Evan Burton Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I can understand how some people believe in god; that's okay. I'm an atheist and don't believe, but I can understand some people have a faith. I do not understand how those people can let their faith over-rule common sense and science to make them believe a ridiculous notion: that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I don't think it is true but if you said to me a power created the universe millions of years ago, well, the facts don't disprove that: I don't agree but I can't say you are wrong.... but to dismiss fact because it clashes with your dogma, well, you are simply wrong. I'm not sure if I agree with Richard Dawkins; debating these idiots does lend them a certain credence... but leaving this kind of stupidity unchecked can lead to some people actually falling prey to it, believing it, not checking facts, not applying logic, etc. http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/05/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-creationism-science-debate http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2014/jan/07/creationism-evolution-science-lessons-video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) I can understand how some people believe in god; that's okay. I'm an atheist and don't believe, but I can understand some people have a faith. I do not understand how those people can let their faith over-rule common sense and science to make them believe a ridiculous notion: that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I don't think it is true but if you said to me a power created the universe millions of years ago, well, the facts don't disprove that: I don't agree but I can't say you are wrong.... but to dismiss fact because it clashes with your dogma, well, you are simply wrong. I'm not sure if I agree with Richard Dawkins; debating these idiots does lend them a certain credence... but leaving this kind of stupidity unchecked can lead to some people actually falling prey to it, believing it, not checking facts, not applying logic, etc. http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/05/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-creationism-science-debate http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2014/jan/07/creationism-evolution-science-lessons-video perhaps your desire to elevate science to the position of GOD-head has skewed your outlook concerning man and his origin? Surely your "science" will explain who we are, what were doing here, and of course, the WHY for's of what were doing here? I await your answer to those three simple questions... An honest position: believe in GOD is NOT okay for atheists, as well as painful (sometimes very painful depending on ones level of guilt-remorse) for the agnostics amongst us. Edited February 7, 2014 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) PART 1 of three for computer says too much proof,ah,eh too many pictures to post +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Age of the earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe by Don Batten Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10) There are many categories of evidence for the age of the earth and the cosmos that indicate they are much younger than is generally asserted today. Can science prove the age of the earth? No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called ‘clocks’ they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the ‘clock’ has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below). No scientific method can prove the age of the earth or the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it. Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past. The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (13.77 billion years for the universe and 4.54 billion years for the solar system). Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend. When the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a young age of the earth. Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to ‘prove’ long ages. The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see “It’s not science”). Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificate and Biblical chronogenealogies (technical). In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded. Biological evidence for a young age of the earth Image: Dr Mary Schweitzer The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists. Geological evidence for a young age of the earth Radiometric dating and the age of the earth Astronomical evidence for a young(er) age of the earth and the universe Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007. The data for ‘mitochondrial Eve’ are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years. Many fossil bones ‘dated’ at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really? Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most). Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils ‘dated’ at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years. Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real. Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various ‘index’ fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The ‘Lazarus effect’: rodent ‘resurrection’! The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years. Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years. Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. See Warped earth (written by a geophysicist). Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Araucaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed. Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers. Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years. Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when they formed. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata. See, Walker, T., Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe, Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):8–9, 2000. Para(pseudo)conformities—where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a ‘flat gap’. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time). The thick Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) lies between the Coconino and Hermit in central Arizona. See Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon, monument to catastrophe, ICR, Santee, CA, USA, 1994 and Snelling, A., The case of the ‘missing’ geologic time, Creation 14(3):31–35, 1992. The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer has been deposited immediately after the lower one, eliminating many millions of years of ‘gap’ time. See references in Para(pseudo)conformities. Inter-tonguing of adjacent strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years also eliminates many millions of years of supposed geologic time. The case of the ‘missing’ geologic time; Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200 million years hiatus in question, CRSQ 23(4):160–167. The lack of bioturbation (worm holes, root growth) at paraconformities (flat gaps) reinforces the lack of time involved where evolutionary geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the ‘given’ timescale of billions of years. The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Geologists do claim to have found lots of ‘fossil’ soils (paleosols), but these are quite different to soils today, lacking the features that characterize soil horizons; features that are used in classifying different soils. Every one that has been investigated thoroughly proves to lack the characteristics of proper soil. If ‘deep time’ were correct, with hundreds of millions of years of abundant life on the earth, there should have been ample opportunities many times over for soil formation. See Klevberg, P. and Bandy, R., CRSQ 39:252–68; CRSQ 40:99–116, 2003; Walker, T., Paleosols: digging deeper buries ‘challenge’ to Flood geology, Journal of Creation 17(3):28–34, 2003. Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the ‘great unconformity’ at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata. See Para(pseudo)conformities. The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth. The discovery that underwater landslides (‘turbidity currents’) travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., Earth, 4th ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly. See for example, A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow (Technical). Flume tank research with sediment of different particle sizes show that layered rock strata that were thought to have formed over huge periods of time in lake beds actually formed very quickly. Even the precise layer thicknesses of rocks were duplicated after they were ground into their sedimentary particles and run through the flume. See Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! and Sandy Stripes Do many layers mean many years? Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form. Observed examples of rapid island formation and maturation, such as Surtsey, which confound the notion that such islands take long periods of time to form. See also, Tuluman—A Test of Time. Rate of erosion of coastlines, horizontally. E.g. Beachy Head, UK, loses a metre of coast to the sea every six years. Rate of erosion of continents vertically is not consistent with the assumed old age of the earth. See Creation 22(2):18–21. Existence of significant flat plateaux that are ‘dated’ at many millions of years old (‘elevated paleoplains’). An example is Kangaroo Island (Australia). C.R. Twidale, a famous Australian physical geographer wrote: “the survival of these paleoforms is in some degree an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development.” Twidale, C.R. On the survival of paleoforms, American Journal of Science 5(276):77–95, 1976 (quote on p. 81). See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, April 1983. The recent and almost simultaneous origin of all the high mountain ranges around the world—including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies—which have undergone most of the uplift to their present elevations beginning ‘five million’ years ago, whereas mountain building processes have supposedly been around for up to billions of years. See Baumgardner, J., Recent uplift of today’s mountains. Impact 381, March 2005. Water gaps. These are gorges cut through mountain ranges where rivers run. They occur worldwide and are part of what evolutionary geologists call ‘discordant drainage systems’. They are ‘discordant’ because they don’t fit the deep time belief system. The evidence fits them forming rapidly in a much younger age framework where the gorges were cut in the recessive stage / dispersive phase of the global Flood of Noah’s day. See Oard, M., Do rivers erode through mountains? Water gaps are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood, Creation 29(3):18–23, 2007. Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood. However, much of the Niagara Gorge likely formed very rapidly with the catastrophic drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz; see: Climate change, Niagara and catastrophe. River delta growth rate is consistent with thousands of years since the biblical Flood, not vast periods of time. The argument goes back to Mark Twain. E.g. 1. Mississippi—Creation Research Quarterly (CRSQ) 9:96–114, 1992; CRSQ 14:77; CRSQ 25:121–123. E.g. 2 Tigris–Euphrates: CRSQ 14:87, 1977. Underfit streams. River valleys are too large for the streams they contain. Dury speaks of the “continent-wide distribution of underfit streams”. Using channel meander characteristics, Dury concluded that past streams frequently had 20–60 times their current discharge. This means that the river valleys would have been carved very quickly, not slowly over eons of time. See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, 1983. Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also. The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that higher erosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years. Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2006. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66. The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val’cumey, northern Siberia. Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):83–90. Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. If they were many millions of years old we would expect the pressures to equilibrate, even in low permeability rocks. “Experts in petroleum prospecting note the impossibility of creating an effective model given long and slow oil generation over millions of years (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid.” —Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66. Direct evidence that oil is forming today in the Guaymas Basin and in Bass Strait is consistent with a young earth (although not necessary for a young earth). Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism undermine use of paleomagnetism in long ages dating of rocks and speak of rapid processes, compressing the long-age time scale enormously. The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the belief that reversals take many thousands of years and rather indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals, consistent with a young earth (Humphreys, D.R., Has the Earth’s magnetic field ever flipped? Creation Research Quarterly 25(3):130–137, 1988). Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are consistent with a young age of several thousand years. See also articles on limestone cave formation. The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay is evident from measurements and is consistent with theory of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of only thousands of years. For further evidence that it follows exponential decay with a time constant of 1611 years (±10) see: Humphreys, R., Earth’s magnetic field is decaying steadily—with a little rhythm, CRSQ 47(3):193–201; 2011. Excess heat flow from the earth is consistent with a young age rather than billions of years, even taking into account heat from radioactive decay. See Woodmorappe, J., 1999. Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth, Journal of Creation (TJ) 13(1):14, 1999. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth). Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005 Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296). Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes, Creation 28(2):46–50, 2006. Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical ‘young’ earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events. Australia’s ‘Burning Mountain’ speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible). Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18, 2009. See further corroboration: “At Long Last, Moon’s Core ‘Seen’”; http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/at-long-last-moons-core-seen.html?rss=1 Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age. The moon’s former magnetic field. Rocks sampled from the moon’s crust have residual magnetism that indicates that the moon once had a magnetic field much stronger than earth’s magnetic field today. No plausible ‘dynamo’ hypothesis could account for even a weak magnetic field, let alone a strong one that could leave such residual magnetism in a billions-of-years time-frame. The evidence is much more consistent with a recent creation of the moon and its magnetic field and free decay of the magnetic field in the 6,000 years since then. Humphreys, D.R., The moon’s former magnetic field—still a huge problem for evolutionists, Journal of Creation 26(1):5–6, 2012. Ghost craters on the moon’s maria (singular mare: dark ‘seas’ formed from massive lava flows) are a problem for the assumed long ages. Enormous impacts evidently caused the large craters and lava flows within those craters, and this lava partly buried other, smaller impact craters within the larger craters, leaving ‘ghosts’. But this means that the smaller impacts can’t have been too long after the huge ones, otherwise the lava would have flowed into the larger craters before the smaller impacts. This suggests a very narrow time frame for all this cratering, and by implication the other cratered bodies of our solar system. They suggest that the cratering occurred quite quickly. See Fryman, H., Ghost craters in the sky, Creation Matters 4(1):6, 1999; A biblically based cratering theory (Faulkner); Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe. The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists’ ‘dynamo’ mechanism. See also, Humphreys, D.R., Mercury’s magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation 22(3):8–9, 2008. The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long ‘dead’ if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. Jupiter’s larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This is consistent with creationist Humphreys’ predictions. See also, Spencer, W., Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moon, Journal of Creation 23(1):8–9, 2009. Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year’s age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only some of the excess heat produced. The surface of Jupiter’s moon Europa. Studies of the few craters indicated that up to 95% of small craters, and many medium-sized ones, are formed from debris thrown up by larger impacts. This means that there have been far fewer impacts than had been thought in the solar system and the age of other objects in the solar system, derived from cratering levels, have to be reduced drastically (see Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD, available from CMI). Methane on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon)—the methane should all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown. The products of photolysis should also have produced a huge sea of heavier hydrocarbons such as ethane. An Astrobiology item titled “The missing methane” cited one of the Cassini researchers, Jonathan Lunine, as saying, “If the chemistry on Titan has gone on in steady-state over the age of the solar system, then we would predict that a layer of ethane 300 to 600 meters thick should be deposited on the surface.” No such sea is seen, which is consistent with Titan being a tiny fraction of the claimed age of the solar system (needless to say, Lunine does not accept the obvious young age implications of these observations, so he speculates, for example, that there must be some unknown source of methane). The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn’s rings is inconsistent with their supposed vast age; they speak of youthfulness. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, looks young. Astronomers working in the ‘billions of years’ mindset thought that this moon would be cold and dead, but it is a very active moon, spewing massive jets of water vapour and icy particles into space at supersonic speeds, consistent with a much younger age. Calculations show that the interior would have frozen solid after 30 million years (less than 1% of its supposed age); tidal friction from Saturn does not explain its youthful activity (Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD; Walker, T., 2009. Enceladus: Saturn’s sprightly moon looks young, Creation 31(3):54–55). Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, should have been long since dead, if billions of years old, but its extreme surface features suggest otherwise. See Revelations in the solar system. Neptune should be long since ‘cold’, lacking strong wind movement if it were billions of years old, yet Voyager II in 1989 found it to be otherwise—it has the fastest winds in the entire solar system. This observation is consistent with a young age, not billions of years. See Neptune: monument to creation. Neptune’s rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform. Revelations in the solar system. Young surface age of Neptune’s moon, Triton—less than 10 million years, even with evolutionary assumptions on rates of impacts (see Schenk, P.M., and Zahnle, K. On the Negligible Surface Age of Triton, Icarus 192(1):135–149, 2007. <doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.004>. Uranus and Neptune both have magnetic fields significantly off-axis, which is an unstable situation. When this was discovered with Uranus, it was assumed by evolutionary astronomers that Uranus must have just happened to be going through a magnetic field reversal. However, when a similar thing was found with Neptune, this AD hoc explanation was upset. These observations are consistent with ages of thousands of years rather than billions. The orbit of Pluto is chaotic on a 20 million year time scale and affects the rest of the solar system, which would also become unstable on that time scale, suggesting that it must be much younger. (See: Rothman, T., God takes a nap, Scientific American 259(4):20, 1988). The existence of short-period comets (orbital period less than 200 years), e.g. Halley, which have a life of less than 20,000 years, is consistent with an age of the solar system of less than 10,000 years. ad hoc hypotheses have to be invented to circumvent this evidence (see Kuiper Belt). See Comets and the age of the solar system. “Near-infrared spectra of the Kuiper Belt Object, Quaoar and the suspected Kuiper Belt Object, Charon, indicate both contain crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrate. This watery material cannot be much older than 10 million years, which is consistent with a young solar system, not one that is 5 billion years old.” See: The ‘waters above’ . Lifetime of long-period comets (orbital period greater than 200 years) that are sun-grazing comets or others like Hyakutake or Hale–Bopp means they could not have originated with the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. However, their existence is consistent with a young age for the solar system. Again an ad hoc Oort Cloud was invented to try to account for these comets still being present after billions of years. See, Comets and the age of the solar system. The maximum expected lifetime of near-earth asteroids is of the order of one million years, after which they collide with the sun. And the Yarkovsky effect moves main belt asteroids into near-earth orbits faster than had been thought. This brings into question the origin of asteroids with the formation of the solar system (the usual scenario), or the solar system is much younger than the 4.5 billion years claimed. Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006. The lifetime of binary asteroids—where a tiny asteroid ‘moon’ orbits a larger asteroid— in the main belt (they represent about 15–17% of the total): tidal effects limit the life of such binary systems to about 100,000 years. The difficulties in conceiving of any scenario for getting binaries to form in such numbers to keep up the population, led some astronomers to doubt their existence, but space probes confirmed it (Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006). The observed rapid rate of change in stars contradicts the vast ages assigned to stellar evolution. For example, Sakurai’s Object in Sagittarius: in 1994, this star was most likely a white dwarf in the centre of a planetary nebula; by 1997 it had grown to a bright yellow giant, about 80 times wider than the sun (Astronomy & Astrophysics 321:L17, 1997). In 1998, it had expanded even further, to a red supergiant 150 times wider than the sun. But then it shrank just as quickly; by 2002 the star itself was invisible even to the most powerful optical telescopes, although it is detectable in the infrared, which shines through the dust (Muir, H., 2003, Back from the dead, New Scientist 177(2384):28–31). The faint young sun paradox. According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun’s core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun’s core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth. For the latter, this translates into a 16–18 ºC temperature increase on the earth. The current average temperature is 15 ºC, so the earth ought to have had a -2 ºC or so temperature when life appeared. See: Faulkner, D., The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system, Journal of Creation (TJ) 15(2):3–4, 2001. As of 2010, the faint young sun remains a problem: Kasting, J.F., Early Earth: Faint young Sun redux, Nature 464:687–689, 1 April 2010; doi:10.1038/464687a; www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/464687a.html Evidence of (very) recent geological activity (tectonic movements) on the moon is inconsistent with its supposed age of billions of years and its hot origin. Watters, T.R., et al., Evidence of Recent Thrust Faulting on the Moon Revealed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, Science 329(5994):936–940, 20 August 2010; DOI: 10.1126/science.1189590 (“This detection, coupled with the very young apparent age of the faults, suggests global late-stage contraction of the Moon.”) NASA pictures support biblical origin for Moon. The giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the sun, suggesting a recent origin. Jupiter radiates almost twice as much energy as it receives from the sun, indicating that it may be less than 1 % of the presumed 4.5 billion years old solar system. Saturn radiates nearly twice as much energy per unit mass as Jupiter. See The age of the Jovian planets. Speedy stars are consistent with a young age for the universe. For example, many stars in the dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are moving away from each other at speeds estimated at to 10–12 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dispersed in 100 Ma, which, compared with the supposed 14,000 Ma age of the universe, is a short time. See Fast stars challenge big bang origin for dwarf galaxies. The ageing of spiral galaxies (much less than 200 million years) is not consistent with their supposed age of many billions of years. The discovery of extremely ‘young’ spiral galaxies highlights the problem of this evidence for the evolutionary ages assumed. The number of type I supernova remnants (SNRs) observable in our galaxy is consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions. See Davies, K., Proc. 3prd ICC, pp. 175–184, 1994. The rate of expansion and size of supernovas indicates that all studied are young (less than 10,000 years). See supernova remnants. Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer? ‘Stone age’ human skeletons and artefacts. There are not enough for 100,000 years of a human population of just one million, let alone more people (10 million?). See Where are all the people? Length of recorded history. Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc., all about the same time several thousand years ago. See Evidence for a young world. Languages. Similarities in languages claimed to be separated by many tens of thousands of years speaks against the supposed ages (e.g. compare some aboriginal languages in Australia with languages in south-eastern India and Sri Lanka). See The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics. Common cultural ‘myths’ speak of recent separation of peoples around the world. An example of this is the frequency of stories of an earth-destroying flood. Origin of agriculture. Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food. See: Evidence for a young world. Last updated 5 April 2012. How old is the Earth? Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth The glasses of ‘deep time’ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers BioLogos and the age of the earth: Pushing an anti-biblical doctrine CMI scientific blunder? A Christian response to radiometric dating(Available in Albanian) Related Articles How old is the earth? Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth The glasses of ‘deep time’ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers BioLogos and the age of the earth: Pushing an anti-biblical doctrine CMI scientific blunder? Deep time doesn’t make sense! Further Reading A Christian response to radiometric datingRelated Media CMI: Teaching creationism is child abuse? (Part 3) CMI: Teaching creationism is child abuse? (Part 1) Scientific evidence for a recent creation -- Creation Magazine LIVE! (2-05) Edited February 7, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) PART 2 of three for computer says too much proof,ah,eh too many pictures to post ========================================================== Age of the earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe by Don Batten Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10) Photo by NASA Saturn’s rings are increasingly recognized as being relatively short-lived rather than essentially changeless over millions of years. Along the mid-ocean ridges, the detailed pattern of magnetic polarisation, with islands of differing polarity, speaks of rapid changes in direction of Earth’s magnetic field because of the rate of cooling of the lava. This is consistent with a young Earth. Erosion rates at places like Niagara Falls are consistent with a time frame of several thousand years since Noah’s Flood. Edited February 7, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 PART 3 of three for computer says too much proof,ah,eh too many pictures to post ========================================================== Age of the earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe by Don Batten Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10) Photo by Don Batten Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide and is consistent with a young age of the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Our Created Solar System http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI Edited February 7, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Our Created Universe - Spike Psarris https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3668004119&feature=iv&src_vid=1Wj8lL-AiWc&v=na2TL-wcK4I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 Surely your "science" will explain who we are, what were doing here, and of course, the WHY for's of what were doing here? I await your answer to those three simple questions... That is, in a way, very easy: we don't know. Science doesn't try to explain them from a philosophical viewpoint. Projects like the Large Hadron Collider are trying to help explain how we (everything) started but that's about it. Besides, if the creation of all we know - life, the universe, everything - was a random chance happening of events, then who says there has to be a purpose, a destiny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) then who says there has to be a purpose, a destiny?, BURTON GOD+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++right above my computer screen is this fantastic book http://www.signatureinthecell.com/ Matthew 5:13-16 ESV / “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. Mark 12:30-31 ESV And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 ESV But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. Edited February 7, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 But that may only be valid if you accept the proposition that a god exists. Anyway, this thread is not about being an atheist or an agnostic, about believing in a god or buddha or indeed a flying spaghetti monster; that's faith and your own concern. The thread is about creationism and how it is not rational nor compatible with good science. It should be noted, however, that there are many people who have a strong religious faith (and are of different faiths) yet have no issues with evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 Don Batten? 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe is an extensive list of arguments for young Earth creationism (YEC), compiled by Don Batten in June 2009 for Creation Ministries International (CMI). The text below is the version of 26th March, 2012.Batten collects a variety of supposed uncertainties in science dealing with the past that could allow one to simultaneously maintain belief in the validity of the scientific method and the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis through confirmation bias. The apparent intent of the article is to help other creationists struggling with cognitive dissonance, and for use as a conversion tool. In addition to numerous factual errors and failures to understand the theories which it is intended to criticize, the document suffers from faulty logic. A list of arguments broken down by fallacy is presented at the end of this page. Although the list claims to have 101 points, several are just reworded duplicates and one is even a copy of the preceding item. Almost every reference link in the original article either goes directly to creationist sources, or to popular science magazines which support creationism; as there are no reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers. Ultimately, the article seeks to persuade by force of numbers, rather than force of argument. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The thread is about creationism and how it is not rational nor compatible with good science. BURTON Really Mr. Burton ?? You have produced ZERO counter arguments to the evidence I presented.(Gaal) "zero" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Where did the idea of “millions of years” come from? (from War of the Worldviews) What is the most compelling scientific evidence of a young earth? What oceanographic evidence points to a young age for the oceans?The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists (Technical, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism 2:17–33, 1990) Does salt come from evaporated sea water? (ICR Acts and Facts) Sea Floor Sediment (Technical, book review) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Is there any geologic evidence that, contrary to evolutionary ideas, supports a young age for the earth? The Earth's magnetic field and the age of the Earth Fossil magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field It’s about time Kodachrome Basin State Park: Where Can We See Young-Earth Evidence? (ICR BTG 211a) The Lesson of Surtsey Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth (Technical) Microscopic Diamonds Confound Geologists (Technical) Rapid Granite Formation (Semi-Technical) Rapid Rocks—Granites . . . They didn’t need millions of years of cooling! Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record (from Evolution Exposed) ================================================== What features of earth’s atmosphere are inconsistent with billions-of-years belief?Evidence for a Young Earth from the Ocean and Atmosphere (Semi-Technical, ICR article)==================================================== Astronomy What do comets tell us about the age of the solar system?Comets and the Age of the Solar System (Technical) Kuiper Belt objects and the short-period comets “dilemma” (for evolutionists) More problems for the “Oort comet cloud”? Is there evidence that our solar system is only thousands of years old, instead of the millions of years claimed by evolutionists? What about the age of stars?Extrasolar planets suggest our solar system is unique and young How old are Saturn’s rings? Lunar recession: does it support a young universe? Mercury—the tiny planet that causes big problems for evolution Revelations in the Solar System (Semi-Technical) Saturn’s Rings Short-Lived and Young (Semi-Technical, available in Spanish) Titan vs. Billions of Years (ICR Back to Genesis article) Enceladus: A Cold, Youthful Moon (ICR Back to Genesis article) How old is the moon?Is the moon really old? Moon Dust Evidence no longer valid Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System (Technical) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Responses to our 15 Questions: part 1 General objections and attempted answers to questions 1–3 Published: 7 September 2011(GMT+10) Since we kicked off our Question Evolution campaign, responses have been pouring in from evolutionists and skeptics attempting to answer our 15 Questions for Evolutionists (by Dr Don Batten). We’ve compiled many of the answers that we’ve received to date (paraphrased to cover as many versions of the objection we’ve received as possible), along with our refutations. Several of CMI’s staff have contributed to this response, including Jonathan Sarfati, Rob Carter, Don Batten and Lita Cosner. Note: many of the answers published here cover far more ground than the pamphlet could, since it necessarily dealt with the topics in an abbreviated form. General Objections: These are objections which may deal with the pamphlet in general. The more our biological knowledge expands, the more problems evolution has. Objection 1: These questions are only unanswerable because our science isn’t advanced enough. Rebuttal: But if science has not yet advanced, then how could materialistic scientists possibly know what can be answered in the future? They tend to discount predictive prophecy, at least when it’s in the Bible. If more questions about evolution were answered by scientific advance, the skeptics may have a point. But exactly the opposite has been true in the past. The more our biological knowledge expands, the more problems evolution has. For example, Darwin’s friend Haeckel thought that the cell was just a blob of goo; now we know it is a miniature city with advanced nanotechnology, including machines and factories such as ATP synthase and kinesin. Objection 2: CMI uses a misleading definition of evolution. Evolution is only the change in allele frequency in a population over time. Rebuttal: Evolution is often used to describe anything from the slight change of a species over time (for instance, changes in finch beak size) to molecules-to-man evolution. If evolution is just changes in allele frequency, then CMI would be an evolutionary organization! Our detractors are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation, also known as bait-and-switch. What is really misleading is imputing that CMI denies that allele frequencies change—but then, under an evolutionary belief system, why shouldn’t evolutionists mislead, as one bragged about? CMI’s definition of evolution for the purposes of this pamphlet is the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree with—and this is what the dispute is about! Objection 3: Even if science cannot explain the origin of life, to say that God must have done it is an argument from ignorance. Rebuttal: We do not argue from what we don’t know, but from what we do know about the nature of the information encoded in the DNA, the complexity of life, etc. Our argument is, to quote from a previous response: Saying, “We don’t know, but evolution did it somehow,” on the other hand, is an argument from ignorance aka ‘evolution of the gaps’.“In the first two cases above, it would be perverse to complain that the archaeologist didn’t discuss whether the object’s designer itself had a designer, or that the SETI researcher didn’t tell us who designed the alien. It would be even sillier to argue from this that we should simply drop the idea of design, and conclude that the object or hypothetical space signal had no designer.”“These features are those that an archaeologist would use to determine whether an object was designed by an intelligent designer, or that a SETI devotee would use to argue that a signal from space came from an intelligent alien, or whether a ballot or card game was fixed, or whether a sequence of letters was the result of intelligence or monkeys on a keyboard.“In objects of known origin, there are certain features—specified complex information—that occur only in those made by an intelligent designer (or an intelligently designed program). So by the normal analogical reasoning we use in science, when we see these features in an object where the origin is unknown, we can likewise conclude that this object had an intelligent designer. Objection 4: Many of these questions involve things that are very improbable. But we know that improbable events happen all the time. Rebuttal: In the analogies that evolutionists use, such as the lottery, a series of coin flips, etc., there will be an outcome. Someone will win the lottery, the coin flips must be some arrangement of heads or tails, etc. These evolutionists are cheating with chance. But when it comes to the origin of first life, the probability is against any outcome—see Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller—Urey, probability. Objection 5: CMI uses quote mining, citing scientists as part of their argument against evolution even though these scientists are evolutionists. CMI quotes scientists out-of-context. Rebuttal: Any quote that is less than the entire work of which it is a part could be smeared as ‘out of context’. We take care not to take any quote in a manner that is other than what would be intended in the context. It is acceptable to use ‘hostile witness’ quotes to show how even people who believe evolution admit its difficulties. An example of a genuinely out-of-context quote would be Darwin’s on the eye, where Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step (in his opinion, with which we obviously disagree). This is why it’s on our Don’t Use page, one of the most read on our site (and even praised by Richard Dawkins himself). But it is not ‘out of context’, say, to quote an evolutionary bird expert against the dino-to-bird theory specifically, or to cite evolutionist Ernst Haeckel to show that he believed that the Bible opposed racism and that the Bible was wrong to do so, or to cite an evolutionist who makes a controversial admission in public or in print, even if he tries to paper over that statement later. Some of our opponents seem to think that quoting an evolutionist who has conceded a problem with evolution (even if he actually made such a concession) is ‘quoting out of context’ simply because the evolutionist would not agree with our position in toto. But this is a quite bizarre understanding of misquoting. 1. How did life originate?Answer 1: Abiogenesis is not relevant to the discussion of evolution—it is a separate topic (this has been a very common claim). Rebuttal: No one claimed that abiogenesis was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, “On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life”, International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004). It doesn’t matter how well one can or can’t explain how the first life could evolve, if you can’t explain how it got there in the first place, the theory is literally dead in the water (or the (non-existent) primordial soup, as the case may be). Notice also that, as we stated clearly above, creationists believe in changing allele frequencies over time. Therefore, since both sides claim this as part of their model, the debate must lie outside this area. Hence, the origin of life is fair game for discussions on whether or not evolution is true. See our Origin of Life Q&A for more information. Answer 2: Life/non-life isn’t a dichotomy. Rather, there are many examples of ‘proto-life’ such as viruses, prions, etc. Rebuttal: These intriguing sub-life entities have nothing to help evolutionists explain the origin of genuine life, because they can’t reproduce without the presence of genuinely living creatures. But see Did God make pathogenic viruses? And Even a tiny virus has a powerful mini-motor. Answer 3: Some experiments show that the early earth’s atmosphere was optimal for life. Rebuttal: And which studies would those be? The Miller-Urey experiment which used the wrong sort of atmosphere and produced more sludge than amino acids? Or the studies which show that the early atmosphere was oxygen-rich—not friendly for the origin of life. Or the ones that show that water would impede the formation of the hypothetical earliest cell, because it would favour hydrolysis over polymerization. Or the ones that show that information is a crucial component for life—the ‘software’ is just as important as the ‘hardware’, in other words—which gives the evolutionists the burden of showing how something so mind-bogglingly complex (such that we only are beginning to unravel some of the code) came about by random chance? 2. How did the DNA code originate?Answer 1: This is not an evolution question, because evolution starts with an already-reproducing organism. Rebuttal: But this is something evolution must assume. Leading philosopher Antony Flew lost his atheistic faith by considering (among other things): “It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. “Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”2 If there’s no way for the DNA code to come about via natural processes, evolution is impossible. If there’s no way for the DNA code to come about via natural processes, evolution is impossible. A huge problem is this: the DNA information requires complex decoding machines, including the ribosome, so it can be decoded into the specifications to build the proteins required for life, including enzymes. But the information required to build ribosomes is itself encoded on the DNA. So DNA information can’t be decoded without products of its translation, forming a ‘vicious circle’. And decoding machinery requires energy from ATP, built by ATP-synthase motors, built from instructions in the DNA decoded by ribosomes … ‘vicious circles’ for any materialistic origin theory. Answer 2: Originally, life used RNA instead of DNA to encode information. Rebuttal: First, where is the evidence for this, such as fossilized ancestral RNA life? Second, the RNA world hypothesis is fraught with difficulties. RNA is even less stable than DNA, and that is saying something—about a million DNA ‘letters’ are damaged in a typical cell on a good day, which then requires repair mechanisms to be in place (another problem for origin-of-life scenarios). And it is extremely unlikely that the building blocks for RNA would come about by undirected chemical interactions, and even if this happened, it would be even more improbable that the building blocks would self-assemble into any RNA molecule, let alone an informational one. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. See this article for more details, which discusses the objections of a major origin-of-life researcher to the ‘RNA world’ hypothesis. Answer 3: It is disingenuous to argue from the current DNA code, because the original code would have been much simpler. Rebuttal: This is most disingenuous. So many evolutionists have appealed to the common DNA code to “prove” common ancestry. But now they are claiming that the first life had a different code not possessed by any living creature! But how could we go from the hypothetical simpler coding system to the current one? It would be like switching keys on a computer keyboard—the messages would become scrambled (as anyone who is accustomed to a QWERTY keyboard who has tried to use a non-QWERTY Latin keyboard would know only too well). Actually, it has long been known that there are exceptions to the code, as we have pointed out (see The Unity of Life) and that is a problem for evolutionists. Richard Dawkins was recently stumped when “life-creator” Craig Venter pointed out that there were different codes—Dawkins has long taught that evolution was supported by a single code and used this to argue for the single (evolutionary, of course) origin of all life. There is a certain minimum amount of information which would have to be encoded for any living thing to survive. Currently, the self-replicating organism with the least amount of genetic information is the Mycoplasma genitalium with 580,000 ‘letters’ coding for 482 proteins. But this can only survive as a parasite, so non-parasitical life would have to encode even more information. See How simple can life be? Answer 4: The question of how the modern code emerged from these early predecessors is evolution itself. Random deviations in the nucleic acid structure would change the by-product produced, if the by-product was more efficient at replicating, it would overwhelm less efficient codes. This gradual change in the complexity of the underlying code is useful in explaining many aspects of biological theory. Such as why RNA is used as an intermediate between DNA and protein synthesis. Rebuttal: Random deviations would randomly change the “by-product produced”, so they would disrupt all the proteins encoded. RNA is used as an intermediate because it is more labile; it’s optimal for the short time frames needed for cell communications. It is a hopeless candidate for hypothetical eons in a primordial soup. Answer 5: The words ‘code’ and ‘language’ are only metaphors when applied to the DNA code, and they have no reality outside our own mental constructs. In reality, the whole thing is dependent on chemical properties. Rebuttal: Secular scientists refer to the nucleobases of DNA as ‘letters’, so it’s hardly original to us. And we would agree that the workings of the code are due to chemical properties—we are not vitalists (see also Naturalism, Origins and Operational Science). But this doesn’t explain the origin of the code. Similarly, we believe that the workings of computer decoders can be explained totally by the laws of semi-conductor electron levels and other electrical properties, but these laws didn’t make the computer. Should we say then that there is no difference between a 500 GB hard drive and an old 2 MB one, because it has no reality outside our mind? Also, this is a rather petty thing to dispute, since it does not address any of the arguments from the pamphlet. One wonders why we received several objections of this nature. Answer 6: It is easy to create amino acids and the building blocks for RNA by running an electrical charge through mineral-rich water. Rebuttal: If you could actually get all the amino acids needed for life, and the sugars for RNA, from those conditions (which you can’t, since the conditions are incompatible, so this is a baseless assertion), that would be only the very first step. You then have to polymerize the amino acids in the right sequences into proteins (don’t forget about folding the proteins into precisely the right shape with chaperonins, because even one wrongly-folded protein can wreak havoc), and assemble all those proteins into micro-compartments to prevent the wrong things from reacting, then combine these compartments together to make the first cell. That is why such experiments never go beyond these simple “building blocks”; they are too dilute, contaminated, cross-reactive, and racemic (instead of being ‘one-handed’), to build anything. See Origin of life: instability of building blocks and Origin of life: the chirality problem. We have already covered the problems for the RNA world. 3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?Answer 1: If only eight mutations per year were passed on for three billion years, that gives 3 gigabytes of information. It is becoming the consensus even among evolutionist geneticists that mutations are like spelling mistakes in an instruction manual, which overwhelmingly degrade information. Rebuttal: This assumes that those information-gaining mutations occur—which hasn’t been shown. Second, as a population grows larger, it is harder to fix new mutations in the population, because the cost of substitution is greater (this is Haldane’s Dilemma).3 Third, it assumes that the mutations that will be fixed are the sort that create new structures, such as lungs, feathers and wings. But it is becoming the consensus even among evolutionist geneticists that mutations are like spelling mistakes in an instruction manual, which overwhelmingly degrade information. These changes can be adaptive (helpful to survival or ‘beneficial’) in certain circumstances, but they are still heading in the wrong direction to make evolution tenable. This includes antibiotic resistance, wingless beetles on windswept islands, blind fish in caves, and chloroquine resistance in malarial parasites. A recent paper shows that even the “beneficial” mutations work against each other—it’s called antagonistic epistasis. Answer 2: Computer models have shown how mutations can lead to large-scale change. Rebuttal: Every computer simulation of information-gaining mutations known to us stacks the deck in favour of evolution and in no way simulates what actually happens in real life. You might as well argue from the computer game Spore (although some do). See the articles on genetic algorithms and Dawkins’s Weasel program at our Natural Selection Q&A, as well as the more sophisticated Mendel’s Accountant, which does simulate (model) the real world genetics of living organisms. We know that mutations break things—and it’s far easier to break something than to make it. Note also, that the issue is not the size of the change: dogs and cabbages both exhibit enormous variety, but they are still dogs (wolves, coyotes, German shepherds, etc.) and cabbages (broccoli, Brussels sprouts, etc.). These changes can occur within an animal or plant type (kind/baramin). Evolutionists need to find a mechanism for ‘nature’ to invent new genetic instructions for complex new features such as feathers for reptiles, if evolution did really change a reptile into a bird, for example. Answer 3: Using words such as ‘accidental’ and ‘mistakes’ is misleading and misses the point entirely. Rebuttal: Again, this sort of language is used by secular scientists, so take it up with them. But an assertion is not an argument—our opponents didn’t even defend this assertion. Carl Sagan, an ardent evolutionist, admitted: “ … mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.”4 How can random changes be anything but ‘accidental’ and ‘mistakes’? Well so far our evolution defenders have not delivered the goods. Keep tuned for the next installment of attempts to answer the 15 questions. Related Articles Skeptic puzzled by ‘Question Evolution’ campaign Question evolution! 15 Questions for evolutionists ‘It’s not science’ Genetic entropy and human lifespans Further ReadingOrigin of Life Questions and Answers Mutations Questions and Answers Responses to our 15 Questions: part 2 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 ReferencesKerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960. He continued: “the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” Return to text. Flew went on to say that such DNA research “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved.” My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: an exclusive interview with former British atheist Professor Antony Flew by Gary Habermas, Philosophia Christi, Winter 2005. Return to text. According to the theoretical mathematics of population genetics, if a beneficial mutation has a selective advantage, its probability of survival is about 2s/(1–e–2sN), where s = selection coefficient and N is the population size. See Spetner, L.M., Not By Chance, The Judaica Press, Brooklyn, NY, 1996, 1997; see online review. Return to text. Sagan, C., The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 28. Return to text. Edited February 8, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Wednesday, 23 January 2013 http://therationalwiki.blogspot.com/ Rational Wiki is biased and Abiogenesis is impossible The Rational Wiki is biased. Honestly this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone considering it's mainly irrational extremist atheists operating behind the site but the extreme bias they apply to their articles while ignoring all the facts, misquoting sources and using fallacious arguments leaves them unworthy of the title "Rational". This is the same site proposing that abiogenesis has great evidence supporting it when there only ever was one outdated (their view as well) experiment proving that self-replicating molecules can form in lab controlled environments. "Give those crazy scientists a half billion or so years to play, though, and they might do just as well as nature once did!" Says the "Rational" Wiki. This opinion can be applied the other way around too especially since observable data for abiogenesis doesn't exist (and it's next to impossible to test). So here goes: Give those crazy scientists half a billion or so years to play, though, and they might just discover that Louis Pasteur was right all along with Biogenesis (which so far remains correct). Unlike the improbable hypothesis of abiogenesis, The Law of Biogenesis remains solid and nature all over is testament and supportive to this observable law. Sadly the atheist in their fanaticism and ludicrous ideals refuse to admit that they are wrong with their baseless arguments and speculation about their creation myth. Continually they use fallacious reasoning and argument appeals to try and support themselves as they lie and proclaim that the "scientific community" (which to them consists of only the atheist scientists who agree with them) supports them. Abiogenesis is the only alternative to The Law of Biogenesis and what with it being inimical to scientific method and unobservable (not to mention completely illogical, only the atheist could believe in such a myth which they require to be true to support their atheism) it shouldn't be accepted by anyone with a rational and sound mind. Biogenesis states that life only comes from pre-existing life. This implies deliberate creation, something that the atheist refuses to accept hence their advocation for an outdated debunked concept. Tales of the world being created in 6 days may all sound fancy and magical but so do tales of life forming from dead material in mud-pools for absolutely no reason other than to defy the laws of nature via spontaneous generation - a debunked concept. Clearly there was a god behind creation. Whether Genesis or any creation story is true is another subject and one that is quite irrelevant to me. Atheism remains absurd and ridiculous when it calls upon blind faith in abiogenesis and the spontaneous generation of life that the unobservable, unscientific and impossible abiogenesis proposes happened billions of years ago in conditions of Earth that scientists are in debate about. The Miller-Urey experiment (the experiment mentioned above) only further reinforced Biogenesis by showing that only intelligent life (humans in this instance) can ever create something relating to life. When life is eventually created in a lab, it will be due to the scientists - and the conditions they enforced along with deliberate tampering - and not due to the impossible process of abiogenesis. Posted by Gabriel at 21:20 Edited February 8, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Listing Darwinist LIes Online Publication Exposing Darwinist lies number one - Darwnists DID kill people of color as subhumans! Exposing Darwinist Lies number two - Darwinism did lead to commonplace abortions and racism, particularly in the USA Exposing Darwinist Lies Number Three - Hitler was NOT a Christian! But he was a Darwinist "on steroids" Edited February 8, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now