News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

I did a quick internet search for evidence related to creation and found this website:

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/Creation-Evidence.htm

Here is an excerpt...


Creation Evidence - A Few Brief Examples:

* Lack of Transitional Fossils.

Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.

* Lack of a Natural Mechanism.

Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far.

* Time Constraints.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities.

* Unacceptable Model of Origins.

The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in "voids" and "clumps," or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, "where did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?



Here's some information from the Creation Evidence Museum...

http://www.creationevidence.org/

This excerpt also points out an additional evolutionary problem: The cohabitation of humans and dinosaurs. Of course, this was spoken about in the Bible.


...Dr. Carl Baugh, the museum’s Founder and Director, originally came to Glen Rose, Texas to critically examine claims of human and dinosaur co-habitation. He conducted extensive excavations along the Paluxy River, with appropriate permission of the landowners. These original excavations yielded human footprints among dinosaur footprints (see the Director’s doctoral dissertation).He then realized that a museum needed to be established in order to appropriately display this evidence, along with sustained excavations and other areas of scientific research for creation.



The Grand Canyon

Here is some compelling information about the Grand Canyon that you won't find in modern-day textbooks or in the heads of self-styled evolutionists:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon2.html

Excerpt:

SUMMARY: Geologists admit that they do not know how the Grand Canyon formed, but for the last 140 years, they have insisted that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years and somehow removed the evidence.1 (Several obvious problems with this idea are mentioned in the description for Figure 42 on page 105.) To these so-called experts, the canyon’s birth remains a “hazy mystery, cloaked in intrigue, and filled with enigmatic puzzles.”2 After studying those puzzles, we will examine the eight main proposals for the Grand Canyon’s origin and why they are rejected by almost all experts. Finally, we will consider two ancient, postflood lakes—Grand Lake and Hopi (HO pee) Lake—that successively breached their boundaries and carved the Grand Canyon in weeks. This explanation not only unravels the confusion, but solves other puzzles not previously associated with the Grand Canyon.

Hi all

I feel a little déjà-moo in the air.

Lack of Transitional Fossils.

Well except for all of those which are known this would be a good argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopterix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles


Lack of a Natural Mechanism.

Boiled down his complaint is that there is no such things as beneficial mutations. I’ve already explained how a single bacteria evolved in a lab under observation into a plethora of different bacteria with different abilities incuding novel new metabolic pathways and defense mechanisms against predators. How anyone could not see that as beneficial I have no idea. Given that the experiment started with just one individual there was no genetic variation to start with so all of the change seen were due to the inventiveness of evolution. Evolution has been observed to work in the wild and in the lab and the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection have been observed in detail. Maybe the authors of this website are ignorant of that. Does that lend much support to their claims of credibility in other areas especially after they got it so wrong on the transitional fossils point above?

This article demonstrates that beneficial mutations do occur as we watch in lab experiments. They prove that selection among preexisting genetics is not the only mechanism behind these benefits but novel new inventions also play a part.
Lederberg, J. and E. M. Lederberg, 1952. Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406.

So the website is only half a century out of date with that claim.

Other examples include the observed evolution of the ability for bacteria to digest nylon by-products, chemicals unknown on this planet till we invented them last century. Another group of bacteria have evolved the ability to digest 2-4 dinitrotolulene another novel new invention.

There are plenty more examples from bacterial and insect resistance to our chemical attacks on them. Where the genetics is know it is often the case that novel new genetics are involved in their new abilities so a mechanism is indeed well known, observed, tested and understood except, apparently, by the authors of this website.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time.

It’s true, evolution takes a long time, it’s probably much faster than Darwin envisaged in the right conditions but it’s certainly not a fast process. I very much doubt that any ‘evolutionist’ would suggest that it is an excessive amount of time far less infinite. The observed facts of evolution in action in the experiments I have documented above and in wild observations show that the earth is easily old enough to account for the evolution that has apparently occurred here.

For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks.

Conspiracy theory’s is it? The age of the earth, as revealed by geology surprised Darwin in his day, he was amazed that it could be so old, and it has continued to surprise everyone involved in working it out. Of course it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory it is the physical sciences, geology and physics specifically, which work out the age of the earth. I guess this author is ignorant of how that’s achieved too apparently. Lets face it the science behind the age of the earth measurements is rock solid. Many don’t understand it and so don’t accept it but for those who take the time to study it there is virtually universal consensus with the age of around 4.6 – 4.7 billion years.

[b}However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. [/b]

It’s true, they are constantly coming up with young earth chronometers but do any of them stack up? Do they stand the test of evidence? Let’s have a look at the few he mentions.

Moon drift
I’ll assume he’s talking about the moon’s recession rate here, ‘moon drift’ is too vague to be sure. Let’s look at the simple figures here first.

The moon is receding from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm / year. The moon is currently 38500000000 cm from the earth. Got a calculator. That means that, all things being equal, the moon would have been sitting on the earth 10 billion years ago. Doesn’t sound like much of a problem for the scientific, old earth, view here? The mechanism for this is well understood, the moon is taking rotational energy from the earth by tidal forces to increase it’s velocity (angular momentum has to be conserved) and this extra energy slows the earth and speeds up the moon so it’s orbit slowly progresses away from the earth. Simple maths from there will tell you how far away it would be at any given date in the past. These dates show that the moon was well above the earth for far longer than Young Earthers claim the earth has existed.

Do we need to go further?

Coral’s form daily and yearly layers in their skeletons so it’s possible to count the number of days per year in the earths past and exactly as the orbital mechanics figures suggest the earth is slowing down and the moon is receding in line with a solar system that is less than 5 billion years so the YEC limit of 10 billion is no problem. The coral layers show that around 400 million years ago the earth had around 410 days per year.

What’s interesting here is that the day counts in corals provide yet another, independent method of dating the age of some structures on the earth and they show that the earth is far older than YEC ideas would suggest. Again YEC contradicts the evidence.

earth rotation speed

As described above the earth’s rotation is slowing, 400 million years ago there were 410 days per year, YEC says that the earth is only a few thousand years old so how could such changes have occurred 400 million years ago. Yet another contradiction between YEC ideas and the physical evidence!

magnetic field decay

LOL this one is so old and so foolish, does anyone still buy it? Based on the false assumption that the earth is a simple bar magnet who’s field is decaying with age, the claim is that, given it’s current strength the earth must be young or the field would have been impossibly strong only a few thousand years ago.

The fallacies are in not understanding how the earths interior generates the magnetic field, it’s far more complex than a simple bar magnet, and thus in assuming that a decaying magnetic field today means that it was always decaying the author misses true understanding of this fascinating system.

We know today that the earths magnetic field varies having peaks and troughs, we know that the poles wander and even reverse at times. We even use the signatures of these variations trapped in rocks to confirm dating of rocks and to confirm the great age of the earth. Palaeomagnetism is yet another confirmation of the great age of the earth in contradiction of YEC claims.

Gee, J. S. et al. 2000. Geomagnetic intensity variations over the past 780 kyr obtained from near-seafloor magnetic anomalies. Nature 408: 827-832.

erosion rates

If we assume that there is no such thing as plate tectonics then this is a problem for an old earth but we can measure the movement of the plates so it’s a long stretch to suggest that they are stationary. With movement of the plates mountains build at collision boundaries and are eroded only to be built again as the plate continue to move. We can measure how fast they move, how fast mountains build etc today. The idea that the plates don’t move, which is implicit in this complaint, contradicts the direct physical evidence. Simple survey equipment, a theodolite for instance, is all that’s required to measure the movement and today we can use GPS systems to accurately track the movement of the continents all around the globe.

Yet again YEC ideas contradict the evidence!! Are you starting to see a pattern here?

chemical influx into the oceans and ocean salinity

Another old one, I think this one was Henry Morris, basically if you work out how much of a given chemical is entering the ocean per year divided by the amount currently there you get an upper limit for the age of the ocean. Given this Morris calculated that for Sodium (salt) the earth can’t be more than 260,000,000 years old while for Silicon the ocean can’t be more than 8000 years old. His method starts too look dodgy when you do the math for lead which only allows for a 2000 year old earth and get’s truly bizarre when you do the math for Aluminium which would give an upper limit of around 100 years. By now I’m sure you’ve all worked out that something is wrong with this methodology. I’ll assume that you don’t have a problem with the idea that the earth is more than 100 years old, even the YEC’s among you.

So what’s really going on here?

It’s pretty simple, Morris forgot to take into account the rate at which these materials leave the ocean. In some cases they form condensates which fall the to bottom of the ocean forming the fine silts that exist in great abundance in the deep oceans, some will be removed by other mechanisms such as being deposited on the shores of land or being consumed by sea creatures and then deposited with their skeletons on the sea floor or wherever their remains ended up. The figures this method gives are the equilibrium levels for all of these materials. It is the concentration they get to once their influx rate equals their removal rate.

Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest.

And that’s the creationist game here and that’s why scientists generally won’t debate them. Look at what just happened, he threw out one line, it would have taken him 10 seconds to read that one sentence. Every single complaint was flawed and contradicted the evidence but it took me several pages to explain in detail what was wrong with his statements. In a time constrained debate would I have had the time to explain what was wrong with that 10 second sentence? How many more such could he have made in his time? That’s why YEC’s love open debates and that’s why they are the wrong forum for these sorts of exchanges, well they are if you are interested in the truth which is not always simple enough to explain to a lay audience in 5 minues.

And of course he’s right that there are many such ‘constraints’ on the age of the earth invented by YEC’s but to date every single one has proven to be flawed, not one has stood the test of evidence and reason. I suspect that there is a really simple reason for that, their idea of the age of the earth is wrong.

Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities.

Yes there are limiting factors detectable to the age of the universe, the one Hubble first discovered being the most obvious, but this spiral galaxy problem is not one of them. Spiral galaxy’s are actually disks of stars with thinner and thicker regions. The thick regions we see as the arms of the spiral but there are stars throughout the disk. So what are the spiral arms? They aren’t actually made of a single set of stars that hangs around in that shape for long periods of time, the stars in the arms are constantly changing, those in the gaps between the arms flow into the front of the arms while those on the other side drop out the back of them. It turns out the spiral arms have more in common with traffic jams than the spokes of a bike. As cars slow at the front of the jam the cars behind them bank up. Even once the initial slow down is cleared the bank of cars will continue to build backwards along the freeway as the front of it clears producing a backwards travelling wave to the traffic which looks quite a lot like a slice through a spiral arm when seen from the air.

Obviously there’s much more to the orbital mechanics involved but that’s a very basic view of what’s going on. Linked by gravity these waves of bunched up stars travel around the galaxy producing the familiar spiral pattern that we can see if we have a good telescope and a clear sky.

Unacceptable Model of Origins.

Moooo!!!

Sorry but I’ve done this one so many times.

Yes I understand that it is unacceptable to some christians just as christian theology is unacceptable to Moslems etc. The difference here is that, unlike Islam and christianity we can use evidence to test this idea. Accept it or no the evidence still supports it alone.

Firstly we have to understand that the big bang was neither. That term was invented by a reporter not a scientist and it has gone on confusing people ever since. It’s catchy but it’s wrong. The ‘big bang’ was a tiny event, far smaller than an atom, and it was an incredibly smooth but powerful flash of energy, nothing like the chaotic and destructive force people imagine when they think of an explosion.

Uneven distribution would actually be easier to explain if it was an explosion, the problem is that the universe is very smooth but the structure of the earliest moments of the universe, far less than a second after the ‘big bang’ suggest no mechanism capable of producing such smoothness. Inflation being too fast for information to travel from one side of the early universe to the other to smooth out any perturbations. This remains a problem for the theory though there are a number of ideas which may resolve it some of which will be tested when the LHC get’s going properly.

Retrograde motion is a non sequiter, even orbital mechanics 101 will teach you about several mechanisms that are capable of producing such motions without any challenge to the big bang theory. A couple of obvious ones are impacts of two bodies at oblique angles (think billiards shots with lots of spin) and slingshot effects of object passing closely in space throwing them into orbits opposite to those of their surroundings. The law of angular momentum, like the second law of thermodynamics only talks about the total momentum of the system and allows for and even explains these ‘contradictions’. When a retrograde system is formed the angular momentum imparted to it must be matched (ala Newton) by an equal and opposite moment added to some other bodies. The total is indeed conserved but the individual parts have a great deal of freedom.

Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, "where did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?

Where did everything come from is indeed a great question. The short answer right now is that we simply don’t know. Before 10e-35 seconds after the initiating event it’s all a mystery and only slowly get’s less so after that. The LHC can create conditions and energies such as would have existed at that early stage of the universe so we can explore how matter behaves in those conditions and glean some more knowledge about the early universe.

There has been some theoretical and experimental work on the big question, where did it all come from. One of the current crop of ideas, and one with experimental support is the idea that a true vacuum is unstable. From the laws of Quantum Physics we learn that it is not possible for a quantum object to exist in a wholly known or even knowable state. This isn’t a limit of our science but a property of matter. Stick with me this is Quantum Physics so it gets really weird. A true vacuum, the absence of all matter, energy and even the fields of space/time itself would constitute a fully knowable state which is not allowed under QM. The suggested solution to this conundrum was the Cassimere effect. In this idea a vacuum would instantly be filled with a foam of particles and matter which borrow energy from the vacuum (called for obvious reasons Vacuum Energy) to form short lived parings. Now it all sounds very far fetched I know but then someone worked out how to test it, they setup a vacuum chamber and pumped out as much of the matter as possible while excluding as much energy (light, heat etc) from it. Into the chamber they placed a detector which would measure the pressure created by these Vacuum Fluctuations if they really existed and, exactly as predicted, there they were.

What the math of this experiment also showed is that a true vacuum, as opposed to the very limited one created in the lab, would produce unbounded vacuum fluctuations as it is only the limited nature of the vacuum which restricted the size of these.

Now how does any of that relate to the big bang? In the absence of a universe you would have nothing, a true vacuum, no matter, no energy, no fields of space/time. Such a state, according to QM can’t exists as it is unstable and unbounded vacuum fluctuations would be created in a foam of energy and matter to fill the void.

Now there’s one signature feature of a vacuum fluctuation, it has, in total, zero energy. The positive energy of one part of it is matched by the negative energy of the other. To the measurement accuracy we have available the universe we live it has zero total energy with the positive energy of matter and radiation being matched exactly by the negative energy of gravity.

It would all seem like a mad dream if it weren’t for the fact that we can create small vacuum fluctuations in a lab to confirm the maths behind it. How we could ever go on to confirm it in the universe I have no idea, maybe someone will work that out one day but till then we just have to say “I don’t know” when asked the question of where the universe came from.

LOL Carl Baugh is just brilliant, I love his stuff. I actually think he believes the stuff he writes which is sad but it’s still very funny. Did you know that the YEC website AnswersInGenesis lists Carl’s dino tracks arguments on their “Arguments we think creationists should NOT use” page in the “Which arguments should definitely not be used” section.

These original excavations yielded human footprints among dinosaur footprints

Which turned out when properly examined to be the eroded footprints of a three toed dinosaur. It was this obvious detail that convinced AIG to drop Carl and his dino tracks arguments.

(see the Director’s doctoral dissertation).

Oh yes, read it, he wrote it for the unaccredited diploma mill that gave him is PHd and it’s about up to the standard you’d expect. Have a read, the link was on his website last time I looked for it.

Here is some compelling information about the Grand Canyon that you won't find in modern-day textbooks or in the heads of self-styled evolutionists:

I think the vast majority of geologists would be surprised to learn that they believe they don’t know how the Grand Canyon formed. And there’s a really good reason why you won’t find such ideas in the heads of most scientifically minded people either. Most scientifically minded people have read enough to realize that these claims are rubbish and so not worth filling their heads with. Certainly there are details of the grand canyon’s formation that we don’t understand fully but there’s no serious doubt that it was carved by the Colorado river over a very long period of time. We also know that a flood could not have produced such a formation and that’s not just a guess, we have plenty of examples of flood created landscapes and they don’t resemble the grand canyon plus there are literally mountains of dating evidence that shows the canyon to be old and to be the products of a long period of geological processes.

In Reason

Mooooo!!!

Russell

Deja-moo??? LOL

Not a lot of evidence here cowboy.

Just the lack of transitional forms is enough for any logically-thinking person to take pause.

When you're involved in immorality, the mind become more and more unable to process information logically. This is why we live in a day when you can put mercury in dental fillings and convince dentists that it's safe.

Astounding, but a perfect example of the loss of the ability to rationalize.

Eyes are complex and require many complex disconnected parts. Two eyes that are a mirror image of one another cannot form from genetic mutations.

The fact is, the probability of this occurring is, for all practical purposes—no matter how much time you add to the equation—zero (0).

The problem with this 10,000 foot view of feathers forming out of scales (or whatever) is that you fail to see the complex differences between the two. Add symmetry to that, and you have the same situation that you have with modern-day dentists:

Blindness.

Christianity, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic: It doesn't matter. I would never believe evolution because it's mathematically absurd.

For those interested in attempting to see my side of the issue, the best way is to begin clearing your conscience. Over time, this enables you to think more logically.

Many who have believed in vaccines (that pharmaceutical companies have integrity) or that mercury has no connection with autism are finally waking up and realizing that they've been lied to.

Evolutionists will eventually have to face the same dilemma.

The idea that mercury does not leak from amalgam fillings was a "scientific" lie.

The idea that mercury in vaccines is harmless is a "scientific" lie.

The idea that NutraSweet (aspartame) is harmless to humans is a "scientific" lie (based on a bribe to a lab worker).

News has now been released trying to tell people the mercury is good for us, and it goes on and on.

All of these scientific lies were simply social control used by bankers and power-brokers to gain money and power.

Evolution is nothing more then another scientific lie; A social control.

So, it is not my belief in the integrity of the Bible (I've done my homework, but you will still find a tremendous amount of very convincing disinformation on the web) that keeps me from believing in evolution.

It is the absurdity of the idea, both logically and mathematically.

Our Solar System: Scientific Evidence for Creation (video)[/b]
This video provides scientific information directly from a space sciences engineer that strongly evidences creation. He continues by providing statements by evolutionists that clearly reveal their inability to reconcile even the most fundamantal scientific information regarding our solar system. An excellent video for all to watch.

[b]Redefining Evolution: The Grand Retreat Begins (video)[/b]
This is a 10-minute video demonstrating how the compliant media is working together with pop-science to rescue evolution. This video reveals the blatant retreat underway from evolution's original claims.

[b]Creation vs Evolution - Part 1 of 2 (video)

Creation vs Evolution - Part 2 of 2 (video)
An excellent video exposing the media lies promoting the theory of evolution. This video also speaks about junk science and its incessant promotion in public text books.

Lies In the Textbooks (video)[/b]
Kent Hovind provides and excellent expose of the junk-science and outright lies that are being forced upon schoolchildren in a blatant attempt to discredit the Bible using public tax dollars.

[b]Evolution's Moral Implications (video)[/b]
Every belief system has an implicit set of consequences. Many people are now realizing that a belief in evolution has the ability to profoundly affect personal behavior and the foundations of society as a whole.

[b]The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments
This is a very interesting article from the 1920's that is certainly worth reading. The information is quite in-depth and it provides a well-rounded view of evolution's many fatal flaws.

Why Was the Flat-Earth Myth Promoted? (video)
This video exposes the real reason why evolutionists claim that Christians used to believe that the Earth was flat. This video exposes yet another lie used to defame Biblical integrity in the minds of those who have no knowledge of the Bible.

[b]Astounding Computer Animation of DNA-Related Processes (video)[/b]
Amazing CGI visualization of molecular biology's central dogma. It shows animations of DNA coiling, replication, transcription and translation. It was created by Drew Berry of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.

Just a couple of notes, Russell2

And anyone who wants to discuss any one of these bits of evidence or what transitional really means in biology, we have this current thread: Transitions, telling truth from lies. Note that RussT has not said anything about the evidence of transitional fossils on this thread.

Actually to see evolution occur, all one needs to do is observe the world around you. Take a little more time and you can observe speciation, the beginning of two branches of organisms related by a common ancestor population.

This does not take long to observe.

What takes a significant amount of time is to explain the evolution that has already occurred and that is documented in the fossil record. It is almost tautological that you need to include a long time to explain the results of any process that has in fact occurred over a long period of time, and the fact is that evolution has been happening for over 3.5 billion years on earth, so to explain the result one must necessarily includelong periods of evolution.

The curious thing though, is that less time is necessary to explain the end result of evolution over all that time than has occurred: if evolution were a directed process then there would have been no false starts.

Did you know that he edited his "dissertation" after "graduation"? Know any real Ph.D. that has done that?

I've been to Paluxy, and I've seen the footprints, I've put my feet in them, and not one of them comes close to a real human footprint.





The first is too long and narrow, the stride is about 3ft forward and 5 feet to the side, and those feet are over 20" long and less than 4" wide. The second is a sauropod, both were about the same depth in the solidified sediment, so the weight of both track makers were way more than any human has ever weighed, even if one were the right shape.

And certainly some preja-moo but probably not presque-moo (not yet anyway: there's always a catch). When it comes to creationist evidence it is more a matter of jamais-moo.

Enjoy.

You've got to be joking.

The truth is:

Where there is order, there is intelligence.




There is no evidence. This information is nothing more than propaganda. I know this is hard for you to accept, but you will, before long.

Just remember this:

When your friends in high places (that would be those who brought you the evolution fairytale) come asking you to put a mark on your hand or forehead so you can conduct commerce, that might be a good time to check out what the Bible said about this situation.



There is no fossil record. There are only certain places on Earth where fossils appear in an order that is pleasing to the evolution propaganda.

It would be beneficial for you to watch the Hovind video and learn about circular reasoning...

http://urlbam.com/ha/K


I still haven't seen an evolutionist deal with one of the fundamental problems with evolution: it's mathematical absurdity.

An excellent video containing wonderful, common sense information about science and evolution.

http://urlbam.com/ha/K


Remember, evolution is a social control. If you believe it, you are controlled.

I thought I might just point out the obvious here.

Russ is refusing to engage with any of the particulars of the evidence on offer here, or indeed in any thread at the moment. He continues to repeat claims which have been refuted elsewhere several times over (e.g. the "mathematical absurdity").

What Russ is offering instead is arguments from ignorance with no acknowledgement of previous scientific and mathematical explanations; and the same old litany of unsubstantiated claims and wild conspiracy theories.

Wilful ignorance or blindness seems to be a common theme with creationists here. Why else would they so assiduously avoid addressing any scientific issues, and not provide evidence for their own claims? (No fossil record? OK. The earth is flat too, and unicorns live in the woods.)

Would you like to substantiate this with some evidence?



You haven't seen them deal with it because you haven't read their replies.

Hey Russ, nice denial you got going there.

Assertion isn't fact, no matter how big and bold you post it. Nor does denial make the evidence go away. We have evidence of evolution occurring. AiG admits it. Of course this evidence of evolution is for the REAL evolution and not the Russtolution version.

Congratulations, btw, you just asserted that a snowflake is intelligent: it has order. Curiously, the kaleidoscope is not a scientific instrument.

Now we have the argument from consequences logical fallacy on top of the conspiracy theory. You've outdone yourself today.

Curiously this does not make the fossil record disappear, nor does it affect the record of transitional features from fossil to fossil. The foraminifera in particular show this declaration of denial to be false, based more on cognitive dissonance than reality.

Curiously those "certain places" cover the earth, in great depth, but this does not occur just because it is "pleasing to the evolution propaganda" -- propaganda cannot make fossils appear in any order, or rearrange anything but the minds of the gullibles.

The facts still remain that the geological and fossil record supports the explanation for the diversity of life by natural evolution.

Hovind is a fraud and a liar. His video on the Grand Canyon was shown to be a falsehood, and his own argument in the video falsified it. This video repeats his self-invalidating argument. It's hilarious that you list a video which repeats information already falsified. Poetic justice is like that.

This video does not present any evidence of falsehoods in textbooks, just a lot of misrepresentation and assertion. What he uses to assert textbook falsehoods are, in fact, lies of his making (like the one about the formation of the Grand Canyon that has already been dealt with).

Each of his presentations of his so called lies misrepresents the facts, he lies about it.

Curiously what he says is not shown in the geological column - evidence of rain and erosion of layers in the column, evidence of soils - are actually in the sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon in several places.

Fossils are used to correlate layers of sediment: simply put, layers with the same fossil species are the same relative age (occurred while those organisms lived). The layers with the original index fossils were not dated by the fossils, but by superposition (a small but rather crucial omission in Hovind's false presentation - crucial because it invalidates his "circular reasoning" argument and demonstrates that it is a(nother) lie).

Fossils are not the only indexes for relative age, there are several volcanic eruptions that can also be used to show relative similarity in age. Like the iridium layer, that resulted from the meteor crash in the Yucatan 65 million years ago, finding evidence of that feature in layers anywhere on earth shows them to be the same relative age as the original index.

This relative dating of layers by superposition and correlation of layers by index fossils was figured out well before Darwin and Lyell. Curiously the radiometric dating methods have only confirmed the relative ages and correlations with more precise ages.

These are just a couple of examples that show his statements regarding these things are false, he lies about it.

Amusingly Hovind's "degree" is itself a lie:

Feel free to look up Patriot University
http://www.patriotuniversity.com/Resources/PatriotUniversity2.jpg
http://www.patriotuniversity.org/

Curiously, one thing they don't list is faculty, rather they have this disclaimer:

(italic in the original: translation "traditional" means "real")

Looks like the mail clerk grades the papers by how far they can be thrown, unopened, eh?

Strangely, until you actually demonstrate the maths behind this, all we have are loud assertions of ridiculous claims. Mathematics cannot prove reality, nor can mathematical calculation change reality. All math can do is model reality, and when reality and the model do not agree, it is the model that is wrong. Clearly, then, what is "absurd" is the assumptions made in your calculations. Of course your calculations are based on Russtolution, your absurd misrepresentation of evolution, so proving Russtolution to be absurd is circular reasoning.

Thanks for the chuckles, RussT. Try larger text next time, and see if that improves your argument any.

Enjoy.

I find the I've Done My Homework© slogan far more effective than Russ' capital, bold face underline strategy. I almost find myself drawn hypnotically to the call of Kent Hovind videos and failures to discuss evidence (or, well, anything at all for that matter) when presented using the former method over the latter.

Do you reckon my arguments would be strengthened if I employed the same strategy too? Let's give it a try. Tell me what you think.

RAZD, everything you say is full of malarkey and I know this because I've Done My Homework© and am thoroughly learned on the subject. The proof is because I say so. I'm right and you're wrong. I've done my homework©.

Hey Pwwca,

And here is a place that will give you a degree for it. Don't forget to specify which degree when you send it in, together with the normal processing fees, and then wait 30 to 60 days.

Enjoy.

Honestly guys, if you want to continue believing that rocks (or even simple cells) become humans over time, you are free to do that, for now.

There will come a time when this belief will be laughed at.

Note that I'm not attempting to present evidence in this statement. I'm simply making a prediction.

The evidence for my position is self evident. The mathematics for your position is truly absurd. To deny that is an act of intellectual dishonesty.

In short, for those who missed it, if harmful mutations outnumber beneficial ones 1,000,000 to 1 (a conservative number), then where are all these mutated fossils? Whey don't they massively outnumber "normal" ones?

You will say, well, there were long periods of time when the "normal" ones lived and died but the mutations only lived for short periods.

But look at the two fundamental problems with that (without an agenda).

First, how much time would that require? You literally have millions of bad mutations occur before a "beneficial" one does, and then you have to hope that the beneficial one lives to pass it on, which obviously would not happen in every instance. So the time factor become enormous (that is, even if evolution could occur at all). The anti-error mechanisms that exist to prevent mutations are contradictory to this system as well.

Second, there should still be a huge number of mutated fossils. Huge! But, where are they?

These problems are so basic and so fundamental that they are self evident. You can attempt to explain them away all you like, but they are still standing there glaring us in the face.

There will come a time when Christianity will be laughed at...it says so in the Bible. Does this mean that Christianity is not the truth?

Nothing new about that!!

Yet despite multiple requests for you to actually present the mathematics, you have not done it. I know, I've studied all your posts in this topic. Of course those who don't agree with you, are liars.

Most harmful mutations result in unhatched eggs or miscarriages...not much to leave. That is assuming that your statement about the ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations is correct. Might help if you provided some kind of reference for those figures.


So you say. Do you know how many mutations occur in each generation of....say...humans? How can you determine if too much time is needed if you have no idea of the mutation rates within species?

In what way are they contradictory? What, exactly, are these anti-error mechanisms that allow "1,000,000" harmful mutations to every mutation that allows the organism to live? Doesn't seem very "anti-error" to me.

Why should there be? Harmful mutations kill unborn and infant organisms most. Very few organisms with harmful mutations live long enough to reach maturity.

They're only staring at those of you who don't bother to research anything beyond the I-hate-evolution websites.

I gotta admit this is a great comeback.... Even if I don't wholly accept the TOE. But I must interject that GOD is still revealing truth and there is more to come. I wouldn't throw in the towel on Him yet.

Well, maybe Jeanie. Depends how one sees it. We Christians (fundamentalists) believe that God made man out of the dust of the earth, just as stated so I guess that too could be laughed at? But man was formed from just that (according to Genesis).

Yet....consider the elements contained in the human body and the earth and why we gain so much of what we need by eating foods grown in rich nutrient soils. We live off the earth and all things on it. From the biblical perspective, we were made from it, but had the spirit of God breathed into us! All things became animated/alive with a spirit inside flesh.

Rocks to men? How about earth material/dust to men? Whatever one believes, the process by which we believe it came about is a real dividing line. They believe there was a lengthy process of evolution from very simplistic beginnings. We believe in complete immediate formed creation.

We see the fossils and it looks more like spontaneous appearance of fully formed creatures, rather than a record of gradual evolutionary processes from simple life to properly formed creatures building up to show what we observe today. I have yet to see any evidence of this. Whether or not we know every species that's ever lived or which genus they belong to exactly, still doesn't remove the fact they're there, they're fully formed and recognisably so, and obviously functional to go with it (reproduction intact), reproducing very much after their own kind. Now whether their kind died out or not, is another story. There isn't any arguments about adaption/variation, since the information contained already allows for this.

We still need evidence of rocks (or mud) evolving either way and the fossil record does not seem to indicate such a process over time from such humble beginnings. I still stand by the fossil record showing spontaneous appearances of fully formed creatures that fits in perfectly with biblical creation. Doesn't matter what labels one throws on them. Whether they differ or they don't, where is the rocks/mud/minerals evolution process evidence?

You can find so-called simple celled life today (marine for example) and imagine it might have the ability to become a human being given the right this and the right that over millions and millions of years. Since when is imagining something evidence it ever happened? We can concoct all kinds of imagined scenarios, but we have yet to discover the evidence that this took place at all. Even scientific experiements in a lab to try and prove it possible, doesn't prove it happened and I've yet to see them achieve such a miraculous feat.

We require the evidence of rocks (or mud) evolving into human beings in the fossil record. Let's see simple life forms (of which numerous examples would be filling the fossil record if this were true) giving us a rich and abundent record of our evolutionary past. The vast time periods would allow for a literal museum of them, EASILY silencing all arguments to the contrary.

You're misunderstanding me. I believe in the creation. Of course animals and even humans evolve to a degree, but I do not think to the extent generally believed in the TOE. Man was created in God's image quite literally. I probably believe that more literally than anyone on here. I believe all things living have spirits, too. Things were created, in fact, spiritually before physically which could be what confuses R2 if he's even on here any more. (The accounts in Genesis).

However, its interesting that the Bible says we come from the dust of the earth. Personally I think of this more symbolic, but who am I to say. We are all related DNA wise, but that doesn't mean we evolved which some scientists take it as. I think its just as much proof we come from the same creator.... We are all connected to the earth...

I get what Russ is trying to say about how God relates to us and all that. (But the way he asks it as though a test which HE has the answer to as though to entrap?) I heard a discussion on Genesis on BYU-tv today and they discussed how Abraham's description of the creation didn't even use the "creative periods" as days, but times. And we have no idea how long those periods took. The creation was also an organization of pre-existent matter. Anyway, I agree more with the "Fundmentalist Christian's" of course above evolutionists. Mormons are very much Bible believing Christians whether we agree with everything other religions do or not or no matter how our beliefs are misconstrued or perverted.

Hi Jeanie, I didn't misunderstand you. I'm quite familiar with your position on this, but thanks for clarifying it further. I was referring more to Linear's post, and the general topic him and Russ were discussing. I simply responded to it via your post, after you said it was a great come-back. So I was responding more to the "come-back" of Linear and the discussion itself, than to you personally.

I am on a very similar wave-length to you, as I agree with much of your above post.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

Cheers!

Thanks. I wasn't upset. I appreciate it, though.

In the context in which I was speaking about evolution, yes:

In that time, evolution will be laughed at because people will be able to see it's absurdity. Today, people are too blinded by their coveting.



I presented the math in several posts several months back and the posts were all but ignored (not surprisingly).



First, the numbers are everywhere. Even the evolution claimants will agree with those numbers.

Second, with that kind of ratio, you would see something. There would be evidence, a lot of evidence, but there isn't.

Your assumptions about most harmful mutations resulting in unhatched eggs or miscarriages are your speculations. Ironically, you're doing exactly the same thing that you've accused me of doing.



We're not talking about people who agree with me. We're talking about people who use common sense and who have done enough homework to realize that the information being disseminated about evolution myth is so ridiculous, people assume they are missing something and begin to put faith in those who control the information.

"The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."
— Joseph Goebbels

So, yes; some are liars (those who create and disseminate false information), but others are simply blinded by their coveting (sheep).



The evidence that these kinds of numbers require a while lot of time is self evident. In fact, the "age of the Earth" has grown by billions of years over the past few decades because evolutionists know this.

It is revealing that these speculations about the age of the Earth are printed as fact in textbooks, even though they keep changing.

Perhaps you should take a look at show is publishing the textbooks, or better yet, who is doing the funding. I have.

Those who refuse to study the conspiratorial side of this massive coverup are remaining fantastically naive on purpose.

"And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this [b]they willingly are ignorant[b] of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"
(2 Peter 3:4-6)

Yes, ignorant on purpose.

In other words, they don't want to know. They are too fearful to face the truth yet accuse others of the same, calling them paranoid conspiratorialists.



Exactly my point. The process of the evolution myth requires the failure of the system that is redundant in its error checking. A very intelligent system indeed.

It's truly astounding that people refuse to see this. I really mean this.



That is your massive speculation. Is this what we see happening today? We really should be intellectually honest here.

It's amazing that people believe this despite our contemporary observations.



No, the fundamental issues with the evolution myth are staring at everyone.

With all of the observation of entropy we see, to believe that rocks (or even cells) change into highly complex, self-replicating, symmetrical machines through error processes is the foundation of madness.

The blind faith evolutionists have in those disseminating information relating to the evolution fairytale (without thinking for themselves) is not unlike Jonestown.

So grand and so coveted are their desires, people are unable to see even the most basic truths.

Bex you said:



I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Correct me if I'm wrong but this comment seems to indicate that you think the ToE says that animals are not "fully formed," which is not the case. It says that changes in inheritable traits over time are caused by mutation and natural selection.



Again, I'm not sure why you seem to think that ToE says that creatures are not "fully formed." We do see gradual changes in the fossil record however. We've discussed horse evolution here before. What we see with horses is a fossil in one layer of rock, a very similar but slightly different fossil in the next layer above that, a very similar but slightly different fossil in the next layer above that, and so on (as a simplification). This happens in the same way around the world. And from stratigraphic knowledge and other dating methods, we know the age of each subsequent layer.

There is an undebiable pattern here. The question is: in creationist terms, why does it exist? Why do we see these patterns not only in horses but in other organisms as well? What should we use our God-given brains for, if not to objectively study evidence in front of us and learn from it?

Yeah, that's a common misconception about evolution, if I'm understanding Bex's statements correctly. There is no such thing as one lifeform being "more evolved" than another (just that some are evolved differently). There is no finishing point, nor even a specific destination.

We also didn't "come from apes", we didn't "turn from rocks into men" and so on. Repeating these misconceptions have given rise to the newly coined term RussTolution. Russ T will tell you how absurd it is and I agree. RussTolution, the idea that rocks turn into humans, is indeed a very absurd notion.

Evolution on the other hand, well, that's a whole different story.

Regarding evolution - whether you and Pwcca have decided that my understanding of the process is skewed or not - my post was referring to the beginnings of where all these things arose from. Whether the definitions themselves have been simplified and made to sound ludicrous? Possibly, but I was using those examples in my post that either side could certainly make fun of the other by doing so. Since all life obviously arose out of matter of some kind right? And where did this matter come from and were we created or did we evolve?

My point was, we should be able to trace back via the fossil record to give us clues about our origins. Did they start of simply or do we continue to see only abrupt appearance/creation?

If life arose from simple celled organisms, or spontaneous abrupt creation, there should be evidence in the fossil record that one of these beliefs is based more upon assumptions than actual evidence.

If evolution is true and the beginnings were originally simple, then we should be able to find evidence of this in the fossil record at "some point" during the time all things evolved. Otherwise, if I have this wrong, could you explain how fully formed creatures made their appearance here in the first place if they did not start off simply and evolved over time?

If creation is true? Then the fossil record should be showing us the abrupt appearance of fully formed creatures no matter HOW far back we go. If it is not true and evolution is, then we should see things to the contrary. All things die during their lifetime at some point, so the fossil record, as I said, should be a record of evolution and going back far enough to where the beginnings of it from simple life can be proven. Or you're left with abrupt appearance and only have assumptions leftover as to how they got there. Either way, the explanations as to how it all arose and where it came from is the next problem.

Pwcca, I am FULLY aware that evolution does not preach that men come from "apes" (themselves). As for "rocks to men"? If you read my post, I used that as an example of what HAS been said by creationists regarding the evolution belief and how our side could just as easily be proposed as similar - since the bible tells us we were made from the dust of the earth).

I am fully aware of the evolutionary belief of the common ancestor and the "ape-like" one that we all supposedly branched off from into the primates and humans. I'm interested too in this ape-like ancestor we apparently share and why if we share "it" with the apes, did we wind up going down different paths of evolution and what was the cause?

My own question was about what you meant when you say that things are found "fully formed." This sounded like the "what use is half an eye" argument but maybe not.

I'm unsure, as well, of what you are claiming in your post above. As you go deeper into the fossil record, you do see gradual changes in fossils, and boundaries of extinction. If you look at the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon, as you go deeper you will see the sorts of creatures that appear in layers of rock of the same age in other parts of the world. You will eventually see trilobites, then stromatolites, then nothing. I don't think self-replicating molecules can fossilise, so there's going to be a limit to what we're able to see in rocks regarding the first life on earth, though there are certain chemical signatures that scientists are looking for.

For creationism to be verified, you would have to find a layer in the fossil record where ALL creatures suddenly appeared according to your description. We see no such layer anywhere in the world. What is more, there can be a number of mundane reasons why an organism appears suddenly in the fossil record. Due to climate change, many plants and animals that previously were only seen in southern Europe have migrated to the UK. If you dug up some of the fossils in millions of years' time, it would look like they appeared here abruptly. It's possible that the first fossils of those organisms could be found here, rather than in the place where they originated. It would be obviously be erroneous to conclude that they were therefore created here.

Can you point to a layer in the fossil record which shows that no life existed, then all life that has ever existed on earth sprang into being at once?



This a wonderful question, one which drives the efforts of paleoanthorologists worldwide. ToE says that natural selection drives evolution. Perhaps those ancestors of ours had mutations which were beneficial in their environments, such as the increasing ability to walk on two legs (therefore freeing both hands), or increasing brain size and intelligence. There may be other things we aren't even aware of yet. There's a lot of research out there about this if you have a Google.

I disagree. I think the fact that Christianity will be laughed at has no bearing on its truth.

I have read your threads where you claim that the mathematics make the theory of evolution absurd. Unless by "all but ignored" you mean "soundly refuted", your statement above is incorrect. If you can point me to the threads that contain actual math, I guarantee that I will not ignore it.

Yet you haven't presented a single reference. If they were "everywhere", they should be easy for you to show us at least one instead of simply telling us that they exist.

So there is no evidence of this high harmful mutation to beneficial mutation ratio? Do you now claim that most mutations are neutral?


Seems to work for you . Tell ya what, you point me to a thread of yours where you discuss the math instead of dance around making unsupported claims about it, and I will give you my references for the above statement.

You have to claim it is self evident since you can't provide any real evidence to support that baloney.
The age of the Earth has grown because geologists and physicists have found more accurate means of determining that age.

Sure, and they keep publishing those speculations about computer speeds and network integration complexity as facts in textbooks even though they keep changing.

And they would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids...OOOOoooo another conspiracy...Scooby-Doo where are you?

Show some evidence instead of bluster and anecdote and maybe people won't think you run around with a tin-foil hat.

Now you say that mutations don't occur? You are confusing me.

I'm sure you do and that's the scary part.

You claim that there are contemporary observations that show harmful mutations don't result in miscarriages or non-hatching of eggs. The best way to refute what I stated would be to show some research on harmful mutations and embryo deaths. Did you? Nope...business as usual.



These last statements made me realize that I should make a concerted effort to rise to the level of evidence that you have provided and produce a rebuttal worthy of these writings. After much thought the only thing I could come up with was....Bla-Bla-Bla..