Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] evolution false dawin is false

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
W

willow the wip

Guest
watch the vid for evedence

if you want to see why also i dont believe in it.

Below is the outline for the video. We recommend you print the outline below before viewing the video. Then watch the video with the hard copy (printed) of the outline in your hand. Enjoy!

You need real player to play this you can download it free from.

click on the link below to download the player.

http://www.realplayer.com




if you already have the player click on the link below to play the vid it is apx 1 hr 09 mins

There are 2 parts to this film

moving-video-clip.gif
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/patton-fossil-man.ram



prof that man could not of evolved



Fossil Man

APES UP FROM?, Donald Johanson, "At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday....", Lucy, p.363

Reconstructions are unscientific

GREAT GRANDPA APE, EARNST A. HOOTEN, Harvard, "If we are descended from apes our remote ancestors ought to look their part. You may not be willing to admit that you resemble an ape;.... But if that thousandth ancestor's forebearers become progressively more simian as you trace back the genealogical lines you will have to admit that somewhere in your family tree there squats an ape.", UP FROM THE APE, p.289

RECONSTRUCTIONS? EARNST A. HOOTEN, Harvard, "To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip, leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public.... So put not your trust in reconstructions.", UP FROM THE APE, p.332

RECONSTRUCTIONS? W. HOWELLS, Harvard, "A great legend has grown up to plague both paleontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of these wondrous men can take a tooth or a small and broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped the Terriary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts.", MANKIND SO FAR, p138

THEORY DOMINATED DATA, DAVID PILBEAM, Yale, "I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, ‘theory’ - heavily influenced by implicit ideas - almost always dominates ‘data.’ ...Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." Quoted in Bones of Contention, p.127

PARANORMAL ANTHROPOLOGY, Lord Zolly Zuckerman, "We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER, p.19

BASIS OF "FAMILY TREE," ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, "The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance....can be deceptive, partly because similarity of structure does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar..." Bones of Contention, 1987, p.123

PROVEN? R. C. LEWONTIN, Harvard , "Look, I'm a person who says in this book [Human Diversity, 1982] that we don't know anything about the ancestors of the human species. All the fossils which have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors - we haven't the faintest idea whether they are ancestors. ...All you've got is Homo sapiens there, you've got that fossil there, you've got another fossil there...it's up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines.", Harper's, 2/84

UNRELIABLE "TREES," J. LOWENSTEIN & ADRIENE ZIHLMAN, "But anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied on for defining evolutionary lineages. Yet, paleontologist persist in doing just this. ...the subjective element in this approach to building evolutionary trees, which many paleontologist advocate with almost religious fervor, is demonstrated by the outcome: there is no single family tree on which they agree." Nature, 1992, Vol.355, p.783

MARY LEAKEY’S CONCLUSION, According To Associated Press, "Since scientists can never prove a particular scenario of human evolution, Leakey said "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." 12/9/1996

Ramapithecus Is Discarded Ape

"APE-MAN" OUT, ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, "The dethroning of Ramapithecus - from putative first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982 - is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins." Bones of Contention, 1987, p.86

"APES", Robert B. Eckhardt, Penn.S.U., "...there would appear to be little evidence to suggest that several different hominoid species are represented among the Old World dryopithecine fossils... (Ramapithecus, Oreopithecus, Limnopithecus, Kenyapithecus). They them-selves nevertheless seem to have been apes -morphologically, ecologically, and behaviourally." Scientific American, Vol.226, p.101

Australopithecus Is An Ape

SECOND "APE-MAN" OUT" ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo - large brain, toolmaking and so on - has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years. And the ape-man, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry." BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.18

LEAKEY DEFECTION, "Dr. Leakey bases his repudiation of Darwin on the results of his long search in East Africa for the remains of the original man. The generally accepted post-Darwin view is that man developed from the baboon 3 to 5 million years ago. But Leakey has found no evidence of a spurt in development at that time.", Chicago American, 1/25, 1967

DISMISSED APE, LORD SOLLY ZUCKERMAN, "His Lordship's scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes', he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa. ...Zuckerman had become extremely powerful in British science, being an adviser to the government up to the highest level. ...while at Oxford and then Birmingham universities, he had vigorously pursued a metrical and statistical approach to studying the anatomy of fossil hominids. ...it was on this basis that he underpinned his lifelong rejection of the australopithecines as human ancestors." Bones of ContentioN, 1987, p.164, 165

DEFINITELY AN APE, LORD Solly Zuckerman, "The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human (figure 5) that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER, p.78

LIKE APE, William Howells, Harvard, "...the pelvis was by no means modern, nor were the feet: the toes were more curved than ours; the heel bones lacked our stabilizing tubercles; and a couple of small ligaments that, in us, tighten the arch from underneath, were apparently not present. The finger bones were curved as they are in tree-climbing apes. ...Here is something of an enigma. Excellent evidence of a very modern foot from the from the hominid footprints at Laetoli. Excellent evidence of hominid but not fully modern feet from the Afar bones. Russel Tuttle of the University of Chicago, a leading expert on hominoid gaits and limbs, finds that all aspects of the footprints, especially toe proportions, are remarkably like modern human feet and that the Afar feet are significantly less than human." GETTING HERE, 1993, p.79

LIKE APE, A. afarensis...The recent description of four articulating foot bones from 3-3.5 Myr deposits in the South African cave site of Sterkfontein support this. ...the divergent big toe indicates some degree of prehensile grasping as in apes. Developmental patterns were also more ape-like than human. ...ecologically they may still be considered apes." Nature, 376, 8/17/1995, p.556

LIKE ORANGUTAN, CHARLES E. OXNARD, Dean of Graduate School, Prof. of Biology & Anatomy, USC, "...conventional wisdom is that the australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans...the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form: when they do have similarities with living species, they are as often as not reminiscent of the orangutan, ...these results imply that the various australopithecines are really not all that much like humans. ...may well have been bipeds,....but if so, it was not in the human manner. They may also have been quite capable climbers as much at home in the trees as on the ground." The American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, 5/1979, pp.273-4

Like Pygmy CHIMP, Adrienne L. Zihlman, U.C. Santa Cruze, "Zihlman compares the pygmy chimpanzee to 'Lucy,' one of the oldest hominid fossils known, and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size , she notes, and the major differences (the hip and the foot) represent the younger Lucy's adaptation to bipedal walking. These commonalities, Zihlman argues, indicate that pygmy chimps use their limbs in much the same way Lucy did..." Science News, Vol.123, 2/5. 1983, p.89

SHRIVELED Status, Matt Cartmill, Duke; David Pilbeam, Harvard; Glynn Isaac, Harvard, "The australopithecines are rapidly shrinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes...", American Scientist, July-August 1986, p.419

Failed Links: Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Peking Man

BELIEVE IT  SEE IT, ROGER LEWIN, Editor of Research News, Science, "How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones - the cranial fragments - and 'see' a clear simian signature in them; and 'see' in an ape's jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists' expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. ... It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we've seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Bones of Contention, pp.61, 68

EVIDENCE MISSING, W. Howells, Harvard, "Java Man went into Dubois' locker for a time. But Peking Man seems to have gone into Davy Jones' locker, and for good. He disappeared, one of the first casualties of the war in the Pacific, half a million years after he had died the first time." Mankind IN THE MAKING, p.165

CONTEMPORARY, "[H. erectus] would have been alive when modern human and Neandertals roamed the earth. ...If the dates are right, we have three different species coexisting at the same time..." SCIENCE, V.274, p.1841, 12/13/1996

Homo erectus = Homo sapien, S.C.ANTON, Anthropologist, U. of FL, "Anthropologist Milford H. Wolpoff of the University of Michigan...argue that H. erectus fossils actually belong to an anatomically diverse form of H. sapiens... ‘The proper way to define both a living and a fossil species is the $64,000 question,’ Anton states." Science News, V.150, p.373, 12/14/1996

Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon Are Men

EVOLUTION OR VARIATION? "...a Neanderthaler is a model of evolutionary refinement. Put him in a Brooks Brothers suit and send him down to the supermarket for some groceries and he might pass completely unnoticed. He might run a little shorter than the clerk serving him but he would not necessarily be the shortest man in the place. He might be heavier-featured, squattier and more muscular than most, but again he might be no more so than the porter handling the beer cases back in the stock room." EVOLUTION, Time-Life Nature Library.

LARGER BRAIN, William Howells, Harvard, "The Neanderthal brain was most positively and definitely not smaller than our own; indeed, and this is a rather bitter pill, it appears to have been perhaps a little larger." MANKIND SO FAR, p.165

"FULLY HUMAN," Mat Cartmill, Duke U., Pres., Amer. Asso. of Phys. Anthropology, "I tend to think they [Neanderthals] had fully human language. After all, they had larger brains than those of most modern humans, made elegant stone tools, and knew how to use tools." Discover, 11/98, p.62

MODERN CAME FIRST, O. Bar-Yosef, Peabody Museum, Harvard, B. Vandermeerch, U. Bordeaux, "Modern Homo sapiens preceded Neanderthals at Mt. Carmel. ...modern looking H. sapien had lived in one of the caves some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, much earlier than such people had been thought to exist anywhere. ...The results have shaken the traditional evolutionary scenario, producing more questions than answers." Scientific American, p.94, 4/1993

Man "Older" Than Proposed Ancestors

RUINED FAMILY TREE, "Either we toss out this skull [1470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8-million-year-old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S. B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.", National Geographic, 6/1973, p.819

Human Brain, "Leakey further describes the whole shape of the brain case [1470] as remarkably reminiscent of modern man, lacking the heavy and protruding eyebrow ridges and thick bone characteristics of Homo erectus." Science News, 102. 4/3/72, p.324

Human Brain, Dean Falk, S.U.of N.Y. at Albany, "...KNM-ER 1805 [Homo habilis] should not be attributed to Homo... the shape of the endocast from KNM-ER (basal view) is similar to that from an African pongid, where as the endocast of KNM-ER 1470 is shaped like that of a modern human." Science, 221, (9/9/83) p.1073

Fossil Wastebasket, Ian Tattersal, Head, Anthropology Dep. American Museum of Natural History, "This assignment more than anything else reflects the usefulness of having around a basket called Homo habilis into which paleoanthropologists could sweep a lot of fossil loose ends. And of course, the more this basket swelled, the less biological meaning it possessed." The Fossil Trail, 1995, p.135

Human Brain "The foremost American experts on human brain evolution – Dean Falk of the State University of New York at Albany and Ralph Holloway of Columbia University–usually disagree, but even they agree that Broca's area is present in a skull from East Turkana known as 1470 Philip Tobias...renowned brain expert from South Africa concurs." Anthro Quest: The Leakey's Foundation News. No.43 (Spring 91) p.13

NOT ERECTUS, "According to paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York the African skulls...assigned to erectus often lack many of the specialized traits that were originally used to define that species in Asia, including the long low cranial structure, thick skull bones, and robustly built faces. In his view, the African group deserves to be placed in a separate species..." Discover, 9/94, p.88

"OLD" MODERN MEN, LEWIS LEAKEY "In 1933 I published on a small fragment of jaw we call Homo kanamensis, and I said categorically this is not a near-man or ape, this is a true member of the genus Homo. There were stone tools with it too. The age was somewhere around 2.5 to 3 million years. It was promptly put on the shelf by my colleagues, except for two of them. The rest said it must be placed in a ‘suspense account.’ Now, 36 years later, we have proved I was right." Quoted in Bones of Contention, p.156

TOO HUMAN – TOO OLD, Russel H. Tuttle, Professor of Anthropology, U.of Chicago, Affiliate Scientist, Primate Research Center, Emory U., "In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint trails at Laetoli sight G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. ...If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus ...In any case we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind..." Natural History, 3/90, p.64.

MODERN & TALL, Richard Leakey, "...the boy from Tukana was surprisingly large compared with modern boys his age; he could well have grown to six feet. ... Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines with previous discoveries of Homo erectus to contradict a long-held idea that humans have grown larger over the millennia." National Geographic, p.629, 11/1985

Man Even "Before" Lucy

CHARLES E. OXNARD Dean, Grad. School, Prof. Bio. and Anat., USC, "...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi...existed at least at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern humans at four and a half million years...", American Biology Teacher, Vol.41, 5/1979, p.274.

Henry M. McHenry, U. of C., Davis, "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens...." Science, Vol.190, p.428.

William Howells, Harvard, "...with a date of about 4.4 million, [KP 271] could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element.", Homo Erectus, 1981, p.79-80.

Eve KICKED OUT, STEPHEN J. GOULD, "...'mitochondral Eve' hypothesis of modern human origins in Africa, suffered a blow in 1993, when the discovery of an important technical fallacy in the computer program used to generate and assess evolutionary trees debunked the supposed evidence for an African source...disproving the original claim." Natural History, 2/94, p.21

Variation within kind is observed – Evolution is not observed!

FALSIFIED CASTS, Ales Hrdlicka, Smithsonian (Re: Java Man) "None of the published illustrations or casts now in various institutions is accurate." Science, 8/17/1923
 
APES UP FROM?, Donald Johanson, "At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday....", Lucy, p.363

One of the dangers of citing old literature, is that knowledge progresses...

Orangutan skull:
B00000ISWG.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif


Sivapithecus fossil skull...
sivapithecusrangle.jpg


Gorillas are quite similar, although smaller than Gigantopithecus, which lived about the same time as H. erectus.

There are a host of chimplike animals. The earliest, Dryopithecus, is a very primitive ape.

Let's try another one...

Reconstructions are unscientific

[quote:602c5]RECONSTRUCTIONS? EARNST A. HOOTEN, Harvard, "To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip, leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public.... So put not your trust in reconstructions.", UP FROM THE APE, p.332

Police forensics have given lie to that assertion as well. Remarkably good likenesses have been obtained merely by taking a skull, adding the muscles and soft tissue parts indicated by the scars on the bones, and adding skin.

http://www.forensicartist.com/index.html

(quote discussing popular misconceptions about paleontology, but does not discuss the issues of reconstruction)

(misconceptions non-scientists have about paleontology quoted)

BASIS OF "FAMILY TREE," ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, "The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance....can be deceptive, partly because similarity of structure does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar..." Bones of Contention, 1987, p.123

This is true. There is a difference between analogous and homologous features. Would you like to learn how we can tell the difference?

(Lewontine's explaination of why we can't be sure that any particular individual is the ancestor of more advanced species)

This is because we can only show that one species led to another. Whether or not any particular individual we found is a human ancestor is impossible to say.

UNRELIABLE "TREES," J. LOWENSTEIN & ADRIENE ZIHLMAN, "But anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied on for defining evolutionary lineages. Yet, paleontologist persist in doing just this. ...the subjective element in this approach to building evolutionary trees, which many paleontologist advocate with almost religious fervor, is demonstrated by the outcome: there is no single family tree on which they agree." Nature, 1992, Vol.355, p.783

This argument is by folks who want to use genetics and molecular biology to find lineages. They represent the extreme of the molecular biologists. Almost all scientists admit that both anatomical and fossil evidence can be used to find lineages as well as genes and molecules. Fortunately, these independent methods almost always agree.

Ramapithecus Is Discarded Ape

Yep. About 30 years ago. The point is...?

"APES", Robert B. Eckhardt, Penn.S.U., "...there would appear to be little evidence to suggest that several different hominoid species are represented among the Old World dryopithecine fossils... (Ramapithecus, Oreopithecus, Limnopithecus, Kenyapithecus). They them-selves nevertheless seem to have been apes -morphologically, ecologically, and behaviourally." Scientific American, Vol.226, p.101

True. But that's why most scientists accept that Australopithecines are the ancestors of humans.

Australopithecus Is An Ape

So are humans. Humans and chimps are more alike than chimps and orangs.

SECOND "APE-MAN" OUT" ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo - large brain, toolmaking and so on - has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years. And the ape-man, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry." BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p.18

You've been had. The Leakys were referring to A. boisei, originally called Zinjanthropus. It is a "robust" australopithecine, and clearly not the ancestor of humans. The "gracile" australopithecines are considered to be the ancestors of humans. You've been the victim of the old bait-and-switch.

LEAKEY DEFECTION, "Dr. Leakey bases his repudiation of Darwin on the results of his long search in East Africa for the remains of the original man. The generally accepted post-Darwin view is that man developed from the baboon 3 to 5 million years ago. But Leakey has found no evidence of a spurt in development at that time.", Chicago American, 1/25, 1967

Dr. Leaky could not have refuted Darwin in this matter, since Darwin never knew about it, much less commented on it.

DEFINITELY AN APE, LORD Solly Zuckerman, "The australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human (figure 5) that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER, p.78
[/quote:602c5]

Let's see if we test this. First the jaw...

a_africanus_jaw_top_small.jpg


Human or ape? What do you think?

The feet of australopithecines are somewhat like those of apes, but more like those of humans. The digits are more curved than ours, but less than apes. The heel is enlarged and more robust, like ours.

And so on... you've been hornswoggled by the oldest trick in the creationist armory; the edited quote.

Here's an important hint; if you try to argue by using such quotes, many people will assume that you are the one responsible for the dishonesties.

Let's agree that we will not quote from works we have not read in their entirity. Is that fair?
 
You cannot prove evolution through fosel records watch the vid.

here is another one.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/patton-scientific-age-earth.ram

Refrences to books are below

Earnst Mayr, Harvard, "The revolution began when it became obvious that the earth was very ancient rather than having been created only 6,000 years ago. This finding was the snowball that started the whole avalanche.", THE NATURE OF THE DARWINIAN REVOLUTION, p.3

Lawrence Badash, Prof. of History of Science, U. of CA, Santa Barbara, "As the sun's first ray's of thermonuclear light blazed across the galaxy 4.5 billion years ago, the primal earth emerged from a spinning, turbulent cloud of gas, dust and planetoids that surrounded the new star. ....On these figures for the age of the earth rest all of geology and evolution." Scientific American, 8/1989, p.90

GEORGE WALD, Nobel Laureate, Harvard, "However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. .... Time is in fact the hero of the plot. .... Given so much time, the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.", THE PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF LIFE, p.12.


"ASSUMPTIONS", HENRY FAUL, "Two important assumptions are implicit in this equation: First, that we are dealing with a closed system. And second, that no atoms of the daughter were present in the system when it formed. These assumptions furnish the most serious limitations on the accumulation clock. Rigorously closed systems probably do not exist in nature, but surprisingly, many minerals and rocks satisfy the requirement well enough to be useful for nuclear age determination. The problem is one of judicious geologic selection.", AGES OF ROCKS, PLANETS & STARS, p.vi.

DAUGHTER/PARENT/LOSE/GAIN, STEVEN M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins Univ., "In accepting a date, even with a plus-or-minus figure, we are assuming that a dated rock has remained a closed system – i.e., that it has neither lost nor received parent or daughter atoms from some other source. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Rocks can, in fact, both gain and lose atoms... These types of errors, which can beset even the most meticulous radiometric analysis, often add up to sizable total errors..." EARTH AND LIFE THROUGH TIME, 1986, p.122

SHIFTY URANIUM, J.D. MACDOUGALL, "The fourth assumption presupposes that the concentration of uranium in any specimen has remained constant over the specimen's life. ...ground-water percolation can leach away a proportion of the uranium present in the rock crystals. The mobility of the uranium is such that as one part of a rock formation is being improvised another part can become abnormally enriched...at relatively low temperatures." Scientific American, Vol.235 (6):118

"DATING OF MOON SAMPLES: PITFALLS AND PARADOXES", Everly Driscoll, "What complicates things for the uranium-lead method is that non-radiogenic lead 204, 206, 207 and 208 also exist naturally, and scientists are not sure what the ratios of non-radiogenic to radiogenic lead were early in the moon's history...The problem of how much lead was around to begin with still remains...If all of the age-dating methods (rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead and potassium-argon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would be neat. But they haven't. The lead ages, for example, have been consistently older...Isotopic ages have been obtained for material from five landing sites on the moon--those of Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15 and Luna 16; each site has a different age. But in a given site, the ages also vary...Ideally, however, any one basaltic rock from a given site should yield the same isotopic age, regardless of the method used.", Science News, Vol.101, p.12

CONSTANT RATES? Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, "There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man." Ind. Research & Development, p.21, 6/1982

Methods are not concordant. Conclusions are selected. Contradictions arbitrarily rejected.

DIFFERENT AGES FROM ONE ROCK, Joan C. Engels, "It is now well known that K-Ar ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant." Journal of Geology, ,Vol.79, p.609

RECENT LAVA @ 22M, C.S.Nobel & J.J.Naughton, Hawaiian Inst. of Geophysics, "The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent. ...these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old. The samples, in fact, may be very recent...", Science, Vol.162, p.265

PRECISION DATING? ROGER LEWIN, Ed. Research News, Science, "The calculated age was quickly refined to be 2.61 ± 0.26 million years, which, to anthropologist unfamiliar with the procedures of radiometric dating, has a ring of comforting precision about it. ...41 separate age determinations... which varied between 223 million and 0.91 million years ...after the first determination they never again obtained 2.61 from their experiments." BONES OF CONTENTION, p.194

ARBITRARY, A. HAYATSU, Dept. of Geophysics, U. of Western Ont., "In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." Canadian Journal Of Earth Science, 16:974.

DISSENTERS EJECTED, R. L. Mauger, E. Carolina U., "In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor or the discrepancies fully explained.", Contributions To Geology, Vol.15 (1): 17

"THE IMPERFECT ART OF ESTIMATING GEOLOGICAL TIME" BATES MCKEE, U. of Washington, "If the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date. To put it another way, ‘good’ dates are those that agree with the field data. ...the geologist has more faith in the fossil evidence than in a machine date, and this reflects some of the uncertainties of radiometric determinations and the interpretation of results." CASCADIA, The Geological Evolution Of The Pacific Northwest, p.25, 27

Carbon14

"C14 AGES IN ERROR", ROBERT E. LEE, "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better under-standing, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9

FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION, Report on C14 Conference (145 International Scientists), Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490. "Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions. ...one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age-range to which the method applies."

C14 INCREASING ! H. E. Suess, UCLA, "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority, ...presented the latest determinations...as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine. ...The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time.. These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..." Science, Vol.157, p.726

"Proof of pudding" Tests (Moon rocks, G. Canyon, Hawaiian, Mt. St. Helen lavas) Demonstrate Invalidity.

"CLOCKS" UNRELIABLE, W.D. Stansfield (Anti-Creationist), Prof. Biological Science, Cal. Polyt.S.U., "If we assume that (1) a rock contained no Pb206 when it was formed, (2) all Pb206 now in the rock was produced by radioactive decay of U238, (3) the rate of decay has been constant, (4) there has been no differential leaching by water of either element, and (5) no U238 has been transported into the rock from another source, then we might expect our estimate of age to be fairly accurate. Each assumption is a potential variable, the magnitude of which can seldom be ascertained. In cases where the daughter product is a gas, as in the decay of potassium (K40) to the gas argon (Ar 40) it is essential that none of the gas escapes from the rock over long periods of time...It is obvious that radiometric technique may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'." Science of Evolution, 1977, p.84

Raymond K. Strom is a creationist who is a Geological Technical Specialist (Petrologist) for a major oil company in Canada. His occupation regularly involves working with radiometric data. He recently made this very insightful observation in personal correspondence.

"Proof would require statistically significant correlation between the ages obtained by dating (without selective dumping) and the ages of the rocks determined by their position in the geologic column in hopefully several peer-reviewed double-blind studies. No such studies exist. Their absence is very suspicious... Their absence points to an obvious answer--the geochronologists know that their method will not stand up to rigorous scientific inquiry."

"RAPID," DEREK AGER, Past President British Geologist Asso., "The geological record is constantly lying to us. It pretends to tell us the whole truth, when it is only telling us a very small part of it. (p.xvi) Nowhere in the world is the record, or even part of it, complete. ... It may seem paradoxical, but to me the gaps probably cover most of earth history, not the dirt that happened to accumulate in the moments in between. It was during the breaks that most events probably occurred. ... It is the gaps that really matter. (p.14) ... Obviously sedimentation had to be very rapid to bury a tree in a standing position before it rotted and fell down. ... Standing trees are known at many levels and in many parts of the world. ... we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and that at other times there were long breaks in the sedimentation, though it looks uniform and continuous. The New Catastrophism, 1993, p.49

"RAPID," Edwin D. McKee, "The chief significance of ripple lamination in the geologic record is that it is an indicator of environments involving large and rapid sand accumulation...areas where addition of new sand normally is at a slow rate, have little chance of developing into superimposed ripple lamination... In contrast, areas in which sand accumulates periodically but rapidly, as in river flood plains were sand laden waters of strong floods suddenly lose velocity are very favorable for building up ripple-laminated deposits." Primary Sedimentary Structures and Their Hydrodynamic Interpretation, Society of Economic Paleontologists & Mineralogists, p.107.

"SECONDS OR MINUTES," Alan V. Jopling, Dept. of Geology, Harvard, "it is reasonable to postulate a very rapid rate of deposition; that is a single lamina would probably be deposited in a period of seconds or minutes rather than in a period of hours. ...there is factual evidence from both field observation and experiment that laminae composed of bed material are commonly deposited by current action within a period of seconds or minutes." Significance of Laminae Some Deductions on the Temporal, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, V. 36, No. 4, pp.880-887.

"INSTANTANEOUS," ADOLF SCILACHER, Geoiogisches Inst., Univ. Frankfurt, "This proves instantaneous deposition of the individual beds, as postulated by the turbidity-current theory. ...the sandy layers of the Flysch did not accumulate gradually but were cast instantaneously by turbidity currents each bed in its entire thickness, in a matter of hours or less." Journal of Geology, Vol. 70, p. 227.

UBIQUITOUS RIPPEL MARKS, Robert R. Shrock, Proff. of Geology, M.I.T., "Because they are one of the commonest and most widespread of original sedimentary features, they have been described and illustrated in countless reports. ...Ripple marks are preserved in conglomerates, sandstones, and siltstones, and in clastic limestones and dolostones. ...Many examples have been described from rocks of all ages..." SEQUENCE IN LAYERED ROCK, p.93, 95

GLOBAL LAYERS, Derek Ager, "I was taken by a Turkish friend to visit a cliff section in Upper Cretaceous sediments near Sile on the Black Sea coast. ...what I in fact saw was the familiar white chalk of north-west Europe with black flints and old fossil friends such as Micraster and Echinocorys. What I was looking at was identical with the White Cliffs of Dover in England and the rolling plateau of Picardy in France, the quarries of southern Sweden and the cliffs of eastern Denmark. We have long known, of course, that the White Chalk facies of late Cretaceous times extended all the way from Antrim in Northern Ireland, via England and northern France, through the Low Countries, northern Germany and southern Scandinavia to Poland, Bulgaria and eventually to Georgia in the south of the Soviet Union. We also knew of the same facies in Egypt and Israel. My record was merely an extension of that vast range to the south side of the Black Sea. (p.1) "Nevertheless, there is even worse to come, for on the other side of the Atlantic in Texas, we find the Augstin Chalk of the same age and character, and...found in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. And most surprising of all, much farther away still in Western Australia, we have the Gingin Chalk of late Cretaceous age, with the same black flints and the same familiar fossils, resting as in north-west Europe on glauconitic sands. "Some general explanation is surely needed for such a wide distribution of such a unique facies." The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, p.2

TIME BETWEEN LAYERS?, Robert Dott, University of Wisconsin, "The storm surge due to Hurricane Carla [1961] raised sea level 4 m above normal along the central Texas coast. As the storm passed, retreat of the surge and associated currents carried much sediment seaward and deposited it as a conspicuous graded layer up to 6 cm thick... Miles Hayes described this deposit in 1967, but 20 years later, Joseph McGowen (1981, oral comm.) found that it had been so thoroughly homogenized by burrowing organisms that it is no longer recognizable." SEPM Presidential Address, 3/83, Journal Of Sedimentary Petrology, p.12

YOUNG CANYONS, "You’d expect a hard-rock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old, says Peter Frenzen, mountain scientist. "But this was cut is less than a decade." National Geographic, 5/222, p.121

Incredibly Preserved Fossils

"FRESH" DINOS, "Minerals, however, did not replace soft tissue in the bones excavated from the banks of Alaska's Colville River west of Prudhoe Bay. ‘They’re as light as balsa wood and look as fresh as yesterday’s dog bones,’ says Canadian paleontologist Phil Currie... For more than 65 million years the remains of the vegetarian duck-billed dinosaurs and other creatures lay buried in the now-frozen tundra, which was once a coastal swamp with a subtropical-to-temperate climate.’...their structure was porous and the fossils were not remineralized.’ Therefore, in their deep freeze, the Alaskan bones may well have preserved some of their DNA." Omni, 1/90, p.32

DINOSAUR blood cells, "Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. 'I got goose bumps. ...It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. ...The bones are, after all 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'" Science, Research News, V.261, 9/7/'93

ERASED, "Certain physical limits seem inescapable. In approximately 50,000 years, water alone strips bases from the DNA and leads to the breakage of strands into pieces so small that no information can be retrieved from them. Oxygen also contributes to the destruction of DNA. Even in ideal conditions–in the absence of water and oxygen and at low temperature–background radiation must finally erase all genetic information," Scientific American, 11/93, p.92

DNA SHOULD BE GONE, "This means these compression fossils defy the prediction, from in vitro estimates of the rate of spontaneous hydrolysis, that no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years. What a good job not everybody knew that, grant reviewers included." Nature, Vol.352, 8/91

"Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA" Tomas Lindahl. "The apparent observation that fully hydrated plant DNA might be retained in high-molecular mass form for 20 million years is incompatible with the known properties of the chemical evolution of DNA." Nature, Vol.362, 1993, p.714.

17 million year OLD WET DNA? "...DNA sequence from a magnolia leaf deposited in clay on the bottom of a lake in northern Idaho some 17 million years ago. They were able to amplify a fragment as long as 800 base pairs. ...The clay was wet, however, and one wonders how DNA could have survived the damaging influence of water for so long." Scientific American, 11/93, p.92

40 MILLION YEAR OLD DNA ALIVE? "Now Cano, a microbiologist at California State Polytechnic University...dissected a Dominican stingless bee trapped in 25 to 40 million year old amber, found bacterial spores (a dormant state of bacteria), grown them, analyzed some of their DNA, and found it closely matches...the same bacteria found in modern Dominican bees. ‘When you look at them they don’t look any different from the modern ones,’ Cano says, but these bacteria are ancient and, ‘they’re alive!’" Science, Research News, V.268, 5/19/95

Swift Coal and Quick Oil

RAPID COAL, GEORGE R. HILL Dean of College of Mines & Mineral Industries, "A rather startling and serendipitous discovery resulted....These observations suggest that in their formation, high rank coals,....were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event." [Six Hours], Chemtech, May, 1972, p. 292.

garbage into oil, " British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..." Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982

RAPID OIL, Middleton, Holyland, Loewenthal, Bruner, "Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations." The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p. 6-12

Cave Formations

Police Speleotherms, "Hanging from a ceiling beam in the 40-year-old building's basement are several rows of formations not usually seen so close to ground level. Stalactites. Yep, stalactites – more than 100 of the squiggly, slippery rock formations that thousands of people pay to see in places named Carsbad and Mammoth. ...They are natural cave ornaments, pure and simple." Dallas Morning News, 4/4/1994, p.13A

INDICATORS OF YOUNG EARTH

Descriptions of Young Earth Evidence

By Anti-Creationist, William D. Stansfield, Prof. Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State Univ.

Water In The Oceans

"It has been estimated that seventy volcanoes the size of Mexico's Paricutin producing 0.001 cubic mile of water per year for 4.5 billion years of earth's history could account for the 315 cubic miles of water in the oceans today. There are now approximately 600 active volcanoes and about 10,000 dormant ones. Six hundred volcanoes comparable to Paricutin could account for the present oceans in approximately 0.5 billion years."

Uranium In the Oceans

"Uranium salts presently appear to be accumulating in the oceans at about 100 times the rate of their loss. It is estimated that 6x1010 grams of uranium is added to the oceans annually. Under uniformitarian rules, the total concentration of uranium salts of the oceans (estimated at less than 1017 grams) could be accumulated in less than one million years."

Lava In The Strata

"It has been estimated that four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutin and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts. The Columbian plateau of northwestern United States (covering 200,000 square miles) was produced by a gigantic lava flow several thousands of feet deep. The Canadian shield and other extensive lava flows indicate that volcanic activity has indeed followed an accelerated tempo in the past. The fact that only a small percentage of crustal rocks are recognizably lavas...."

Meteoric Dust In Strata

"One estimate of meteoric dust settling to earth places it at 14.3 million tons annually. If this rate has been constant throughout five billion years of geologic history, one might expect over fifty feet of meteorite dust to have settled all over the surface of the earth. .... The average meteorite contains about three hundred times more nickel than the average earth rock."

Meteorites In Strata

"No meteorites have been found in the geological column."

Pressure In The Strata

"Some geologist find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years."

People On The Strata

"If humanity is really about 2.5 million years old (as claimed by Dr. Louis Leakey), creationist calculate from conservative population estimates (2.4 children per family, average generation and life span of forty-three years) that the world population would have grown from a single family to 102700 people over one million years. the present world population is about 2x109, an infinitesimal part of the 102700."

Helium In the Atmosphere

"The atmospheric content of helium-4 (the most abundant isotope of helium) has accumulated from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in the earth's crust and oceans, from nuclear reactions caused by cosmic rays, and from the sun. If the present rate of accumulation has been constant throughout four billion years of the earth's history, there should be thirty times as much helium in our present atmosphere as is presently there."

Radiocarbon In Atmosphere

"It now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere. Since the amount of C14 is now increasing in the atmosphere, it may be assumed that the quantity of C14 was even lower in the past than at the present. This condition would lead to abnormally low C14/C12 ratios for the older fossils. Such a fossil would be interpreted as being much older than it really is. .... Creationist argue that since C14 has not yet reached its equilibrium rate, the age of the atmosphere must be less than 20,000 years old."

Dr. Stansfield's "Answer" to his own young earth arguments:

"By this methodology, creationists stand guilty of the "crime" they ascribe to evolutionists, namely uniformitarianism. .... All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometric dating." But He Acknowledges: "If we assume that (1) a rock contained no Pb206 when it was formed, (2) all Pb206 now in the rock was produced by radioactive decay of U238, (3) the rate of decay has been constant, (4) there has been no differential leaching by water of either element, and (5) no U238 has been transported into the rock from another source, then we might expect our estimate of age to be fairly accurate. Each assumption is a potential variable, the magnitude of which can seldom be ascertained. In cases where the daughter product is a gas, as in the decay of potassium (K40) to the gas argon (Ar 40) it is essential that none of the gas escapes from the rock over long periods of time. It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock.'"

SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION, 1977, p.84


youve been told the truth through it.

this fulfills

2 Tim.4:3,4.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but
wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves
teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn their ears
away from the truth, and will turn a side to myths.
 
Official name of the Evolutionist's Religion...
Humanism

The Evolutionist's Prophet...
Darwin

The Evolutionist's Infallible Book (Bible)...
"Origin of the Species"

The Evolutionist's Statement of faith....
Theory of Evolution

The Evolutionist's Church, Temple...
Public Schools

The Evolutionist's Priests...
High School Biology teachers (university professors are arch-bishops)

The Evolutionist's Evangelistic Medium...
High school textbooks, TV, Radio

The Evolutionist's "Church Treasury"...
Your public Tax Dollars

The Evolutionist's Divine being...
Himself

The Evolutionist's view of where we came from:
Random chance processes

The Evolutionist's purpose of life and where we are going
None, nowhere


Avoiding worldly & empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "science" 1 Timothy 6:20
 
Official name of the Evolutionist's Religion...
Humanism

The great Protestant theologian Karl Barth wrote:
"There can be no Humanism without the Gospels."

Perhaps you're thinking of "secular humanism"; an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence."

Most of us are theists, the biggest portion are Christians.

The evolutionist's Prophet...
Darwin

Darwin made no prophesies, merely predictions based on evidence.

The Evolutionist's Infallible Book (Bible)...
"Origin of the Species"

The Evolutionist's Statement of faith....
Theory of Evolution

Theories cannot be based on faith. Perhaps you don't know what the scientific defintion of "theory" is:

"A well-tested idea or set of ideas that explains a natural phenomenon."

The Evolutionist's Church, Temple...
Public Schools

As you probably know, the Supreme Court reaffimed that religion cannot be taught in public schools. It affirmed that since science is based on evidence, it cannot be a religion.

The Evolutionist's Priests...
High School Biology teachers (university professors are arch-bishops)

In fact, there is no authority, other than the evidence one can cite for one's ideas. Evolutionary theory can be (and has been) modified if new evidence challenges it.

The Evolutionist's Evangelistic Medium...
High school textbooks, TV, Radio

The Internet works very well. Often, on boards like these, science can be advanced by discussing misconceptions about evolution.

The Evolutionist's Divine being...
Himself

Since most of us are theists, that's obviously wrong. Have you noticed that most people who think they hate evolutionists, don't know very much about evolution?

The Evolutionist's view of where we came from:
Random chance processes

Nope. Natural selection is not random. And a lot of us think it's the way God handles creation in this world.

The Evolutionist's purpose of life and where we are going
None, nowhere

Wrong again. At least for the majority of us.

Avoiding worldly & empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "science" 1 Timothy 6:20

This last is among the "arguments we think creationists should not use", posted on the creationist site, Answers in Genesis.

You've got a lot of really bad misinformation to deal with. You probably should get a good textbook on science, and one on biology to learn what it's really about.

If you want to fight evolution, wouldn't learning what it really is, be helpful?
 
Ah, the "shotgun approach" toss out so many fake claims against evolution that it's tedious to answer them all. I'll just knock off the ones I've already checked. If you want to present any that I've missed, one at a time, I'll take them out, too.

"RAPID," DEREK AGER, Past President British Geologist Asso., "The geological record is constantly lying to us. It pretends to tell us the whole truth, when it is only telling us a very small part of it. (p.xvi) Nowhere in the world is the record, or even part of it, complete. ... It may seem paradoxical, but to me the gaps probably cover most of earth history, not the dirt that happened to accumulate in the moments in between. It was during the breaks that most events probably occurred. ... It is the gaps that really matter. (p.14) ... Obviously sedimentation had to be very rapid to bury a tree in a standing position before it rotted and fell down. ... Standing trees are known at many levels and in many parts of the world. ... we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and that at other times there were long breaks in the sedimentation, though it looks uniform and continuous. The New Catastrophism, 1993, p.49

Yep. We know this is so, because we can see it happening now. Sedimentation can sometimes be rapid, although it's most ofe BTW, there are only a few places in the world where the geological column is complete, and it's not hard to see why. It would have to be recieving sediment over billions of years, on a continual basis. It's surprising that any location has a complete record of all periods.

"RAPID," Edwin D. McKee, "The chief significance of ripple lamination in the geologic record is that it is an indicator of environments involving large and rapid sand accumulation...areas where addition of new sand normally is at a slow rate, have little chance of developing into superimposed ripple lamination... In contrast, areas in which sand accumulates periodically but rapidly, as in river flood plains were sand laden waters of strong floods suddenly lose velocity are very favorable for building up ripple-laminated deposits." Primary Sedimentary Structures and Their Hydrodynamic Interpretation, Society of Economic Paleontologists & Mineralogists, p.107.

These are often found at the mouths of young rivers, or in alluvial fans at the base of mountains. On the other hand, we also see cross-bedding of rounded grains, which could only be caused by wind-blown sand deposition, and we find these in the middle of "Flood deposits". How did deserts have time to form during Noah's flood?

"SECONDS OR MINUTES," Alan V. Jopling, Dept. of Geology, Harvard, "it is reasonable to postulate a very rapid rate of deposition; that is a single lamina would probably be deposited in a period of seconds or minutes rather than in a period of hours. ...there is factual evidence from both field observation and experiment that laminae composed of bed material are commonly deposited by current action within a period of seconds or minutes." Significance of Laminae Some Deductions on the Temporal, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, V. 36, No. 4, pp.880-887.

Some can be. But most aren't. Varves, for example are laid down two layers a year. We have records of millions of years of varves in some lakes.

YOUNG CANYONS, "You’d expect a hard-rock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old, says Peter Frenzen, mountain scientist. "But this was cut is less than a decade." National Geographic, 5/222, p.121

"Mountain scientist"? There are a number of cases where canyons have been rapidly cut. One formed the scablands. They are rare, but they do happen. Most canyons, like the Grand Canyon, formed over millions of years. How to we know that? Because of formations like entrenched meanders, which cannot be formed rapidly.

"FRESH" DINOS, "Minerals, however, did not replace soft tissue in the bones excavated from the banks of Alaska's Colville River west of Prudhoe Bay. ‘They’re as light as balsa wood and look as fresh as yesterday’s dog bones,’ says Canadian paleontologist Phil Currie... For more than 65 million years the remains of the vegetarian duck-billed dinosaurs and other creatures lay buried in the now-frozen tundra, which was once a coastal swamp with a subtropical-to-temperate climate.’...their structure was porous and the fossils were not remineralized.’ Therefore, in their deep freeze, the Alaskan bones may well have preserved some of their DNA." Omni, 1/90, p.32

Isn't "Omni" the science fiction/popular science magazine put out by the publisher of "Penthouse"? Do you have a cite from a reliable magazine?

DINOSAUR blood cells, "Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. 'I got goose bumps. ...It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. ...The bones are, after all 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'" Science, Research News, V.261, 9/7/'93

This is an interesting one. It hasn't actually been confirmed that the round objecs are cells, but there was a Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton that had a little hemoglobin preserved. When the antigenic characteristics were checked, they were more like those of birds than of modern reptiles, which is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.


Cave Formations

Police Speleotherms, "Hanging from a ceiling beam in the 40-year-old building's basement are several rows of formations not usually seen so close to ground level. Stalactites. Yep, stalactites – more than 100 of the squiggly, slippery rock formations that thousands of people pay to see in places named Carsbad and Mammoth. ...They are natural cave ornaments, pure and simple." Dallas Morning News, 4/4/1994, p.13A

Depending on the mineral, and the concentration and water flow, one can make such things rapidly, or very slowly. The ones in caves have sometimes been watched for decades with little or no measurable change. Most cave formations have measured rates that require thousands or millons of years.

INDICATORS OF YOUNG EARTH
"It has been estimated that seventy volcanoes the size of Mexico's Paricutin producing 0.001 cubic mile of water per year for 4.5 billion years of earth's history could account for the 315 cubic miles of water in the oceans today. There are now approximately 600 active volcanoes and about 10,000 dormant ones. Six hundred volcanoes comparable to Paricutin could account for the present oceans in approximately 0.5 billion years."

Your yard sprinkler could account for all the water in a nearby lake in less than that time. However, it's pretty safe to say that your sprinkler did not fill the lake.

"Uranium salts presently appear to be accumulating in the oceans at about 100 times the rate of their loss. It is estimated that 6x1010 grams of uranium is added to the oceans annually. Under uniformitarian rules, the total concentration of uranium salts of the oceans (estimated at less than 1017 grams) could be accumulated in less than one million years."

And if you use iron, you can show that it could be accumulated in less than 100 years. But finding the equillibrium of a salt in the ocean doesn't mean that it is the age of the Earth.

"One estimate of meteoric dust settling to earth places it at 14.3 million tons annually.

But it's a very bad one. The study on which the estimate was based did not control for dust from the earth.

Meteorites In Strata
"No meteorites have been found in the geological column."

Nope. That's wrong, too:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf125/sf125p07.htm

This one, they just lied to you about.

"If humanity is really about 2.5 million years old (as claimed by Dr. Louis Leakey), creationist calculate from conservative population estimates (2.4 children per family, average generation and life span of forty-three years) that the world population would have grown from a single family to 102700 people over one million years. the present world population is about 2x109, an infinitesimal part of the 102700."

And that same estimate would have the number of houseflies in the world covering the Earth with hundreds of feet of flies in a few years. Does that suggest what's wrong with that argument?

Helium In the Atmosphere

Helium is so light, relative to other gases, that it off-gasses into space.

Radiocarbon In Atmosphere

This has been directly calibrated by using the organic material in lake varves. Learn about it here:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf125/sf125p07.htm

(Argument against radioistope dating)

http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

As I said, these are just the dishonesties I've seen before. But if you give me the ones I skipped, one at a time, I have no doubt that they are just as dishonest.

I'm sure you didn't mean to post this sort of thing. But you did. How about making sure you actually read the article itself before you do post more fakes in the future?
 
I usally read the articles before i post them i would except there explanation than your`s not out of offence but the fact that i infactically disbelieve that evolution is not acceptible in Gods eye`s neather is humanisum.

there are alot of people in this forum im sure of that have no time for evolution I dont believe its to be correct the bible is 100% correct evolution is a man made teaching.

by the way evolution in the UK is regarded as a religion in schools and taught as one.


in he uk also religion is not banned in schools as yet.

Athests tell me that evolution disprof that god ever exsisted I know that to be true becouse ive asked them my self.

the fact that if you belive that adam and eve ever exsisted then if we came from apes then adam was not the first man on earth neather was eve.
 
I usally read the articles before i post them i would except there explanation than your`s not out of offence but the fact that i infactically disbelieve that evolution is not acceptible in Gods eye`s neather is humanisum.

Specifically, in that last list of quotes for which of them did you actually read the whole article? And if you did, why did you post them, knowning that edited the way they were, they were misleading? Oh, and you misspelled "fanatically". :wink:

there are alot of people in this forum im sure of that have no time for evolution I dont believe its to be correct the bible is 100% correct evolution is a man made teaching.

by the way evolution in the UK is regarded as a religion in schools and taught as one.

Um, no it's not. I know a number of UK teachers. And they are usually astonished to learn that a significant number of Americans don't understand evolution. They regard evolutionary theory as a science, as all other scientists do.

in he uk also religion is not banned in schools as yet.

Since the UK is officially a Christan nation, that's understandable. In America, we have a Constitution which gurarantees religious freedom. And so we don't have official religion in public schools.

Athests tell me that evolution disprof that god ever exsisted I know that to be true becouse ive asked them my self.

Then they are woefully ignorant of science. Nothing in science can disprove anything, much less God.

the fact that if you belive that adam and eve ever exsisted then if we came from apes then adam was not the first man on earth neather was eve.

Maybe you should explain that one.
 
Um, no it's not. I know a number of UK teachers. And they are usually astonished to learn that a significant number of Americans don't understand evolution. They regard evolutionary theory as a science, as all other scientists do.

I now a christian supply teacher personnaly who says this is so the school i went to taught it in Religous Education


Since the UK is officially a Christan nation, that's understandable. In America, we have a Constitution which gurarantees religious freedom. And so we don't have official religion in public schools.

The UK dosent cosider it self to be Christian in that sence becouse of its multifaith culteres


Then they are woefully ignorant of science. Nothing in science can disprove anything, much less God.

No there not becouse there are atheast scientist who say so in the uk they have PHD`s do you have a PHD barberian

the fact that if you belive that adam and eve ever exsisted then if we came from apes then adam was not the first man on earth neather was eve.

Maybe you should explain that one.

ok well here gose


Do you believe Genesis chapters 1-3 when it speaks of six, 24 hour days of creation.that Adam & Eve were the first humans.that there really was a Garden of Eden & a forbidden fruit?


Not even the early Christians believed all of that. It's a modern adjustment to scripture.


Are you one of those christian`s face it your an athest admit it.


Do you believe Genesis 6 when it says there was a worldwide flood.that Noah built an ark wherein were all the animals?

Where does it say in scripture that the flood was worldwide? When it says it covers all the land, it uses "eretz", the same word that it uses to describe Israel. You've added the "worldwide" part on your own.


well these are my point.

The whole earth was covered with the Flood waters, and the world that then existed was destroyed by the very waters out of which the earth had originally emerged at God's command (Genesis 1:9; 2 Peter 3:5,6).

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the flood waters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8-11 note "waves"). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah's day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9)[1]. They are the same waters!

so the flood was world wide

Mount Everest is more than 5 miles (8 kilometers) high. How, then, could the flood have covered "all the high hills under the whole heaven?"

The Bible refers only to "high hills," and the mountains today were formed only toward the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental landmasses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the flood waters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's earth surface.

Mount Everest is more than 5 miles (8 kilometers) high. How, then, could the flood have covered "all the high hills under the whole heaven?"

The Bible refers only to "high hills," and the mountains today were formed only toward the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental landmasses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the flood waters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's earth surface.

Mount Everest is more than 5 miles (8 kilometers) high. How, then, could the flood have covered "all the high hills under the whole heaven?"

The Bible refers only to "high hills," and the mountains today were formed only toward the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental landmasses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the flood waters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's earth surface.

This explains why there are focels on mt everist

Mount Everest is more than 5 miles (8 kilometers) high. How, then, could the flood have covered "all the high hills under the whole heaven?"

The Bible refers only to "high hills," and the mountains today were formed only toward the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental landmasses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the flood waters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's earth surface.

if you look all over the world you will find a huge grave yard in the mountins full of fossels.

here are some food for thought

If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.

If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 metres) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn't rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2

If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of 'all' men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.

If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.

Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, has the backing of common sense, science, and Christ Himself.

Note that the Bible talks about mountains rising (in connection with God's rainbow promise, so after the Flood): see CEN Technical Journal 12(3):312–313, 1998. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/technical.aspEverest has marine fossils at its peak. Therefore, the mountains before the Flood are not those of today. There is enough water in the oceans so that, if all the surface features of the earth were evened out, water would cover the earth to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). This is not enough to cover mountains the height of Everest, but it shows that the pre-Flood mountains could have been several kilometres high and still be covered.

Some 'progressive creationists', http://www.answersingenesis.org/ who cannot accept a global Flood because of their commitment to millions of years for the ages of fossils, try to promote belief in a 'universal' Flood. This leads many unsuspecting evangelicals to think they believe in a world-wide Flood, but what they mean by this is that even though it was a local flood, all humanity outside of the Ark perished in it. However, it boggles the mind to believe that after all those centuries, no-one would have migrated to other parts. Or that people living on the periphery of such a local Flood would not have moved to the adjoining high ground rather than be drowned.
 
The point is, what you are using as "earth" in your translation is from "eretz", a Hebrew word for "land". And it was used to describe Israel alone.

So you don't have any justification for saying the flood was worldwide. Indeed, there is no evidence for such a thing. Many (not all) mountains are filled with fossils. Not dotted with them, they are made of fossils. The Himalayas, for example. We know how they got there. They are still rising, and we can measure the movement. It is the result of India colliding with Asia.

Fig24left.gif


http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/ ... nding.html

And yes, Christianity is the official religion of Great Britain. And no, evolution is not taught as a religion in public schools there.
 
OK. I'll just interject on one or two points here, as there is a lot of bulk in ths thread:


willow the wip said:
I now a christian supply teacher personnaly who says this is so the school i went to taught it in Religous Education

Well Barbarian says the teachers he knows says otherwise, and as a British citizen who is a product of our education system myself, I must say that it has never been taught to me as an evolution, nor included in religious education classes at any point in the past.

-And I very much doubt this has changed since.

If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.

If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 metres) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn't rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2

If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of 'all' men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.

If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.

You cannot use articles in a story to prove the validity of the story like that. That is circular reasoning.

Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, has the backing of common sense, science, and Christ Himself.

HA!

The backing of common sense and science!? Do try to explain that one, please.

Let's start with an easy one and move on from there: Where did all this water come from, in the global flood model?
 
The point is, what you are using as "earth" in your translation is from "eretz", a Hebrew word for "land". And it was used to describe Israel alone.

So you don't have any justification for saying the flood was worldwide. Indeed, there is no evidence for such a thing. Many (not all) mountains are filled with fossils. Not dotted with them, they are made of fossils. The Himalayas, for example. We know how they got there. They are still rising, and we can measure the movement. It is the result of India colliding with Asia.

this denighs the world wide flood lets face it barberian your an athest you dont really believe the bible you have showed us that mutch.

Admit it you dont believe becouse we all know that its no use trying to hide behind excuses to disprove the bible.


victorhadin is 100% spot on. thumbs up to you m8te.

If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.

If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 metres) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn't rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2

If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of 'all' men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.

If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.


You cannot use articles in a story to prove the validity of the story like that. That is circular reasoning.

Quote:
Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, has the backing of common sense, science, and Christ Himself.


HA!

The backing of common sense and science!? Do try to explain that one, please.

Let's start with an easy one and move on from there: Where did all this water come from, in the global flood model?
 
this denighs the world wide flood

Right. Neither Scripture nor the evidence supports such a notion.

lets face it barberian your an athest

I don't think so. I love and trust in God. I'm a rather orthodox Trinitarian Christian.

you dont really believe the bible

I believe it. I just don't need to add anything to it.

Admit it you dont believe becouse we all know that its no use trying to hide behind excuses to disprove the bible.

It's not that the Bible is wrong, it's that it doesn't say what you want it to say.

victorhadin is 100% spot on. thumbs up to you m8te.

Victor is, I think, an atheist. I'm puzzled as to why you find his opinions more acceptable than those of a Christian, if you claim to be one yourself. Not that I have any great antipathy toward atheists; being a Christian, I'm aware that they are not automatically doomed to Hell.
 
Right. Neither Scripture nor the evidence supports such a notion.


why dont you ask evanman he would agree with me the word cover all the earth is gobal you dont believe that then you dont believe the bible.
 
I am unsure fo where you are coming from here, willow the wip. I criticised you for using biblical sources to back a biblical event (the global flood), which is circular reasoning, and asked you to verify why the literal global flood is backed by common sense and science, as you claimed.

I am not supporting the global flood at all. I personally believe it to be utterly preposterous.
 
willow the wip said:
Official name of the Evolutionist's Religion...
Humanism
Certainly not, believing natural selection is correct, which according to the evidence it is, it does not preclude theism, it makes it unncessary but does not make it impossible to be a theist and think evolution is correct. I am an atheist, but I recognize the fact that evolution is not incompatible with christianity.
The Evolutionist's Prophet...
Darwin
This just doesn't make any sense at all. He made a few very logical assumption based on observations of Finches and other animals in Galapagos and from those assumptions came an early version of natural selection. It would have been discovered eventually anyway.
The Evolutionist's Infallible Book (Bible)...
"Origin of the Species"
It fails in several areas, it was a push in the right direction but not infallible in any way. And we don't fight over its interpretation, we fight over the modern version of the theory, which is very different from what Darwin wrote.
The Evolutionist's Statement of faith....
Theory of Evolution
How is it a statement of faith if it can be shown to happen according to the evidence? If you wish to question it you can find evidence, experimental or observational to see if they are corrolary.
The Evolutionist's Church, Temple...
Public Schools
No this is hardly a temple, this is where we learn about the world. If you have a problem with science being taught then you ought to stop using your computer because it works on the basis of Quantum Theory.
The Evolutionist's Priests...
High School Biology teachers (university professors are arch-bishops)
Ha
The Evolutionist's Evangelistic Medium...
High school textbooks, TV, Radio
Ha
The Evolutionist's "Church Treasury"...
Your public Tax Dollars
Go complain to bush that they're teaching science in schools. Heaven forbid children learn about the natural world.
The Evolutionist's Divine being...
Himself
1: Not all evolutionists are men.
2: This isn't egoism we're talking about, it's the theory that explains how life developed on this plant.

The Evolutionist's view of where we came from:
Random chance processes

The Evolutionist's purpose of life and where we are going
None, nowhere
Wrong again, we're going somewhere as fast we can, we just don't know where because we can only look backward and what we can see can tell us nothing of our future.
Now stop copying and pasting and form your own arguments plagerizer.
 
I would say that the theory of evolution requires that evolution happen so slowly as to be unobservable, and it therefore cannot be conclusively proven either.
 
Rogue 9 said:
I would say that the theory of evolution requires that evolution happen so slowly as to be unobservable, and it therefore cannot be conclusively proven either.

And you would be conveniently wrong since microevolution is witnessed all the time with unicellular organisms like bacteria adapting to antibiotics. Evolution has so much going for it that the argument about being unable to see it because it's (usually) a slow process is meaningless now.
 
Since you can breed animals to get the traits you want to be more frequent you can use this to show evolution happens. Specization is a bit harder to show very often but it happens ever few years a new species will have developed.
 
Back
Top