own evolutionary University textbook Biochemical Predestination (1969) which he had co-authored with Gary Steinman. His intensive research of amino acids and DNA caused him to reject Darwin's theory and accept Intelligent Design.

Kenyon is, as you might know, a follower of the religious doctrine of ID, which has as it's stated goal, persuading people of their unique version of God.

Then, in 1985, the atheist, Dr. Allan Rex Sandage, regarded as the greatest observational cosmologist in the world, told an American conference on science and religion that he had become a Christian, declaring:

"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science ... It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence ... Many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work."

Nice, but I've been a Christian all my life, and a scientists since the late 60s. I'm guessing there's a good reason you didn't cite Sandage on evolution, and I don't think it's because he's a cosmologist with no credentials in biology.

To that list I may add Professor Anthony Flew, once the 'world's most notorious atheist' - a pholosopher - whose about turn from atheism was caused by the information he learned about DNA.

Flew, BTW, was still and evolutionist, and described the evangelical idea of God as a "cosmic Saddam Hussein." You really want to endorse his views?

Well, let's take a look...

Drosophila Miranda, a New Species
Th. Dobzhansky
Genetics. 1935 July; 20(4): 377–391.
I am stunned that you could possibly reference this article, and call it a 'LANDMARK'. I've read it through - and NOWHERE DOES HE CLAIM THAT A NEW SPECIES AROSE BY MUTATION.

No reason to shout. Dobzhansky was one of the founders of the Modern Synthesis, which says speciation happens by random mutation and natural selection. I thought you knew; we discussed that earlier.

Barbarian observes:
Even organizations like the Institute for Creation Research (which has advocated the idea that new species, genera, and families have evolved) and "Answers in Genesis" now admit the fact of speciation.

This is your consistently presented strawman. Have you really read their work?

Not only that, but I discussed the matter in email, with John Woodmorappe, the author of the article. He confirmed that point with me.

Woodmorappe, from another source:
The rapid origin of new species (in thousands of years or less) is not speculation but demonstrated fact, and is not at all a concession to evolution.
http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Ark-A-Feasibility-Study/dp/0932766412

Let's see some citations please, about them claiming that 'new species, genera, and families have evolved'

Barbarian observes:
And moose are still deer. Genetically and morphologically, fruit flies vary much more than deer.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But you ever seen a fruitfly becoming a housefly

In Hawaii. Fruitflies managed to get blown in and found empty niches everyewhere. And they evolved to fit into them. Want to learn about that?

How come Dobzhansky didn't produce any such change after ruthlessly irradiating those thousands of generations of those poor fruitflies within an inch of their lives?

For the same reason putting more oil in your car won't make it go faster. You need oil, but adding more won't help.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello again Barbarian. How would teaching what the Bible says about creation raise an obstacle? Evolution going hand in hand with Christianity is like saying someone is a "good criminal". Example only, not saying you are one.
Evolution goes in direct spiritual opposition to everything the Bible, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit stand for. Truth, non variableness and never changing. James 1 v 17 With whom is no variableness. Hebrews 13 v 8 Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and forever.
Does evolution have those same standards or give those examples in its years of existence? No, no way.
Has it varied, had variableness? Yes, absolutely.
Things that were once considered absolute proofs and taught to be so, later turned out to be hoaxes, or incorrect. So they changed or altered. They then looked for and found new ways to put forward the theory. Dropped parts of it and replaced it with other so called evidences. Is that non variableness?
Is that being the same, yesterday today and forever? No, not even just a little bit.
God and His truth = unchangeable, non variable, the same truth yesterday, today and forever.
Evolution = changing evidences, incorrect evidences, man made theory. Teaching one thing one century as truth, then dropping it and teaching another thing the next.
How can two things in so direct spiritual opposition go hand in hand.
How can someone believe in a God of Truth and un-variableness and yet hold onto something else that is neither of those two things? They contradict each other.
No, it is those who teach Christians to believe in a God that says He is the God of truth and in whom there is no variableness to also believe in a man made theory that contradicts those attributes of the almighty God, as going hand in hand with their beliefs that raises a stumbling block as high as Mount Everest itself!

 

[Barbarian]

Hello again Barbarian. How would teaching what the Bible says about creation raise an obstacle?

Rather, it is teaching unscriptural doctrines like YE creationism that produce obstacles. When people are told that YE creationism is a Biblical doctrine, and they know that it can't be true, they assume Christianity is false.

Evolution going hand in hand with Christianity is like saying someone is a "good criminal".

More like saying someone accepts God's creation as it is.

Evolution goes in direct spiritual opposition to everything the Bible, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit stand for.

Not for a Christian. We accept His creation without reservations. At least most of us do.

Truth, non variableness and never changing. James 1 v 17 With whom is no variableness. Hebrews 13 v 8 Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and forever.

And the more we learn about His creation, the more we realize that He does all this through natural means.

Does evolution have those same standards or give those examples in its years of existence?

Does chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc? Nope. Science is inductive, always refining ideas to a better understanding. So, although Darwin's four points remain demonstrably true, we've learned a lot more about it over the years.

Things that were once considered absolute proofs and taught to be so, later turned out to be hoaxes, or incorrect.

You've been misled on that one. Science isn't about "proofs." Never has been. It's always been open to new evidence. And of course, people always make errors.

God and His truth = unchangeable, non variable, the same truth yesterday, today and forever.

But as you can see, creationism isn't God. Creationists have had to retreat again and again as evidence showed key elements in their beliefs to be wrong.

Teaching one thing one century as truth, then dropping it and teaching another thing the next.

Yep. Speciation, for example. Creationists used to deny it. Now most accept it.

Natural selection. Creationists used to deny it. Now most admit it's an observable process.

"Life ex nihilo"; many creationists have now retreated from that, and admitted that the Genesis account is inconsistent with that belief.

How can two things in so direct spiritual opposition go hand in hand.

We call them "cafeteria Christians." They pick the parts they like, and leave the rest.

How can someone believe in a God of Truth and un-variableness and yet hold onto something else that is neither of those two things?

If you thought science was God, it would be a problem, wouldn't it? But that's not what scientists think of it. It's just the best way we have of understanding the physical universe. YE creationism and the Bible, that's a problem.

They contradict each other.

In some places. The "life ex nihilo" thing (which many creationists have abandoned) and the attempt to make Genesis a literal history. Intractable contradictions for YE.

People note these contradictions, and many of them who might otherwise come to God are put off by them. YE creationism will have much to answer for.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe our books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren, ... to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call on Holy Scripture, .. although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. "
St. Augustine De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Barbarian. Is that the same St Augustine who wrote this on women "to hate in her the corruptible and mortal conjugal connection, sexual intercourse and all that pertains to her as a wife" that a women "must surrender her body to her husband on command, receiving from such use no personal pleasure, but allowing herself to be used solely as an instrument of procreation"?
I think it is. He didn't exactly teach the Biblical love for ones wife like Gods true word does. Here's a link for anyone to see more of St Augustine.
http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/bib-patriarchy/deception-augustine-love-sex.htm
Another shift with the old earther's. Gold, used to be taught to take millions of years to form in veins, now its found it can happen in seconds.

 

[Arch Angle]

For me it boils down to this. I believe what the Creator said as to how He made the world and all that is in it. I believe through faith. Theory means little or nothing. Theory changes. Imagine the people who once fully believed and taught Evolution using some of the old things that later were found to be false. Like knee caps and pig teeth. They taught with full conviction as people do today. Imagine how some felt in their senior years, those who had taught thousands using those false examples, how they felt when they found out all their years of teaching were based upon falsehood!
When God tells me in Genesis that He made things in 1 day and clearly makes it understandable by saying "and then evening and morning" to clearly denote it was in 1 day and not over millions. I believe Him. When God made the animals there are clear examples of creatures we see and have today, that did not evolve. Gen 1 v 25 clearly says Cattle. Man keeps trying to explain the amazing Creator and His creation in his own simple ways by saying that we evolved. But Gods Word says otherwise, clearly. Man cannot accept the awesome power of Gods true creation so lowers it to something more acceptable to his own finite mind, something that is easier to believe. Im always reminded of Job 38 v 4 when evolutionists say we came from apes and so on "where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" I ask myself this question often in regards to what I believe or advocate. What if I am wrong, what harm have I done? I advocate believing God created the world and all that's in it in the time frame He says he did. That animals and man did not evolve. That God is all powerful. I advocate believing His Word and all that it teaches. What would be my crime if I was wrong? That I taught people to believe what God's word teaches in His Word? What if an evolutionist is wrong? They will be guilty of teaching that God created lesser humans or apes that evolved into others, in teaching the opposite of Gods true Word. Of rejecting His true awesome power of creation and lowering it to that of creating things that were not good enough and had to evolve into something better to survive because God made them not fit enough to go on and survive without mutating! I know which I would prefer to be guilty of doing!

I guess this is ok if you think the body is a "thing" and this world is what it all boils down too. But that is not what Jesus showed you. He showed you that "eyes have not seen". The key is that you are a set of memes. You are a set of "god". I think a "sub-set", but you get the point. I learnt that from the bible.

List all the pieces of evidence that we have. Then come up with some possible conclusions as to what it seems to suggest. "god doing it threw evolution" is very reasonable. God going "poof there it is" is far less reasonable.
For this method of "listing observations first then drawling a conclusion" to work we have to be careful of that base set of axioms' that we have. Those base statements that drive every other choice we make. one of mine is "How did it happen?". No god may not be an option for me anymore because evidence suggest there is one far more than not one. But doesn't mean a thing to me when I reject YEC "not very likely".

Rejecting YEC doesn't mean you are against Christ. Don't let anybody tell you this. Nor does rejecting it mean YEC is all wrong. It is not. It has some valid points. Rejecting YEC means you are accepting what GOD shows you and not what man tells you. You are trying to listen to Christ. Rejecting YEC mean you are one step closer to knowing "god". I learnt that from the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The way is through him. But for that to work you have to let him be him.

 

[Barbarian]

Hello Barbarian. Is that the same St Augustine who wrote this on women "to hate in her the corruptible and mortal conjugal connection, sexual intercourse and all that pertains to her as a wife" that a women "must surrender her body to her husband on command, receiving from such use no personal pleasure, but allowing herself to be used solely as an instrument of procreation"?

Yep. He had some serious sexual issues, having been quite a libertine in his youth. So he went too far the other way when he renounced sexual pleasure. He was a bit too willing to reject predestination, too.

But he nailed it when it came to ignorant people projecting their misconceptions on Scripture. As you might know, the Church says that sex is to foster a sense of intimacy in the bonds of marriage, and to produce children. It's O.K. to enjoy it. God wants you to enjoy it. But with a spouse, remember.

The point is, if you add the new doctrine of YEC to Christianity, you will needlessly turn away many who might have otherwise come to Him. Don't make that mistake.

Another shift with the old earther's. Gold, used to be taught to take millions of years to form in veins, now its found it can happen in seconds.

Never heard of that idea. In veins, it happens because it's one of the last things to harden in igneous rock. But it can also infiltrate into spaces over a long period of time, as the result of heat and chemical reactions. I'm guessing you got this from a creationist web page, and they got it wrong to start.

http://nuggetshooter.com/articles/CRGeologyofcoarsegoldformation.html

http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/education/down_under/gold/formed.html

The rapid crystallization of minerals only happens when an earthquake suddenly releases pressure and allows rapid vaporization of water:

What their calculations revealed was stunning: a rapid depressurization that sees the normal high-pressure conditions deep within Earth drop to pressures close to those we experience at the surface.

For example, a magnitude-4 earthquake at a depth of 11 kilometers would cause the pressure in a suddenly opening fault jog to drop from 290 megapascals (MPa) to 0.2 MPa. (By comparison, air pressure at sea level is 0.1 MPa.) “So you’re looking at a 1,000-fold reduction in pressure,” Weatherley says.

Flash in the pan
When mineral-laden water at around 390 °C is subjected to that kind of pressure drop, Weatherley says, the liquid rapidly vaporizes and the minerals in the now-supersaturated water crystallize almost instantly — a process that engineers call flash vaporization or flash deposition. The effect, he says, “is sufficiently large that quartz and any of its associated minerals and metals will fall out of solution”.

Eventually, more fluid percolates out of the surrounding rocks into the gap, restoring the initial pressure. But that doesn’t occur immediately, and so in the interim a single earthquake can produce an instant (albeit tiny) gold vein.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earthquakes-make-gold-veins-in-an-instant

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Another shift with the old earther's. Gold, used to be taught to take millions of years to form in veins, now its found it can happen in seconds.

One important thing to keep in mind is-- and it's huge . . . don't just sweep it under the bed when it constantly stares you right in the face-- science has been progressing in every direction. The greatest minds in the world who seek to find out the truth are always progressing in their particular area of study:

Technology- Some ways are found to be better than others, and old ideas become replaced with new and improved ones, but you can plainly see technology improving all around you. This type of progress comes from looking at the facts.

Medicine- Ditto. Also, much of these sciences go hand in hand. With the technological advancement of communication, scientific findings can be critiqued at an extremely fast rate. Old wives' tales for remedies, if they don't stand up to scrutiny, get rapidly tossed to the wayside.

Geology- Ditto. If Mommy and Daddy try to teach their children about a ridiculously young earth, these children will find out otherwise because of unbiased facts. The more that the children find Mommy and Daddy ridiculously wrong, the less validity the children will give to their parents' subsequent, willfully ignorant, unscientific teachings.

Anthropology- Ditto. Mormonism is under extreme attack from Christians, Muslims, atheists, and who knows who. The attackers can access a sea of information by simply typing a few keys and easily discredit Mormon apologists. Once again, multiple sciences go hand in hand in the debunking of the claims of Joseph Smith and other charlatans.

Biology- Ditto. Evolution is huge. These scientists aren't just going on crazy whims. There are endless studies of species.

http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/3/391


Right now, there are still plenty of hard-headed people who don't want Evolution to be true. The amount of books that are available for sale that claim to punch holes in the Theory of Evolution depends on the amount of people willing to buy them. Don't forget, science is always moving forward. It might take an inch-long step back in order to take a mile-long step forward, but you can clearly see the constant advancement in every field of science, including biology.


Your statement concerning gold is unreal. Do you think the entire old-earth-accepting scientific community collectively ignores their improved knowledge about gold in order to "maintain their faith in an old earth" because they collectively have the same care-less-about-truth agenda?


Notice how the biggest "scientific controversies" are the ones that go against the religious beliefs of a certain sizable population.

Take a step back and realize that all fields of science are crowded with apt researchers. The reality of an old earth isn't going away. The fossil record is real. And old. The universe is obviously much older.

 

[Barbarian]

Hello Barbarian, the Bible does not mention Polar bears but does explicitly tell us how we and everything else was made, not evolved.

No, it doesn't say that. It only says life came forth from the Earth, which is consistent with what we know. Nothing about "not evolved", though.

So are you saying God denies the young earth?

God denies the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism. God does not say how old the Earth is.

I would like to extend the same invitation to you as you do to myself, "would you like to learn more" about the true creation as God says it is in the Bible?

Been reading it for over half a century. Funny thing is, people who have been studying it for much shorter times are always telling me what's in it. Often, as in your comment above, they are wrong.

If so, this says it better than I can "Does the theory of evolution harmonize with Bible creation"

Most Christians realize that there's nothing in the Bible that is inconsistent with evolution.

Could I ask you please why you believe in God

Personal revelation. And it's consistent with what I see in nature.

and use parts of the Bible

I'm Roman Catholic, so I use the unabridged version. You?

but deny much of its clear teaching

As you see, I accept all of it, not just parts I might happen to like. You've been indoctrinated by people who have constructed elaborate arguments why they believe the Bible doesn't really say what it does.

Read it with an open heart and it will be clear to you.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Barbarian. No, I am an actual hobby prospector and heard about it in prospecting circles. So Im guessing then that you don't support St Augustine's derogatory views on women then.
That's good. He sure got that wrong. Like many other things. You quote Dawkins. Did you hear one of his recent sayings? "With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig". It never ceases to surprise me how little lack of respect for others and life in general the main pushers in this world for evolution have, and express, over and over. That's one of the reasons why there is so little respect in the world these days, we are told we came from animals so is it any wonder people have no respect for one another now. Survival of the fittest seems to be the mantra these days, dog eat dog. By the sounds of it you read a totally different bible to me. I read from the King James and New King James. You make many assumptions about me. That my original post was cut and paste, nope, that I got the gold thing from a creation site, nope, that I was indoctrinated, nope. I learned many years ago not to make assumptions.
You take care Barbarian.

 

[Barbarian]

Hello Barbarian. No, I am an actual hobby prospector and heard about it in prospecting circles.

So Im guessing then that you don't support St Augustine's derogatory views on women then.

I'm more in line with St. Francis of Assisi. Or the Church's stated doctrine. Sex is for procreation and for building a sense of closeness and intimacy within a marriage. It's O.K. to have fun. But with a spouse.

You quote Dawkins. Did you hear one of his recent sayings?

Don't remember that. Dawkins has done some good work, but I disagree with his hyperselectionist ideas, and of course, I think he's gone over the deep end in militant atheism. Have you noticed that YE creationists quote him a lot?

"With respect to those meanings of "human" that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig".

Yeah, like that. He's irresistable to them.

It never ceases to surprise me how little lack of respect for others and life in general the main pushers in this world for evolution have, and express, over and over.

You're assuming Dawkins is one of the greats in evolutionary theory. He's mainly a boogyman for the YErs.

Guys like Kenneth Miller, Stephen Gould, Niles Eldredge, Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, and the like are quite different.

That's one of the reasons why there is so little respect in the world these days, we are told we came from animals so is it any wonder people have no respect for one another now.

I never saw any sense in that argument. Our bodies are from the Earth, but our souls are given by God. And most people still believe in God. And I've seen absolutely vicious behavior from those who oppose evolution.

So no, that one won't work at all for you.

Survival of the fittest seems to be the mantra these days, dog eat dog.

"The surgeon may harden himself while performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of the patient; but if we were to intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

So that won't fly, either.

By the sounds of it you read a totally different bible to me.

I read the unabridged version. But yours has many of the same books as the original.

I read from the King James and New King James. You make many assumptions about me. That my original post was cut and paste, nope, that I got the gold thing from a creation site, nope, that I was indoctrinated, nope. I learned many years ago not to make assumptions.

I'm a teacher. So I am quite familar with ways of checking for cut and paste.

You take care Barbarian.

You too.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Barbarian. Sorry but you are 100% wrong, I did not cut and paste. Like to know how you checked on that and came to that conclusion. You assumed wrongly there I can honestly say that as a Christian. Could you please, for us all here, tell me how you checked and are so sure? Perhaps the people who run this forum could verify if I did or not to prove you right perhaps! I would be more than happy for them to do so. It would be very enlightening.
I still am in wonderment with Christian evolutionists. Such as you using Dawkins examples. How a Christian could use anything he says for their cause bewilders me! Just because a bad person says something in life that adds weight to my argument for example I would prefer to not use it and look weaker in doing so rather than to add strength through anything they had to say.
Here's some more that he said. He encouraged atheist's to mock Christians publicly and especially Roman Catholics for their belief in the Eucharist.
He also said "Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place".
I wonder too at your quote towards me, a young earth believer, by St Augustine when in fact St Augustine himself was also a young earth believer! Puzzling.

 

[Barbarian]

Hello Barbarian. Sorry but you are 100% wrong, I did not cut and paste.

Like to know how you checked on that and came to that conclusion.

For example, you seemed completely unaware that the argument was fake. If you originated it, you wouldn't have been surprised.

I still am in wonderment with Christian evolutionists.

It shouldn't be surprising that Christians accept the way He created living things.

Such as you using Dawkins examples.

As I told you earlier, I disagree with Dawkins' hyperselectionism. And of course, he's got an obsession with religion that makes him weaker as a scientist.

How a Christian could use anything he says for their cause

For the same reason an atheistic scientist would use things Francis Collins says. Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, who heads the Human Genome Project. Atheists would disagree with him on God, but an atheistic scientist would find his conclusions on the Human Genome to be compelling. You see, truth is truth, no matter who finds it. This shouldn't be a difficult idea for a Christian.

bewilders me!

And that concerns me. A Christian should never fear the truth.

Just because a bad person says something in life that adds weight to my argument for example I would prefer to not use it and look weaker in doing so rather than to add strength through anything they had to say.

Goes back to what's most important to you. If it's God and the truth, then you tell the truth as it is, even if a "bad person" found it. Let's set aside any obsessions with Dawkins, and focus on the issue at hand.

I wonder too at your quote towards me, a young earth believer, by St Augustine when in fact St Augustine himself was also a young earth believer!

He was not. Unless YE creationists no longer think the creation lasted six days. St. Augustine believed the universe was created in an instant, and then all things developed from that initial creation, continuing to his day. Sounds pretty likely to me. You and I are creations of God, for example. We weren't poofed, but were brought forth naturally, from existing creation. Except for our souls, of course. We are unique, in having a soul given directly by God.

Puzzling.

He's worth reading. There are still English translations of Genesi Ad Litteram available. Take a look.

 

[Vaccine]

For the same reason an atheistic scientist would use things Francis Collins says. Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, who heads the Human Genome Project. Atheists would disagree with him on God, but an atheistic scientist would find his conclusions on the Human Genome to be compelling. You see, truth is truth, no matter who finds it. This shouldn't be a difficult idea for a Christian.

:

ENCODE did the research and provided this data analysis:
These analyses portray a COMPLEX LANDSCAPE OF LONG-RANGE GENE–ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY FOR GENE-ELEMENT CONNECTIVITY.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11247.html

So nothing about specified complexity

:biglol

We weren't poofed, but were brought forth naturally, from existing creation.

Not according to science anymore, analysis show the genome was intelligently designed. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground" Genesis 2:7

 

[Barbarian]

As you see, the people who did the analysis, did not conclude that the genome was intelligently designed. The ICR falsely claimed that they did.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground" Genesis 2:7

If you'll accept that much, why not also accept the way He did it?

 

[Vaccine]

As you see, the people who did the analysis, did not conclude that the genome was intelligently designed. The ICR falsely claimed that they did.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground" Genesis 2:7

If you'll accept that much, why not also accept the way He did it?

The way he did it was "formed from the dust". But since your commitment is to an idea not truth, you're the one who isn't accepting the way he did it.

 

[Barbarian]

The way he did it was "formed from the dust".

Yep. Scientists are just beginning to see how abiogenesis happened. The Earth brought forth all living things.

But since your commitment is to an idea not truth, you're the one who isn't accepting the way he did it.

As you see, He did it as He said. But he didn't tell us the details. Those, we have to find out for ourselves. Keep in mind, God didn't really mold a human form out of dust and poof life into it. God doesn't have thumbs and a nose, or earlobes. He used nature to make man, just as He uses it for most things in this world.