I found it, now read it please

[bathory]

Either they a)evolved or b ) they were created. These are the only two logical options, and both are still sceintific theories and therefore should be considered

what about c) they have always existed

[Venomshocker]

what about c) they have always existed

Not possible, the earth is only some 4.5 billion years old.

[saucy]

just because the whole idea of creation is based around God does not mean there cannot be scientific theory around it. You seem to believe that all of science can only be believed by athiests and that's utter crap. Many well respected and famous scientists are also religious. Many scientists use science to try and prove creation. There's not only one side of science. Science is a process to determine facts from data collected and evolution isn't the only theory science has for the dawn of time. Creation is also one of them. If you refuse to believe that anything to do with God is a science because in your mind God doesn't exist, then that's your own opinion, but science isn't only there to prove God wrong. Most evolutionists actually have said the more they dwell into evolution, the more they realize how impossible of a theory it is.

[Seraphina]

Most evolutionists actually have said the more they dwell into evolution, the more they realize how impossible of a theory it is.

lol...Saucy, a vast majority of the scientific world agrees with the theory of evolution, because it is what all the facts currently point towards. There is nothing "impossible" about it, and the fact that a few splinter groups break away does not mean that "most" evolutionists, or anything like it, are abandoning their trust in it.

The fact that there are an increasing number of athiests in every generation is actaully suggesting the opposite

Many scientists use science to try and prove creation. There's not only one side of science. Science is a process to determine facts from data collected and evolution isn't the only theory science has for the dawn of time. Creation is also one of them.

As we keep trying to point out to you however, creationism science isn't science at all...it's more like politics. The conclusion to all the expiriments was reached before they even started (not that any expiriments have actually taken place...), and there is no attempt being made to find the truth....just a mad dash to find facts that might loosely support of the idea of creationism.

In creationist science, contradictions are ignored, opposing facts and known data are swept under the carpet, and anything that can be used to prove creationism is trimmed off the rest of the the theory it came from, and stuffed into this rather sad form of shoe-fit science....it's interesting to notice that all the evidence gathered in this way, when coupled with the theory it origonally came from to form the complete data, doesn't support creationism at all.

This ridiculous method isn't hard to see....you've even seen how every peice of evidence presented by creationism has been debunked already. This is because, as much as they try to ignore opposite veiw points and hope they go away, the fact is the arguements of evolutionists are far stronger, and what few facts are tried to force into place by creationists are easily proven to be invalid.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is creationism has nothing to do with scientific methodology....science is a search for the truth, based on a consideration of all the facts you have available. Creationism is the search for facts that support a veiw you've already reached, to the exclusion of everything that might contradict you.

Edited May 18, 2004 by Seraphina

[Stellar]

The fact that speciation has not been proven is evidence for creationism. Try debunking that!

The fact that theres completely no proof or evidence of creationism is very strong evidence of evolution. Try debunking that!

[Chauncy]

aquatus1 raised the question in another post of what we thought a Hindu person examining the evidence would come to the same conclusions of creationism or not.

I said no they wouldn't , which shows not only is creationism political as Seraphina pointed out but it seems that it is cultural as well.

Which in turn makes it alot less scientific to boot.

[Chauncy]

Saucy wrote this Posted: May 15 2004, 04:08 AM on this thread.

I didn't know it was there, but now that I'm aware.....allow me to retort.

Human evolution: The only evidence we have turns up to either be hoaxs or can be explained by other means

Its funny that you use Piltdown man and the other names you listed as a means to question the validity of evolution and the scientific methodology that brought us to the conclusion there of. When in fact it is this same methodology that exposed these things for what they are, the Piltdown man being a hoax. This proves the objectivity of such methodology!

You failed to mention also that there were many, many scientists in North America and Europe that doubted the validity of Piltdown man. It wasn't a great moment for science but never-the-less it was science that corrected the misconsception.

Also, which should be much to your embarasasment, Piltdown man is never cited as proof of jack **** anymore, ever! Yet I can still find creationists that use Paluxy Footprints,the Calaveras Skull, Moab and Malachite Man and other thoroughly proven shinanigans as proof of their word.....shame,shame on them!!

And finally to set me right off you dare tread on my darling dear Lucy. It seems Creationists have a penchant for diminishing the role of women in society. See Lucy no matter how much you talk about her knees was a good woman. You know why?.......because not only was she bipedal, but the woman made stone tools, now she is a woman before her time in her own right! Her knee was not found 2kilometers away subtrafuge led to the misconsception over these two fossils. Either this shows you are using propaganda to elucidate your points or you simply did not check your facts.......son!

Edited May 19, 2004 by Chauncy

[saucy]

First of all, I'm not your son!!

You only use one of the about ten examples I've used. Why is that? If there are about ten hoaxes played out or the fossils turn out to be that of a donkey, then don't you think there's a chance the others are the same way? Nobody has been about to find a complete skeleton. Lucy, the most anyone has ever found, is only 40% compete, enough for scientists to know that she was indeed a human, not a transitional species. The fact that most of the evidence is kept from the public, like that fact that one of the skeletons was really a boy with rickets, was known by scientists but kept hidden because the public thought it was the missing link. The found the "proof" of evolution they were looking for, but it wasn't the proof after all. Other hoaxes have played out. If scientists had the skeletons they needed to prove evolution, then why do they created hoaxes? Why would they need to?

Stellar, "very strong evidence for evolution." "try debunking that" I'm sure I could find just as much evidence supporting creation as I can evolution and I showed some evidence from real scientists and professors. Though some of you try to make the scientists look uneducated or biased or...just look bad, the only reason why you do it is because they support creationism. If the same scientist said something good about evolution, you would support them 100%! You have no right to question a professor or scientists unless you're at his level. You can't look at his theories as wrong just because of what he supports. Though you tried debunking it, it's widely known amongst scientists today that the sun is shrinking. It was even on a test I took in school. One scientist says, "the sun is shrinking." The science world accepts it and does a few more tests on it and another scientist looks at the evidence and says, "The earth would've been too hot to support life even a million years ago so the sun shrinking proves evolution couldn't have happened!" That's when the scientific world tries to hide the evidence. They couldn't let that little secret get out. You would've accepted the sun shrinking evidence up until it proved evolution didn't happen. If it were to prove evolution did happen, once again, you would use it against me. See, creationism gets its scientific theories from, yes, science. Theories such as the shrinking sun, earth losing it's gravitaional pull, the current human population, human evolution hoaxes, the fact we can't find any transitional species, even the moon dust theory, the old species on the planet is 5,000 years old, all the dating methods being proven as uneffective, the fact that a single flash flood can create natural formations in one afternoon that any scientists would claim took millions of years to create, the fact that oil can be flash produced, the fact that dinosaur and human prints have been found in the same layer of limestone, the idea that dinosaurs are in the bible (though you claim them as being mythical and made-up, one of the descriptions clearly describes a brontosaurus), the fact that many, many miracles related to God have happened. You said that the miracles aren't really miracles because cancer suddenly disappearing is scientific in nature. Are there any cases of cancer disappearing after someone didn't pray? I don't think so. I think at one time or another, everyone prays. My pastor says there is no such thing as an athiest because if you found out you have a diesease and are dying, you'll probably end up on your knees. I agree. The fact that everyone who dies clinically and is revived has a story to tell of them going to heaven and seeing their dead relatives. Scientists say that the brain is still working electrically or whatever, but how does that explain them all seeing heaven and only their dead relatives? What explains all the angel sightings. Why would 90% of the population of the planet be religious if nothing really happened? Why won't you accept that the bible can be proven historically? How come a scientific theory is suddenly no longer a scientific theory just because it supports creation? All of your "evidence" can be debunked just as easily as you've tried to debunk ours because it's a matter of what you believe. To me, there's no such thing as scientific fact because everything is stated only in theory. I know that and you know that, but you accept it as fact, knowing that the details always change.

[saucy]

The Scientific Case for Creation and the case for the Worldwide Flood being the cause of the fossil record.

The apostle Peter predicted the abandonment of the belief in the worldwide flood when he said...

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 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 they willingly are ignorant 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: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:3-7

EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED!

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from inorganic materials) has never been observed.

Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the physical variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day refinements is that there are limits to such variation.

Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited.

Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics.

Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.

Almost all observable mutations are harmful; many are lethal.

No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors.

Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700 human generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in either complexity or viability. No clear genetic improvement has been observed despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.

There is no reason to believe that mutations could ever produce any new organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain.

No verified forms of extraterrestrial life of any kind have ever been observed.

If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. On the contrary, as one studies languages that are increasingly ancient, such as Latin (200 B.C.), Greek (800 B.C.), and Vedic Sanskrit (1500 B.C.), they become increasingly complex with respect to syntax, cases, genders, moods, voices, tenses, and verb forms. The best evidence indicates that languages DEvolve.

The many similarities between different species do not necessarily imply a genealogical relationship; they may imply a common Designer.

The existence of human organs whose function is unknown does not imply that they are vestiges of organs from our evolutionary ancestors. In fact, as medical knowledge has increased, the functions of almost all of these organs have been discovered.

As an embryo develops, it does not pass through the adult stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors. Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarity that exists between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence of evolution.

Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like men have been found are overstated. Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax. The fragmentary evidence that constituted Nebraska man was a pig's tooth. The discoverer of Java man later acknowledged that it was a large gibbon and that he had withheld evidence to that effect. The evidence concerning Peking man has disappeared. Louis and Mary Leakey, the discoverers of Zinjanthropus (previously referred to by some as Australopithecus), later admitted that they were probably apes. Ramapithecus consists merely of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments; his teeth are very similar to those of the gelada baboon living today. For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and ape-like. Recent studies show that this individual was crippled with arthritis and probably had rickets. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are similar to humans living today. Artists' depictions, especially of the fleshy portions of the body, are quite imaginative and are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, the dating techniques are questionable.

Many of the world's fossils show, by the details of their soft fleshy portions, that they were buried before they could decay. This, together with the occurrence of polystrate fossils (fossils that traverse two or more strata of sedimentary rock) in Carboniferous, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic formations, is unmistakable evidence that this sedimentary material was deposited rapidly -- not over hundreds of millions of years.

Many fossils of modern looking humans have been found deep in rock formations that are supposedly many millions of years older than evolutionary theory would predict. These remains are ignored by evolutionists.

The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in the assumed evolutionary order.

Nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called "geologic column." Even at the Grand Canyon, only a small fraction of this imaginary column is found.

If evolution had occurred, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers and between all forms of life. Just the opposite is found. Many complex species appear suddenly in the lowest layers, and innumerable gaps and discontinuities appear throughout.

The vast majority of the sediments, which encase practically all fossils, were laid down though Water.

The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a flood; it is not evidence of slow change.

RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN IT.

If the earth, early in its alleged evolution, had oxygen in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, then there would have been no ozone, and without ozone all life would be quickly destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation.

There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to explain how just one single protein could form from any of the assumed atmospheres of the early earth. The necessary chemical reactions all tend to move in the opposite direction from that required. Furthermore, each possible energy source, whether the earth's heat, electrical discharges, or the sun's radiation, would destroy the protein products millions of times faster than they could be formed.

If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe that they could ever form a self-reproducing, membrane- encased, living cell. There is no evidence that there are any stable states between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump in complexity could have occurred -- even if the universe were completely filled with proteins.

If life is ultimately the result of random chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts -- such as what you are now thinking - - would in the final analysis be a consequence of accident only and therefore would have no validity.

Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein which is common to 47 forms of animal and plant life. The results of this study seriously contradict the predictions of the theory of evolution.

The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 volumes. For chance mutations and natural selection to produce this amount of information, assuming that matter and life somehow got started, is analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4000 volumes have been produced:

(a) Start with a meaningful phrase.

( Retype the phrase but make some errors and insert some additional letters.

© Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.

(d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it.

(e) Return to step (.

To accumulate 4000 volumes that are meaningful, this procedure would have to produce the equivalent of far more than 10^3000 (10 to the 3000th power) animal offspring. (To just begin to understand how large 10^3000 is, realize that the visible universe has less than 10^80 atoms in it.)

Based on present day observations, DNA can only be replicated or reproduced with the help of certain enzymes. But these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the other. No evidence exists for any such naturalistic explanation.

Amino acids, when found in nonliving matter, come in two forms that are chemically equivalent; about half can be described as "right-handed" and half "left-handed" (a structural description -- one is the mirror image of the other). However, the protein molecules found in all forms of life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, have only the left-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce just one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.

The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^527 (10 to the 527th power). (The magnitude of the number 10^527 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.)

There are many instances where quite different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the pronuba moth, many parasites and their hosts, pollen- bearing plants and the honey-bee family consisting of the queen, workers, and drones. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal), the other members could not have survived. Since all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time.

Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. A few examples include: the miniature and reliable sonar systems of the dolphins, porpoises, and whales; the frequency modulated radar and discrimination system of the bat; the efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chambers of the bombardier beetle; and the precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds and fish. The many components of these complex systems could not have evolved in stages without placing a selective disadvantage on the animal. All evidence points to a Designer.

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolution, an absolutely unbelievable series of chance events would have had to occur. First, the amazingly complex and completely different reproductive systems of the male must have completely and independently evolved at about the same time and place as those of the female. A slight incompleteness in just one of the two would make both systems useless, and natural selection would oppose their survival. Second, the physical and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible. Third, the complex products of the male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) would have to have an affinity for and a mechanical and chemical compatibility with the eggs from the female reproductive system. Fourth, the intricate and numerous processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision the very first time it happened -- processes which scientists can only describe in an aggregate sense. And final, the environment of the fertilized egg, from conception until it also reproduces with another sexually capable "brother or sister," would have to be controlled to an unbelievable degree. Either this series of incredible events occurred by random processes, or else an Intelligent Designer created sexual reproduction.

THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, THE EARTH, AND LIFE WERE RECENTLY CREATED.

Naturalistic explanations for the evolution of the solar system and universe are unscientific and hopelessly inadequate.

According to ALL theories on the evolution of the solar system:

The planets should all rotate on their axes in the same direction; Venus and Uranus rotate backwards.

All 42 moons of the various planets should revolve in the same direction; at least 11 revolve backwards.

The orbits of these 42 moons should all lie in the equatorial plane of the planet they orbit; many, including the earth's moon, are highly inclined.

The material of the earth (and Mars, Venus, and Mercury) should almost all be hydrogen and helium -- similar to that of the sun and the rest of the visible universe; actually much less than 1% of the earth's mass is hydrogen or helium.

The sun should have 700 times more angular momentum than the planets; the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the sun.

Detailed analyses indicate that stars could not have formed from interstellar gas clouds. To do so, either by first forming dust particles or by a direct gravitational collapse of the gas, would require vastly more time than the alleged age of the universe. The ONLY alternative is that stars must have been created.

The sun's tidal forces are so strong that dust clouds or gas clouds lying within the orbit of Jupiter could never condense to form planets.

Saturn's rings could not have formed from the disintegration of a former satellite or from the capture of external material; its particles are too small and too evenly distributed throughout an orbit that is too circular. Therefore, the rings appear to be remnants of its creation.

The moon was not torn from the earth, nor did it congeal from the same material as the earth since the relative abundances of its elements are too dissimilar from those of the earth. If the moon formed from particles orbiting the earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the moon's orbit; none are. The moon's circular, highly inclined orbit is strong evidence that it was never captured by the earth. If the moon was not pulled from the earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one possibility remains. The moon must have been created in its present orbit.

No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of matter, space, or time. Since each is intimately related or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others. Naturalistic explanations have completely failed.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the energy of our universe is constant, or conserved. Countless experiments have shown that regardless of the energy conversion process, the total amount of energy (or its mass equivalent) remains constant. A corollary of the First Law is the no energy can be created. Since the universe obviously has energy, that energy must have been created in the past when The First Law was not operating. Since the energy of the universe could not have created itself, Something external; must have created it.

A consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that the universe could not have always existed; it must have had a beginning. A further consequence of the Second Law is that when the universe began, it was in a more organized state than it is today -- not in a highly disorganized state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the Big Bang Theory.

We have seen stars die; we have NOT seen stars being born. Only downhill processes are observed, NEVER uphill or evolutionary processes. There is NO evidence that stars evolve.

Stellar evolution is ASSUMED in estimation the age of stars. These age estimates are then used to establish a framework for stellar evolution. This is CIRCULAR reasoning.

There is NO evidence that galaxies evolved.

TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR ARE BASED ON UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS!

Any estimated date prior to the beginning of written records must necessarily assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the initial setting of the clock is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These assumptions are almost always unstated or overlooked.

A major assumption that underlies all radioactive dating techniques is that the rates of decay, which have been essentially constant over the past 70 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This bold, critical, and untestable assumption is made even though no one knows what causes radioactive decay.

The public has been greatly misled concerning the reliability and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (the Potassium-Argon method, the Rubidium-Strontium method, and the Uranium-Thorium method). Many of the published dates can be checked by comparisons with the assumed ages for the fossils that sometimes bracket radiometrically dated rock. In over 300 (or almost half) of these PUBLISHED checks, the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error -- indicating major errors in methodology. An unanswered question is, "How many other dating checks were not published because they too were in error?"

Pleochroic halos, tiny spheres of discoloration produced by the radioactive decay of particles that are encased in various crystals, show that the earth's crust was NEVER in a molten state. Furthermore, these halos suggest that the rate of radioactive decay was NOT constant, and in fact, varied by MANY orders of magnitude from that observed today.

Geological formations are almost always dated by their fossil content, especially by certain INDEX FOSSILS of extinct animals. The age of the fossil is derived from the ASSUMED evolutionary sequence, but the evolutionary sequence is based on the fossil record. This reasoning is CIRCULAR! Furthermore, this procedure has produced many contradictory results.

Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock formations of the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This obviously shows that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time and the same place. But evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years before man supposedly began to evolve.

Many different people have found at different times and places man-made artifacts encased in coal! Examples include an 8-carat gold chain, a spoon, a thimble, an iron pot, a bell, and other objects of obvious human manufacture. Many other "out-of-place artifacts" such as a metallic vase, a screw, nails, a strange coin, and a doll have been found buried deeply in solid rock. By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years old; but man supposedly didn't begin to evolve until 2-4 million years ago. Something is wrong.

In rock formations in Utah, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Kentucky, human footprints that are supposedly 150-600 million years old have been found and examined by many different authorities. Obviously, there is a major error in chronology.

The fact that there is no worldwide unconformity in the earth's sedimentary strata implies that this entire geologic record must have been deposited rapidly. (An "unconformity" is an erosional surface between two adjacent rock formations representing a time break of unknown duration. "Conformities" imply a continuous and rapid deposition. Since one can always trace a continuous path from the bottom to the top of the geologic record that avoids these unconformities, the sediments along that path must have been deposited continuously.)

Radiocarbon dating, which has been accurately calibrated by counting the rings of living trees that are up to 3,500 years old, is unable to extend this accuracy and date organic remains that are more ancient. A few people have claimed that ancient wood exists which will permit this calibration to be extended even further back in time, but these people have not let outside scientists examine their data. On the other hand, measurements made at hundreds of sites worldwide indicate that the concentration of radiocarbon in the atmosphere rose quite rapidly at some time prior to 3,500 years ago. If this happened, a radiocarbon age of 40,000 years could easily correspond to a true age of 5,000 years!

MOST DATING TECHNIQUES SHOW THE EARTH AND SOLAR SYSTEM TO BE YOUNG.

Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years.

Atomic clocks, which have for the last 22 years measured the earth's spin rate to the nearest billionth of a second, have consistently found that the earth is slowing down at the rate of almost one second a year. If the earth were billions of years old, its initial spin rate would have been fantastically rapid-so rapid that major distortions in the shape of the earth would have occurred.

Over twenty-seven billion tons of sediments, primarily from our rivers, are entering the oceans each year. Obviously, this rate of sediment transport has not been constant and has probably been decreasing as the looser top soil has been removed. But even if it has been constant, the sediments which are now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. Therefore, the continents and oceans cannot be one billion years old.

The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young.

The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon, mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. Therefore, the oceans must be very much younger than a million years.

Evolutionists believe that the continents have existed for at least 1 billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate that would level them in a relatively short 14 million years

The occurrence of abnormally high gas and oil pressures within relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids were formed or encased less than 10,000 years ago. If these hydrocarbons had been trapped over 10,000 years ago, there would have been leakage which would have dropped the pressure to a level far below what it is today.

There have been no authenticated reports of the discovery of meteorites in sedimentary material. If the sediments, which have an average depth of 1 1/2 miles, were laid down over hundreds of millions of years, many of these steadily falling meteorites should have been discovered. Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited rapidly;furthermore, since there have been no reports of meteorites beneath the sediments, they appear to have been deposited recently.

The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth is such that after 5 billion years, the equivalent of 182 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there should be an exceedingly large amount of nickel in the crustal rocks of the earth. No such concentration has been found- on land or in the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be young.

If the moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated extensive layers of space dust- possibly a mile in thickness. Before instruments were placed on the moon, NASA was very concerned that our astronauts would sink into a sea of dust. This did not happen; there is very little space dust on the moon. Conclusion: the moon is young.

The suns's radiation applies an outward force on small particles orbiting the sun. Particles less than 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have been "blown out" of the solar system if the solar system were billions of years old. These particles are still orbiting the sun. Conclusion: the solar system is young.

Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, completed their evolution that began a thousand million years ago.

Short period comets "boil off" some of their mass each time they pass the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about 10,000 years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. If comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system, the solar system must be less than 10,000 years old.

Jupiter and Saturn are each radiating more than twice the energy they receive from the sun. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from radioactive decay or gravitational contraction. The only other conceivable explanation is that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off.

The sun's gravitational field acts as a giant vacuum cleaner which sweeps up about 100,000 tons of micrometeoroids per day. If the solar system were just 10,000 years old, no micrometeoroids should remain since there is no significant source of replenishment. A large disk shaped cloud of these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion: the solar system is less the 10,000 years old.

Stars frequently travel in closely spaced clusters, moving in the same direction at nearly the same speed. This would not be the case if they had been traveling for billions of years, because even the slightest difference in their velocity would cause their dispersal after such great periods of time.

All dating techniques, to include the few that suggest an old earth and an old universe, lean heavily on the assumption that a process observed today has always proceeded at a known rate. This assumption may be grossly inaccurate. But in the case of the many dating "clocks" that show a young earth, a much better understanding usually exists for the mechanism that drives the clock. Furthermore, the extrapolation process is over a much shorter time and is therefore more likely to be correct.

THE WORLDWIDE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY ACTUALLY OCCURRED.

NOAH'S ARK PROBABLY EXISTS TODAY.

Ancient historians such as Josephus, the Jewish-Roman historian, and Berosus of the Chaldeans mentioned in their writings that the Ark existed. Marco Polo also stated that the Ark was reported to be on a mountain in Greater Armenia.

In about 1856, a team of three skeptical British scientists and two Armenian guides climbed to Ararat to demonstrate that the Ark did not exist. The Ark was found, but the British scientists threatened death to the guides if they reported it. Years later one of the Armenians (then living if the United States) and one of the scientists independently reported that they actually located the Ark.

Sir James Bryce, a noted British scholar and traveler of the mid-nineteenth century, conducted extensive library research concerning the Ark. He became convinced that the Ark was preserved on Mount Ararat. Finally, he himself ascended to the summit of the mountain in 1867 and found, at the 13,000 foot level, a large piece of hand-tooled wood which he believed was from the Ark.

In 1883, according to a series of newspaper articles, a team of Turkish commissioners, while investigating avalanche conditions on Mount Ararat, unexpectedly cam upon the Ark projecting out of the melting ice at the end of an unusually warm summer. They claimed that they entered a portion of the Ark, but the press reports maintained only an attitude of scoffing at the account.

In the unusually warm summers of 1902 and 1904, an Armenian boy, Georgie Hagopian, and his uncle climbed to the Ark which was sticking out of an ice pack. The boy climbed over the Ark and actually entered it. A tape recording of his detailed and very credible testimony made shortly before his death in 1972 has undergone voice analyzer tests which showed no indication of lying.

A Russian pilot, flying over Ararat in World War 1 (1915) thought he saw the Ark. The news of his discovery reached the Czar, who dispatched a large expedition to the site. The soldiers were able to locate and explore the boat, but before they could report back to the capitol, the Russian Revolution of 1917 had occurred. The report disappeared, and the soldiers were scattered. Some of them eventually reached the United States. Various relatives and friends have since confirmed this story.

At about the time of the Russian sighting, five Turkish soldiers, crossing Mount Ararat, claim to have accidentally encountered the Ark; however, they did not report their story until 30 years later when they offered to guide an American expedition to the site. The expedition did not materialize, and their services were never sought until after their deaths.

During World War II, a group of Russian flyers on at least two occasions took photographs from the air which showed the Ark protruding out of the ice. These photos were shown to an American doctor in Berlin after the war, who subsequently disclosed this story.

An oil geologist, George Greene, in 1953 took a number of photographs of the Ark from a helicopter. After returning to the United States, Greene showed his photographs to many people but was unable to raise financial backing for a ground- based expedition. Finally, he left for South America, where he was killed. Although no one knows were the pictures are now, over 30 people have given sworn written testimony that they saw these photographs which clearly showed the Ark protruding from the melting ice field at the edge of a precipice.

There are many other stories in which people claim to have seen the Ark. Some of these are of questionable validity, and others are inconsistent with many of the known details. Only the most credible are cited above.

MANY OF THE EARTH'S PREVIOUSLY UNEXPLAINED FEATURES CAN BE EXPLAINED ONLY BY THIS FLOOD.

The origin of each of the following features of the earth is a subject of controversy within the earth sciences. Each typically involves numerous hypotheses and unexplainable aspects. All of these features can be viewed as a direct consequence of a singular and unrepeatable event- a flood whose waters burst forth from worldwide, subterranean, and interconnected chambers with an energy release in excess of one trillion megatons of TNT. The cause and effect sequence of the event involved phenomena which are either well understood or are observable in modern times.

coal formations

mountains

ocean trenches

submarine canyons

mid-oceanic ridge

continental drift

magnetic patterns of the ocean floor

strata

glaciers and the ice age

continental shelves and slopes

submarine volcanoes and guyots

salt domes

metamorphic rock

THE SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS OF THE FLOOD ARE REALLY QUITE PLAUSIBLE IF EXAMINED CLOSELY.

Every major mountain range on the earth contains fossils of sea life.

Practically every culture on earth has legends telling of a traumatic flood in which only a few humans survived in a large boat.

The majority of the earth's mountains were formed after most of the sediments were deposited. If these mountains were again flattened out ( while the ocean basins were allowed to rise in compensation for this downward flow of mass), the oceans would flood the entire earth. Therefore, there is enough water on the earth to cover the smaller mountains that existed prior to the flood.

Seeds can still germinate after soaking for a year in salt water.

A 1,500,000 cubic foot ark and eight human passengers could support for one year the required number of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds. Estimates of the total number of animals carried range from 2,000 to 35,000. The logistic requirements that such a large vessel could satisfy include: food and water, ventilation, and space for exercise and waste disposal.

A rectangular barge 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high would be quite stable in rough waters and quite

[Chauncy]

THE SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS OF THE FLOOD ARE REALLY QUITE PLAUSIBLE IF EXAMINED CLOSELY.

Plausible to you!......when You look closely.

Maybe instead of saying"examined closely"...you should say "when examined with the pre-supposition of God and when examined with the sole desire to validate your choice of lifestyle through a twisting and contorting of science."

See creationists know that their beliefs will never be accepted by science, because their beliefs are fraudulent. Thats why their arguements are geared to the average person who doesn't know any better.

Saucy you use every Creationist propaganda there is to convince yourself you've made the right choice.

1)One of the most common tactics is misquoting scientists. Creationists frequently will take the comments of scientists out of context and make them appear as if they argue against evolution (common descent). Creationists are often devoutly religious, so arguments from authority may seem quite attractive because fundamentalist religion is already rather authoritarian. Compound this with the fact that creationism doesn't have any sound evidence to support it, and the desire for sources of scientific authority to lend credence to their claims is understandable.

2)Misquoting scientists is a tempting method because, while there is no disagreement among evolutionary scientists on the accepted fact that evolution does and has taken place, there is nevertheless great debate and disagreement over the particulars of evolutionary theory. Creationists will take such criticisms of particular points of theory or criticism of some specific scientific test or practice and try to make it seem as if the scientist who made the statement is criticizing or questioning the belief that evolution has taken place.

3)In addition to misquotes of scientists, creationists also misstate or misapply scientific principles. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a favorite - creationists will often claim that the second law proves evolution can't happen. Creationists will also tend to use a shotgun approach to try to convince people their views are correct. This is one of the reasons why smart evolutionists generally avoid public debates with creationists except in controlled environments. A creationist can spew out a vast quantity of convincing-sounding misinformation in a short amount of time. It could take days to correct the misinformation and explain the actual theories and evidence

4)Evolution is a complex science, and the data that support it come from numerous fields and can be complex to explain. This is one of the reasons why creationists have as much success as they do. It is a lot easier to lie and distort than to explain the truth. (Note that by "truth" I mean the truth about what science actually says, not the truth of evolution.) Smart evolutionists will only debate a creationist in a controlled environment where you have to stick to a point until it is resolved. Creationists usually avoid these situations like the plague

5)Creationists will use a lot of "dirty" tactics in a debate. If you want to study the issue of creationism and evolution, examine what creationists say with great care. If something a creationist says sounds interesting, follow up on it from a reputable source. Never trust what a creationist says about science. There are lots of excellent sources for science information - use them if you want to learn about the science related to evolution

6)When it comes to discussing science, you can trust what scientists say a great deal more than you can trust anything creationists say......because they lie!

Saucy you can check-out all the propoganda Creationists use here at this link, then maybe you will see why you were told what you were told and maybe see why you say exactly what you were told. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[Venomshocker]

Worldwide Flood being the cause of the fossil record.

Im gonna have to disagree with you there saucy. The geological evidence points too a flood at 7640BC.And geological evidence points too planet earth being some 4.5Billion years old. If I were you I would look up some Old Earth creationist type sites, those young earthers sceintifically are out too lunch. Although they put an interesting fight.

[Stellar]

Ok before spending 3 hours reading the rest of your other post, I'll reply to this one first.

You know how they were proved to be hoaxes? By scientists (evolutionary scientists) who, even though if it turned out to be true it would be more proof of evolution, decided to be skeptic and MAKE SURE that its either real or not. THey tested, retested, and retested again to make sure. Why do you assume that these examples you listed are the only supposed proof of evolution and theyre hoaxes? there is other proof of evolution than that. And you only use about 10 of the many more unfaked, non hoaxed evidence there is. Why is that? If there are many more than 10 inconsistancies and errors in the bible, isnt there a chance that the rest is the same way? Not sure what Lucy is though. But, if creationists have the evidence needed to prove creationism, why do they create hoaxes? why would they need to? Why would they need to manipulate real scientific laws to suit them? Why not use the actual law?

Saucy, I meant that as a counter to what he said about evolution being proof of creationism. But the difference is, you can NOT find ANY evidence supporting creation. Holy hell are you blind? You did not show REAL evidence from real scientists and professors. We dont make the real scientists and professors look uneducated. The "evidence" you posted was psuedoscientific and blatantly manipulating and erroneous. The evidence was not from a real scientist, it was from a 3rd party creationist who took some work of a real scientist and used it as proof of creationism. Whats wrong about it though is that he didnt use the whole scientific law and the whole work of the scientist (which as a whole does NOT support creationism). He just picked certain parts of it which can be used to support creationism and he hopes that whoever reads it doesnt know enough to see the error in his argument. HOW MUCH TIMES DO WE NEED TO TELL YOU?. I cant even believe you're accusing the evolutionists of being biased. Now THAT's funny. If a scientist said something good about evolution, like, lets say, "evolution has been proven to be 100% correct by DNA testing from a human ancestor from 100 000 years ago" then I would have a problem with it, and I wouldnt support it because if it hasnt happened, it hasnt happened. There has not been a DNA test on a human ancestor from 98k BC because theres nothing to test. What if I found a scientist who said this... wouldnt you have the right to question him? You are completely ignorant of the facts and whats going on. It shows. You have not used actual scientists and professors works neither. Show me one example of where you have used the full scientific law or full scientists work and not manipulated versions of it. The fact that the Sun is shrinking *NOW* does not mean it has ALWAYS been shrinking, and doesnt mean it was ALWAYS intact. FFS, even if it was 1000 times bigger than it is now, the Earth STILL could have been formed when it was only an appropriate size like it is now. Holy hell you acuse evolutionists of being biased and you use so blatantly idiotic arguments such as these and :@ if only I can tell you what kind of a person you really are.... but I'd get banned for it. The science world has never accepted that the earth would've been too hot to support life even a million years ago because the scientific world thinks there WAS life a million years ago and knows that because the sun is shrinking NOW doesnt mean that the rate of shrinking has been constant and doesnt mean that it was too hot a million years ago. FFS, the bigger the sun is doesnt even mean its hotter than a smaller one! And please, tell me where a school test proved the sun was shrinking... please.... I'm waiting. Just as Im still waiting for "evidence" of creationism. Creationism gets its "evidence" if you call it that from distorting real science. All those arguments you posted... theyve been DEBUNKED BY ACTUAL SCIENCE BECAUSE THEY WERENT REALLY SCIENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE! Miracles... let me see, miracles, why is there a need to tie God into miracles? Miracles are just something unexplained happening. Miracles DID happen even after someone didnt pray, but you know what? It doesnt matter if the person prayed or not, because praying a certain way helps relaxe a person and just relaxing can help. Praying a certain way even stimulates part of the brain, and maybe a part near that thats been effected is whats responsible for the miracle. Theres no reason to tie God into it. The same stimulation can be achieved through other means such as meditation. You call me biased? How come the only conclusion you ever jump to is "God did it"? A strong atheist will not even pray to god if he is diagnosed with a true disease, and not all atheists dont believe in God, they believe in the possibility that God doesnt exist, and some say "Well hell, if there is a chance, I better be on the safe side". And you know what, even if they do pray to God, that doesnt mean they believe in the BIBLEs God. WHy do christians always assume that anyone who believes in no specific religion but believes in God should be considered christian anyway? Again, another biased argument... NOT EVERYONE who dies clinically and is revived has a story to tell of them going to heaven and seeing their dead relatives. Clinically dead is clinically dead, and we dont have a way to pull them out of it. Clinically dead is not the heart stopping, its the brain activity stopping, to which there is not yet any way to revive them artificially. The stories you speak of are when someones HEART was stopped, but their brain is still working and therefor they are not really dead. And you know what? I have an explenation of why some do see a sort of afterlife, and I already said it in another post. And you know what, explain to me why not all stories coincide with the same heaven or even a heaven at all? Some just see themselves floating in space for example. Figure that one out. What explains all the angel sightings? What explains ghosts? I bet it could very well be the same thing. Why would 90% of the planet be religious? That is one of the most stupidest questions Ive ever heard and I'll let someone else explain that first if they want to because if I start explaining it I'll get more frustrated with your ignorant biased viewpoint than I already am. I'll explain it later when I calm down if no one else does. I'll just add this right now though, why did 90% of the world believe that the Earth was flat back a few hundred years when it really isnt? Why wont you accept that the important parts of the bible CANT be proven historically? Scientific theory is only scientific theory when it is scientific, when it is bent, distorted, sliced, and taken out of context it cant be seen as a scientific theory. All of my evidence can be debunked? Not scientifically at this time. Only by stuff like "God did it" and the likes.

Seraphina & anyone else: Feel free to take over cuz I'm too frustrated to continue with his next post right now

[Chauncy]

I got your back Stellar

[saucy]

First of all, don't get angry and frustrated with a post. What's the point of debating if you're just going to get angry and call me names? If you know my post is going to p*** you off, then just don't read it.

With the hoaxes, scientists knew they were hoaxes because they planeted them. A couple of the hoaxes lasted some 40 years before the news got out! Why would scientists need to create and hold a hoax for forty years if there's just so much evidence out there that evolution happened?

How do you know that there is no historical value to the bible? I keep hearing that I can't prove the bible speaks of any proof. That's because you aren't willing to even listen to it. Anything that even seeps the idea of creation must be bogus because there's just NO WAY WHATSOEVER that life started any other way than natural selection. All my evidence is crap, the scientists who first thought up the idea and the many more who support it must be lying through there teeth and anyone who believes the bible and any theories that support any word of the bible are ignorant. If you think bad of me because I believe in God, then you sir have a MAJOR problem. If you want to go though and spend hours debunking all 100 pieces of evidence (yes, there's exactly 100), go ahead, but I'm not going to sit here and talk to someone like you who couldn't possibly be wrong even an inch because he knows everything. I never said I know everything, I just offer evidence for what I think would be a good debate without people like you!

[Stellar]

Omfg. Anyone else notice how biased and manipulated and pseuedo scientific his copy/paste article was? I'm not even gonna bother because again, its just a repetition of the same old debunked articles (Remember paluxy? I've just debunked that what, 1 page ago and you posted it again?) and I've posted enough long posts recently. Someone else cover for me for this week cuz I got lots of homework to do before my exams still.

Saucy, mind giving us the addy to the site? And mind looking up stuff next time before posting them and asking us to type up and compile and debunk it all AGAIN?

Edit: Forgot to add: "Noah's Ark has been foun!" Hahahahahah! Funniest thing I've ever heard. theres a difference between it being found and its presumed resting place being located.

Edited May 19, 2004 by Stellar

[Chauncy]

With the hoaxes, scientists knew they were hoaxes because they planeted them. A couple of the hoaxes lasted some 40 years before the news got out! Why would scientists need to create and hold a hoax for forty years if there's just so much evidence out there that evolution happened?

Who exactly is "THEY" again due to your penchant for literal interpretation you once again paint life with the broad stroked brush of Christian generalization. There has never been any references to Piltdown man as evidence since 1953. Your talking about something that was executed 100 years ago. Lets talk about the atrocities your religion has committed over the last hundred years. Why are you saying all scientists, or referring to the Hoaxers as all scientists????....you would not believe the amount of scientists that doubted Piltdown man and proclaimed him as a hoax forever scoffing at it.....did you you even research to see who these smart people were????......you didn't because, that type of objectivety would not validate your belief so you hide from it and sensationalize what you need to justify your position!

How do you know that there is no historical value to the bible?

There is historical value to the bible, what it isn't is inerrant, and what it isn't is something you should interpretate literally, what it isn't is a science book or science reference of anykind, what it isn't is something you should use to condem ANYTHING!!!!........and what it isn't is the explaination for your existence.

I keep hearing that I can't prove the bible speaks of any proof. That's because you aren't willing to even listen to it

What do you think your the first?.......many a soap box preacher has fell to the sidewalk as a result of their lack of logical thought! We have heard it before all of it.....see with science there is always new discoveries, new questions, new thoughts,roads and paths......your religion has nothing new, no new validation,PROOF, change of attitude or purpose, and this fact my friend should make you weep with forced realization as your eyes scan this text!!!.......if something does not progress then it is dead as Elvis and should be left for nostalgia.

All my evidence is crap,

Thats what we've been trying to tell you! (Freudian slip not your fault)

I just offer evidence for what I think would be a good debate without people like you!

Well see you did more then just offer evidence, you tried to debate science with religion, and you can't........the only thing that can debunk science is science.

[Stellar]

Haha, sounds like Saucy is getting frustrated now. Show me proof of the bible... proof of the important parts, not proof of some king mentioned in the Bible... It seems that YOU are unwilling to accept the facts. Youd be willing to come here and argue with us about the daytime sky being purple if the Bible said it was. Your "evidence" has been debunked, but you are not willing to accept it. I here however correct people when they say evolution has been proven, because it has not. You say I have a difficulty admitting Im wrong? Well, even if evolution did not create us, that doesnt prove creationism. Evolution is simply the leading theory on the origins of all species... creationism isnt even a theory though, its a myth. Oh, and the scientific evidence you posted, you call it scientific? its pseudo (SP?) science, not real science, as it is always pointed out to you, but you arent willing to accept THAT even. After you have been proven wrong, you still dont admit that you may have been wrong. I dont think bad of you for believing in God, I think bad of you for your obvious "need" to reinforce your beliefs after it has always been pointed out to you that your "evidence" isnt even evidence, which you still argue with.

[saucy]

With the hoaxes, scientists knew they were hoaxes because they planeted them. A couple of the hoaxes lasted some 40 years before the news got out! Why would scientists need to create and hold a hoax for forty years if there's just so much evidence out there that evolution happened?

Who exactly is "THEY" again due to your penchant for literal interpretation you once again paint life with the broad stroked brush of Christian generalization. There has never been any references to Piltdown man as evidence since 1953. Your talking about something that was executed 100 years ago. Lets talk about the atrocities your religion has committed over the last hundred years. Why are you saying all scientists, or referring to the Hoaxers as all scientists????....you would not believe the amount of scientists that doubted Piltdown man and proclaimed him as a hoax forever scoffing at it.....did you you even research to see who these smart people were????......you didn't because, that type of objectivety would not validate your belief so you hide from it and sensationalize what you need to justify your position!

How do you know that there is no historical value to the bible?

There is historical value to the bible, what it isn't is inerrant, and what it isn't is something you should interpretate literally, what it isn't is a science book or science reference of anykind, what it isn't is something you should use to condem ANYTHING!!!!........and what it isn't is the explaination for your existence.

I keep hearing that I can't prove the bible speaks of any proof. That's because you aren't willing to even listen to it

What do you think your the first?.......many a soap box preacher has fell to the sidewalk as a result of their lack of logical thought! We have heard it before all of it.....see with science there is always new discoveries, new questions, new thoughts,roads and paths......your religion has nothing new, no new validation,PROOF, change of attitude or purpose, and this fact my friend should make you weep with forced realization as your eyes scan this text!!!.......if something does not progress then it is dead as Elvis and should be left for nostalgia.

I just offer evidence for what I think would be a good debate without people like you!

Well see you did more then just offer evidence, you tried to debate science with religion, and you can't........the only thing that can debunk science is science.

All my evidence is crap,

Thats what we've been trying to tell you! (Freudian slip not your fault)

LOL

There really isn’t any reason to allow this to continue. Repeatedly referencing already disproved and seriously flawed claims to advance one’s opinions isn’t productive or fundamentally enlightening, it’s irritating and mind numbingly disingenuous. A debate ceases to be relevant when substance is disregarded in favor of outright contrariness.

Edited May 19, 2004 by Magikman