Radiometric Dating Part 4

There is a common misunderstanding that radiometric dating systems have confirmed the age of the earth. Nothing could be further from the truth. Radiometric dating systems are purported to give ages in the billions of years for the earth’s primary rocks. However, these methods are entirely unreliable giving errors of magnitude. The New Encyclopedia Britannica states that the picture for radiometric accuracy is “gloomy”. Rare attempts to apply multiple radiometric dating methods where mother and daughter elements are both present to rocks from the same stratum “almost always” give disparate dates.

“The uranium-thorium to helium-lead” methods of radiometric dating have been “pushed into the background” due to the “limited applicability and questionable reliability” of these methods. The decomposition of potassium-40 into two daughter elements: argon-40 and calcium-40 is equally fraught with problems.

Among potential wrong assumptions in establishing a date for a rock sample is the original presence of daughter elements. For example calcium-40, a daughter element of potassium-40 decomposition, is abundantly available in the earth’s surface. Only a fraction of this element can be attributed to the decomposition of potassium-40. Therefore, the presence of calcium-40 cannot be used to demonstrate the age of anything.

A second false assumption is that the decomposition processes have remained constant over billions of years. We have not even scientifically observed these processes with any accuracy for 50 years. How can we extrapolate that things have not changed over hundreds of millions or billions of years when we know that stasis of the environment cannot be true? There are many potential variables and conditions that may prove to accelerate or decelerate the nuclear decay processes.

A third problem is that contamination of rock samples is unavoidable. There are many ways that mother, or daughter elements can be falsely introduced or leaked away. Potassium, for example, is water soluble and very reactive. What is to prevent it from being leached out, or being washed into a sample? Besides calcium-40, the other daughter element in the potassium-40 decomposition process, is argon-40. This is the daughter element normally used for dating purposes. Argon is a gas that can easily escape into the atmosphere! If argon escapes into the air, then how will dates based upon its absence or presence be reliable? These and other sources of error make these radiometric systems entirely useless in the study of the age of the earth.

(These notes and quotes were extracted from The New Encyclopædia Britannica,

Chicago, 1989, vol. 19, macropædia section on Geochronology pp. 785-789)

Besides the theoretical problems, actual measurements usually give anomalous dates for rock samples. This phenomenon is well documented. In one example volcanic rocks, known to have formed in the last 200 years, gave the bizarre age of 3,000,000 years. Clearly radiometric dating methods are useless as instruments to estimate the age of the earth.

On the other hand there are evidences that certain radiometric processes would indicate a young age for the earth. For example, helium isotopes are a by-product of uranium and other natural radioactive decay. Assuming that 100% of the helium in the earth’s atmosphere is the by-product of radioactive decay, and assuming current rates, then the earth’s atmosphere can be no more than 40,000 years old.

Unlike other radiometric dating systems, carbon fourteen (14C ) dating has a demonstrated validity, but only for relatively recent events. The most optimistic of scientists would not extrapolate 14C dating validity beyond 40,000 years. It is highly accurate for several thousand years. The older the dates, the less their reliability. The same kinds of questions posed for the other radiometric dating systems apply here. What was the ratio of mother to daughter elements in the beginning? Have conditions remained constant? Has contamination occurred? Due to evolutionary bias about the age of the earth, 14C dating is not normally applied to date strata where other radiometric methods might be considered. However, it would be interesting to apply radiocarbon dating to coal and oil deposits, or to the dinosaur tissue recently discovered in China (see next post).

Go To Part 5

Read more...

The Response about Ben Stein from Evolutionist

Ben Stein came out with a documentary called, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", where he demonstrated discrimination in science against the Creationist and Intelligent Design people.

Richard Dawkins and other evolutionist are saying that they were deceived hiding the fact that the film was about "Intelligent Design". Why do they care what the movie was about when the documentary didn't make them look like idiots, but their own words did.

Of course, all of the left-wing attacks are out in full force attacking the movie. However, I think Ben Stein did a great job in interviewing both sides of the argument. When I have watched shows on the History channel about the Bible, or Noah's flood, they have always shown only one side of the issue. One geologist on this program said, "There is no evidence for a world wide flood." Are they saying that they couldn't find one geologist that believes in Noah's flood? They definitely didn't look very hard if that is the case. That is the same thing that is going on with the theory of evolution. We are presented with one side and only one side.

The fact is that there are many scientist that do not believe in the evolutionary theory and if they question it, they are reprimanded for it.

One attack on the movie is by Catsoulis where she said, "One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."

Why does she say that? It is because the documentary is telling the truth?

The fact is that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory. The evolutionist are quite scared of the creationist, and that is why so few of them would be willing to debate them.

Read more...

The Stars & Galaxies: Where did they all come from? (Part 8)

Prediction: The Natural phenomena will satisfactorily describe the origin of astrophysical objects.

Prediction: Any scientific analysis for the origin of the universe will call for an uncaused intelligence. Astrophysical objects will defy naturalistic explanations indicating that they could not have happened without external engineering.

The best naturalistic proposal for the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory. Here are some of the phenomena that the Big Bang has not explained with known scientific laws: the origin of the time, space, matter continuum the origin of the great explosion the formation of galaxies the formation of stars from expanding clouds of hydrogen the formation of binary stars the formation of planets and their moons the formation of the laws of nature Other naturalistic explanations have even more serious problems often contradicting the laws of causality and of thermodynamics. The Steady State theory, for example, states that matter is somehow constantly being created in the “center” of the universe. If there is a creator, then this theory could be entertained, but it is not a naturalistic explanation. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Go To part 9

Read more...

Is Evolution a Theory

Talk Origins website quotes: “Evolution is a Fact and a Theory”

A Scientific theory follows the following sequences:

1) Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.

How life came into existence ?

2) Collect information (data) about this phenomenon by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomenon by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.

It is impossible to do experimental laboratory tests on creating life. The evolutionist attempt to collect data about the evolutionary theory, but the evidence is always inconclusive and the evolutionist jumps to assumptions that are far fetch and hard to believe. The scientific community already has implanted biases that lead them to the wrong conclusions.

3) After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.

The evolutionists are looking for science that supports their view point, but when they uncover something that contradicts their view point they choose to ignore it. The theory of evolution might stop here and be called a hypothesis. That is about all they can claim.

4) Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data.

The evolutionists continue to ignore the statement “In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data”.

"We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner

"We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution

Stephen J. Gould, one of the intellectual fathers of the "punctuated equilibrium" theory, admitted this in all clarity at a conference he gave at Hobart & William Smith College: "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome ... brings terrible distress. ... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it."

Evolutionists are constantly ignoring data that contradicts their belief. Now, creationists have also claimed certain evidence based on their biases as well. However, creationist can admit it, but evolutionists do not.

The Lucy skeleton is still quoted as evidence for evolution even though it was totally disproved.
Lucy was just another partial find of some primate that was put together to look like some transitional form of human. The bones of Lucy were seperated by 200 feet by 1 mile. Maybe we should think that the seperation of Lucy's bones was due to a world wide flood.

It is interesting to note that the fossils are so scarce regarding human evolution that all the evidence can fit in a single coffin with room to spare.

5) If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.

Evolution hasn’t survived any of the attacks against it; they have just convinced people that their theory is sound because so many people do not want to anwer to a supreme being. People wanted another alternative to a belief in God so they made one up.

6) A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth. People claim that evolution is a fact, when no scientific theory is a fact.

You can have a lot of evidence to support something, but you don't say that it is 100% fact because all theories are subject to counter evidence that can disprove it. There is always some (perhaps infinitisemally small) chance in principle that an experiment will disprove it. I don’t know who is saying, “Evolution is just a theory”, because it doesn’t really classify as a theory at all. At best, it might be considered a hypothesis.



"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for their compatibility with what we do observe of the facts of nature. Intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable explanation for the origin of the complexity we see in living things than is evolution by mere chance and the intrinsic properties of nature. " Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

Read more...

Inbreeding: How fertile are the offspring? (Part 19)

Inbreeding: How fertile are the offspring?
The Naturalistic Evolutionary Model:	An Intelligent Design - Young Earth/Cataclysm Model:
Prediction: Inbreeding in domestic and other plants & animals will demonstrate a high percentage of strong and fertile offspring.	Prediction: Inbreeding in domestic and other plants &animals will show limits to variation and lead to weak and less fertile offspring.
If speciation is to occur, extreme inbreeding, when repeated geographic isolation occurs, is required. Such inbreeding will allow for differentiation to persist and not be diluted and lost into the greater population. Inbreeding, however, leads to inherited genetic defects, which would overrule any potential inherited benefits to possible “positive mutations”. It is “the almost universal belief of breeders…(of) plants and animals…that close interbreeding diminishes vigor and fertility.” Darwin, The Origin of the Species p.86 Extreme inbreeding of dogs, for example, leads to defects inherited by all descendent members of that breed of dogs. When the inbred dogs return to crossbreed, then the defects are sublimated producing stronger offspring. This is an indication that there are limits to genetic variation. Zea Maiz, (American corn) has been bred for millennia. New varieties have been developed over the centuries through selection and hybridization. Breeding experiments, however, seem to have stayed within the limits of genetic variation. New organs were not developed, rather desirable traits inherent to genetic variability of size, color, flavor, resistance to disease or weather, etc. have been bred into seed stock, while undesirable traits have been bred out. Man seems to have encountered limits to genetic breeding. Genetic engineering may allow for further development. However, at this juncture, if left in the wild, hybridized corn seed quickly looses its specialized combination of desirable traits. Some suggest that corn is so inbred; it may not retain the ability to survive in the wild. By the second generation what was once hybridized corn seed quickly degenerates reverting to less productive, more wild and irregular stock. If evolutionary expectations were met, the differentiated sub-species might continue to evolve into something new as opposed to reverting to old form.

(Part 20 coming soon)

Read more...

Do All Schools Teach Evolution?

This image was taken from another website.

There is a big significance to this image when it comes to the theory of evolution. People have claimed that the Christians are driving the anti-evolutionary teaching. According to the research conducted by Lawrence S. Lerner of California State University at Long Beach, that doesn't seem to be the case. By the way, he is an evolutionist.

If you look at the map, you will notice that there are many states that do not force evolution in the classroom.

"According to a 1999 poll taken by People for the American Way Foundation, a Washington D.C. based organization opposed to teaching of creationism in science classes, … Only 37 percent expressed strong support for evolution-that is, teaching it to the exclusion of all religious doctrine in science classes. "

That is interesting since Christians aren't necessarily pushing to teach religion in classrooms. We would like to be able to present the counter arguments to the evolutionary theory.

The interesting thing is that this is the evolutionist data.

The fact is this:

"this isn’t a case of religion against evolution-it is a case of science against evolution."

Like I have said before, the evidence doesn't support the theory of evolution. Evolution has dominated society so they get to push their agenda in some classrooms, in the media and every place else so that is why many people think that evolution is true. The fact is that you are a product of a creator, not evolution.

Read more...

Geology: Eons of time, or a great flood? Part 14

Geology: Eons of time, or a great flood?
The Naturalistic Evolutionary Model:	An Intelligent Design - Young Earth/Cataclysm Model:
Prediction: Uniformitarian geological structures will be found all over the earth in coherent, time-sequenced patterns.	Prediction: Cataclysmic non-uniformitarian geological structures will dominate the earth’s surface.
Evolutionary theorists consistently interpret geological layers in terms of hundreds of millions of years. Their model of geological strata presupposes chronological layering. It is divided (from oldest to youngest) into Pre-Cambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras with each of these subdivided into Eons or Periods. Young Earth scientists, on the other hand, site the lack of chronological coherence to the kinds of rocks and fossils found in the supposed layers to be an indicator of a single massive cataclysmic flood. These scientists propose that massive multiple layers thousands of feet thick were quickly formed settling onto all of the great plains of the earth’s crust with chasms being cut during one major drainage event which would have naturally followed the flood. The drainage event would thus explain the great canyons of the earth’s plains. These scientists would propose that there was one ice age subsequent to the flood. They would propose that there is no evidence for the currently held uniformitarian geological frame. The evolutionary model has significant trouble explaining the following anomalies that can easily be explained with a worldwide flood: 1. The model of the geological column in science textbooks is not found complete anywhere on the earth. For example, the Grand Canyon is missing 150 million years of strata. For this model to be true, there must be unknown geologic activity that nicely erases periods of earth’s history by wiping away seemingly random strata allowing for subsequent layers to sit undisturbed in neat pancake fashion on top of others. Missing strata vary from geographical location to geographical location and cover vast areas of the earth’s surface. 2.The determination of a layer is not dependant upon the kind of rocks found in it, nor by any dating technique, much less by the order of the layering with the most recent being on top. No! Rather the age of a stratum is determined by the kind of “trace” fossils found in it. This would be great if there were any validity to the age of the “trace” fossils! 3. Layers are often out of order with the wrong layers on top. In other words often “older” layers are found on top of “younger” ones. In most cases these bizarre reversals show no evidence that the younger layer slipped somehow under the one above it. The layers sit nicely one on top of another sometimes covering many thousands of square miles. The theory of “subduction” was invented to try to explain away the existence of these impossible strata inversions. 4. Strata all over the earth’s surface are found neatly parallel to each other with little indication of millions of years of erosion, of mountain formation, of earth shifting, of earthquake, or of volcanic activity between layers. 5. Polystrate fossils such as tree trunks are neatly found in upright positions on every continent. Evolutionary theory requires that these fossils were positioned across multiple layers through “hundreds of thousands of years” of geologic strata deposition. More realistically these fossils (which are sometimes found upside down) were stuck in deep mud that stratified while the logs were in vertical positions. In other words, all the layers covering these polystrate fossils were layered in a single catastrophic event. 6. Shells, and other ocean fossils are found on the tops of all major mountains. 7. Strata hundreds or even thousands of feet thick are neatly folded together indicating that these were layered together and bent while still plastic like clay. Had they been dry, they would have crumbled in the folding. 8. The dating of layers involves circular reasoning. Trace fossils are used to supply ages for strata. The presumed ages of strata are used to confirm the ages of the trace fossils. Radiometric dating has been found useless to independently date the strata. No other independent measurements are used to confirm these supposed ages. (See sections on radiometric dating, and on fossil evidence.) 9. Even evolutionists indicate that the evidence points to catastrophic events in contradiction to the prediction of uniformitarianism. For example, most evolutionists agree that the dinosaurs died in a catastrophic event when a meteor hit the earth. Neo-evolutionists propose at least 4 worldwide catastrophic events. Such events, however, would cause mass extinction accompanied by severe and radical changes to the global environment alternatively causing: tsunamis; deluge; earthquakes; volcanic activity; heating; atmospheric shading; freezing; the release of toxic gas over the whole earth; greenhouse effects; ice ages, etc. Each geologic catastrophe would set evolution back tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of years and require efficient evolutionary processes to re-establish newly derived species from the poorly adapted survivors. 10. Under such conditions, it is hard to explain the stasis of species. How is it that certain species show virtually no change over hundreds of millions of years in light of the dramatic changes to the earth’s environment?

(Part 15 Coming Soon)

Read more...

Is Ben Stein's Documentary True-Expelled No Intelligence Allowed

People have attacked me because I have criticized science. You better not question the theory of evolution. The Atheist do not like their theory questioned and Ben Stein has demonstrated that in his documentary "Expelled No Intelligence Allowed". Ben Stein interviews the Atheists and the Intelligent Design people to get at the root of the issue. Of course, all of the Atheists are up in arms about it, but the fact is that true science is suppressed and replaced by false science. You must see the documentary if you want to get at the root of the Creationist/Evolutionist issue. Richard Dawkins would rather believe that we were created by Aliens than by God, and he thinks that the Creationist are the stupid ones. One Atheist said this,
"This film is entirely and totally dishonest from start to finish. If this transparent fraud is what the Creationist crowd has to offer, I have utmost confidence in my position that reality and science offers the best hope for the growth and inner peace for mankind."

What Creationist have to offer is true science. This Atheist obviously has no evidence to defend his faith, so he just attacks the film instead. He probably hasn't even seen it.

Read more...

Junk Science and Evolution

I noticed that my blog was placed in some Atheist forum on facebook to get other Atheists opinion whether scientist lie when it comes to their evolutionary theory. It is amazing to me how blinded people are when it comes to science. Do scientist lie? Have scientist ever lied? I do believe that scientist have their own agenda just like politicians. It is a common practice for politicians to lie, so why isn't it common practice for evolutionist to lie? Are the evolutionist completely up front with their evolutionary theory?

First, it is common knowledge that there is a lot of junk science floating around. John Stossel did a series on Junk Science on ABC in the late 1990s. Then there is global warming which is another fraud. When you have people like Al Gore coming out with documentaries about science, you have to wonder about the legitimacy of the science he is talking about especially since his video has known errors in it. One person on my blog said, "When did science become political?" Science has always been political. In the past, scientist have used everything from craniometry to phrenology to test that blacks were inferior to whites. When an environmentalist or another organization wants support, what do they do? They try and get science to back them up. If you can claim that it is scientific, nobody can dispute it.

The theory of Evolution is just as controversial and political as any other form of science. Scientist have an agenda when it comes to proving their theory as well. Since they are trying to get grants renewed, and win the noble prize, some scientist probably will do anything. There is also discrimination against any scientist who doesn't hold to the theory of evolution. So most scientist who might have a different theory won't even want to express it for fear of reprisal. This website lists the top ten junk science moments from Al Gore's fraud to the Stem cell controversy.

Now, you can blindly follow science that teaches man is worthless, that man just evolved and has no purpose, and that there isn't anything more intelligent than you, or you might sit back and realize that there is something more to life than living and dying. One person posted on my blog that if there wasn't religion, everything would be better. Do you remember the Rodney King riots? That is what the world would be like without God. God brings peace and love to the world, and Atheist brings selfishness and greed. If there wasn't any supreme being laying down the rules and laws for man, this world would be more chaotic then it is today. Most of the rules and laws that we abide by came originally from the Bible first.

Don't be blinded thinking that science is absolute because scientific theories are developed by man and many times there is a counter theory that might even make more sense and be more scientific.

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as
a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:"
1 Peter 5:8, KJV

Read more...

Evolutionary Fossil Frauds

I have been challenged to show sources why so many of these missing-links that evolutionist find are frauds. I have posted some of this information before, but I am going to post some more here.


The thing is that there have been so many frauds, why should we believe Ardi or Ida is any different. And by the way, only a couple of months after Ida was big news did scientists stop talking about it. (I wonder why...)


Fraud #1:

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link").
Source

Fraud #2:

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey.
Source

Fraud #3:

Piltdown man: Found to be a forgery 41 years later.
Not a Creationist Source

Fraud #4:

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.
Not a Christian Source

Fraud #5:

Lucy:

Lucy's actual remains did not included hands or feet and reconstructions are commonly presented with human or near-human hands and feet despite the fact that other skeletons of the same creature have hands and feet which are clearly those of an ape, with curved fingers for moving about in trees. Mary Leakey in fact had found clear tracks of human footprints in the same strata and location as Lucy's remains and the assumption is that at least one australopithicus MUST have had human feet.

Asked whether a better explanation would be that the tracks were simply produced by humans, Leakey and others replied that was impossible since the tracks were millions of years old.

The obvious explanation of course is that a human made the footprints and "Lucy" was simply that human's pet monkey.

The story actually gets better (much better) from there if you can believe that, with evolutionists claiming that a deer or other animal trampled "Lucy"'s hips and pelvis, breaking them into pieces, and that the pieces congealed by chances into the conformation of those of an ape, and deriving the true picture of Lucy's hips and pelvis by making a plaster cast, breaking it up with a saw, and then rearranging the pieces into a more human conformation.

For anybody willing to part with the twelve dollars, this little documentary offers an astonishing glimpse into the mindset of the evolution true believer.


David Menton earned a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University (wow, I biologist that doesn't believe in evolution). He served as a biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic and then as an associate professor of anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (St Louis). For almost two decades he has been profiled in American Men and Women of Science—A Biographical Directory of Today’s Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences. Dr. Menton has lectured throughout the United States and Canada on the creation-evolution controversy.


Has good material with videos
Christian Article
Source
(You aren't going to find any non-creationist articles because the evolutionist are still holding this discovery is valid. However, the other frauds listed above aren't even supported by evolutionist.)

With just this short list of well known frauds, I am puzzled why anybody trusts what evolutionist say about human evolution especially when it comes to these so called missing links. There is a reason why the majority of people, at least in America, do not support evolution.

"In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds."

Read more...

Ardi Evolution - Some More False Science

A few months ago I created a post about Ida, the new fossil that was suppose to be the missing link for evolution. I haven't heard much about that fossil lately, but now intelligent people are getting bombarded with another fossil, Ardi (rdipithecus ramidus). You would think they just found this fossil, but in reality, it was discovered in the 1990s. Why are the evolutionist making a big deal about it now? Because this is how long it took them to get the bones together because they were in such bad shape. This fossil is a partial skeleton put together based on a smattering of bones linked with at least 36 ramidus individuals, and these bones are suppose to be 4.4 million years old.

If I smash my daughters doll house and buried it and someone else uncovered it after 20 years, is that person going to be able to put it back together and say, “This is a little girls doll house”. Why do we think that science can do that with fossils. Do these scientist have any idea how old 4.4 million years is, and do they honestly think that they can find a shattered skeleton of some kind, which takes them almost 20 years to put back together, and then be able to really conclude anything about it?

Where is the science here? The only real critics about this discovery are Creationist. Where is the evolutionary scientific peer reviews? Evolutionist have told me that all of the theories of evolution are valid because they have all been scrutinized by other scientists. I don't believe that for a second. I have read a lot of articles, and I have yet to see one written by an evolutionist that criticize any discovery that supports the theory of evolution. That is because they don't want to damage their already damaged theory. It is almost like the Democrats in Congress debating on a bill without inviting the Republicans. The Evolutionist peer review a theory that they already agree with. They aren't going to get any valid criticism from Evolutionist. You don't have to be a scientist to see the serious issues in what the news media and scientific community is proclaiming about this fossil. The image in the news is a full man with hair on it, but in reality, Ardi is scattered remains of some fossil which could be anything from an extinct or dead animal.

I was reading from another magazine about a scientist who had an experiment on one of the space shuttles that blew up. Her experiment contained some organisms to see how they react in space. Some of these organisms survived the space shuttle crash, and this discovery led to a theory that states, “Life didn't originate on earth, but original life came to earth on an Asteroid.” How can scientists even call this a theory? These types of theories make me lose faith in today's science. Modern science that enhances technology and cures illnesses is great science. But the science that is designed to understand where man came from is seriously flawed unless you start with the premise stated in the book of Genesis.

The evolutionist think that the Creationist are wackos, but with science like this, no wonder why the majority of intelligent people still believe in God.

If you believe in evolution, you need to seriously and objectively look at the other side because the Creationist view point makes 100 times more sense. The only reason why people still hold to the theory of evolution is because that is the only theory they have to justify their atheism.

Read More about Ardi
Read about the Asteroid Theory

Read more...

Mutations: Do they increase information? Part 12

The Naturalistic Evolutionary Model:	An Intelligent Design-Young Earth/Cataclysm Model:
Prediction: A mechanism for positive mutations that increases information to the genetic code must be discovered.	Prediction: Mutations will not be capable of enriching the gene pool, but will lead to degeneration and information loss.
No mechanism that increases information to the genetic code has as yet been described or experimentally demonstrated. Three thousand generations of radiated fruit flies gave many mutations leading to death or detriment to the species. None were positive. If there are zero positive mutations in 3000 generations, how many will there be in 100,000 generations? How about in 1,000,000? The only supposedly positive mutations have been those, which cause loss of information to the genetic structure of a living being. There is the reported example of a species of beetle that lost the ability to fly due to mutation. The resulting sub-species was able to survive better then its peers due to changes in the environment. The pictorial example given in the November 2004 edition of National Geographic in its defense of evolution showed an albino salamander as evidence for a mutated species. Is the loss of pigment capacity an indicator of a possible improvement in the gene structure? Does albinism improve viability of a species?

(Go To Part 13)

Read more...

The Limits of Natural Selection: How much can a species change? Part 11

The Naturalistic Evolutionary Model:

An Intelligent Design-Young Earth/Cataclysm Model:

“Speciation is unobservable,” said one evolutionary biology teacher restating the current evolutionary thinking on the subject. Evolutionary theory states that mutational changes are too slow to demonstrate the required amount of change for new species to develop in experimental time frames. Natural selection is universally recognized. No known natural selection processes, however, have been demonstrated to cross major barriers. So called “micro-evolution” is most likely natural selection at work within the boundaries of inherent variability (as described by neo-Mendelian genetics and the DNA code). Naturally selected variability can lead to species differentiation such that there are many kinds of finches, many kinds of dogs, many kinds of cats, varied forms of the HIV/AIDS virus, etc. These variations (incorrectly called mutations) are inherent to the gene code, but these are not capable of producing new organs or macro-systems such as: flight; eyes; speech or radar capability. The fact that organisms have an inherent ability to adapt through natural selection is an argument in favor of design. Adaptability requires a higher level of design than non-adaptability. For example, a software program designed to function exclusively on one platform, say Windows OS, requires less information than one, which is designed to function on Windows, UNIX, LINUX and Mac environments.

Go To Part 12

Read more...

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a Problem for Evolution (Part 9)

The big argument that evolutionist make about the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that it only applies to closed systems. Earth is an open system because it receives energy from the sun. Therefore, things on Earth don’t necessarily decay, but might evolve over time into something better.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the universal law that everything will ultimately fall apart and disintegrate over time, and that nothing is eternal. Clothes will become faded, and everything ages and wears out.

From the Evolutionist point of view:

“What thermodynamics says is that we can only get useful work out of a physical system if we have a difference in energy levels. For example, if we have a high potential in one place and a low potential in another we can get useful work out of the current flow. It also says that we will lose some of the available energy along the way; increased entropy is a way of saying that we have lost usable energy.

Now the Earth is constantly radiating energy into empty space which has a very low energy level. It is intercepting energy from the Sun which has a very high energy level. This flow of energy through the Earth is available for useful work; biological life is a small ripple in this energy flow.

In a closed system where there is nothing coming in or going out everything goes to equilibrium, i.e. the energy level everywhere is the same; this is known as heat death. In an open system where there is energy constantly flowing through system, you can have local complex perturbations that are not in equilibrium. Life is a local complex perturbation. The important thing to understand from the viewpoint of thermodynamics is that evolution is irrelevant to the thermodynamics of life. Each cell is a little island of reduced entropy. If we are calculating the reduction in entropy due to life, it doesn't matter how the cells are arranged; all that matters is the total volume of cells. It is also important to realize that life is really a very small perturbation in the over all energy flow." --- Richard Harter

"As a professor who taught thermodynamics to engineering students for many years, I first entered the creation / evolution controversy in 1978. I was motivated to combat what I then considered -- and still consider -- being the promotion of grossly erroneous if not deceitful arguments concerning entropy and the second law. I viewed this as being particularly serious, not only because thermodynamics is an important engineering science (in fact, it began as an engineering analysis by Carnot) but also because I found that it was engineers in the creationist movement who were shaping their apologetics based on the laws of thermodynamics. Indeed, I have since found that engineering educators, senior engineers, and registered professional engineers are perhaps the most prominent leaders of the creationist movement. As an engineering professor and a registered engineer myself, I felt it would be professionally irresponsible to let this travesty continue without comment.

This paper attempts to expose the nature of the creationist movement, the role that professional engineers have played in its leadership, and the level of scientific incompetence (particularly in thermodynamics) that these creationist engineers have exhibited both in public speaking and in print. I would hope that similarly revealing exposes will also be forthcoming from such non-engineering perspectives as biochemistry, biology, paleontology, physics, etc. but these I will leave to those professionals whose expertise and teaching responsibilities fall in those areas."
Evolutionist Point of View

Richard Harter is an Engineer, and is an expert on the Laws of Thermodynamics, but in this article he goes on to explain biology and how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to cells. Evolutionist believe that cells can become more complex because they have reduced entropy. That is absurd. I would like to see an example of a cell becoming more complex? Have they ever demonstrated that?

“Paul Davies, the prolific British writer on astronomy, is another. He, like Capra, is not an atheistic evolutionist, but a pantheistic evolutionist. He has faith that order can come out of chaos, that the increasing disorder specified by the entropy law (second law of thermodynamics) can somehow generate the increasing complexity implied by evolution. "

--We now see how it is possible for the universe to increase both organization and entropy at the same time. The optimistic and pessimistic arrows of time can co-exist: the universe can display creative unidirectional progress even in the face of the second law.

And just how has this remarkable possibility been shown? Capra answers as follows:

It was the great achievement of Ilya Prigogine, who used a new mathematics to reevaluate the second law by radically rethinking traditional scientific views of order and disorder, which enabled him to resolve unambiguously the two contradictory nineteenth-century views of evolution.”
Article

Now again Paul, what example can you present to demonstrate order coming from chaos?

“Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.”

This sounds fine and dandy, but the problem with this is that there has never been any experiment in the history of science where the 2nd law of Thermodynamics wouldn’t apply, and it doesn’t matter if it is a closed system or an open system!!!

Emmett Williams, Ph.D:
"It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted."

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process. The increase in order is only temprary.

Where are the examples that override the 2nd Law since we are in an open system? The atheists sure do want to attack ICR and Dr. Gish for explaining the truth about the 2nd Law, but if they don’t agree, why can’t they present a valid example that everybody can observe.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:
"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.

An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

Source


The fact is that the 2nd Law is a problem for evolution and that is why many scientists are abandoning the theory of evolution. Again, Paul is attacking Creationist claiming that they are just crazy fundamentalist, but in fact, Creationist are looking at the true science that was created by God. Evolutionist are the ones that have their facts confused. There religion is what is clouding their scientific judgement. Saying that Order can come from chaos is absurd.
Source

The evolutionist always makes it seem like their theory is always black and white, but that definitely isn't the case. You can just google this topic and see all the discussion about the Laws of Thermodynamics.

To me it is common sense that things break down. I see that happening with everything I do, and for the evolutionist to try and go against the 2nd Law and claim it doesn't apply to open systems is just nonsense, and it definitely isn't science.

Go To Part 10

Read more...

Historical & Anthropological Dating Part 7

Historical evidence from the Middle East and elsewhere, most notably: Genesis, Babylonian cuneiform tablets and Egyptian historical documents, date man’s existence with the formation of the earth at the time of creation. These sources suggest an age for the beginning of the universe from as little as 6,000 years. The youngest dates held for the age of the universe are both based upon the Hebrew scriptures. The Jewish calendar states that this is the year 5767 from creation, while Bishop Usher’s calculations from the same sources indicate that we are about 6003 years since the date of creation.

Malthusian theory predicted the geometric growth of human populations from the 18th century forward. His predictions have resulted true. If this theory were applied backward, the conclusions would suggest the recent advent of human society on the earth (in the thousands of years). The lack of evidence for burial grounds for Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal societies would similarly argue for the recent advent of man contradicting evolutionary estimates of more than 100,000 years for the origin of man.

Where are the human graveyards of the hundreds of millions of people that would have
lived and died over those multiple tens of thousands of years?

Clearly the antiquity of the earth has not been demonstrated!

Go To Part 8

Read more...

The Theory of Evolution and Geological Dating Part 6

At current rates of 25 billion tons of mud per year in continental erosion, all of the earth’s crust would erode into the ocean within 25 million years. Yet, the estimated average depth of mud on the sea floor is only 400 meters. After several billion years, where are the thousands of meters of sediment? The last proposed catastrophic event in the evolutionary timescale was 65,000,000 years ago when the dinosaurs were theoretically buried in a flood. That event itself should have left great amounts of ocean sediment. Sixty five million years later the continents should have been completely washed away!

Similarly, water-soluble elements such as sodium are washing into the ocean at measured rates. After a billion years the oceans should be saturated with these salts or have reached a cycle of stasis where the amount entering is equal to the amount exiting. For many water-soluble elements the above expectations are not met. Often these measures will give maximum ages for the oceans in millions of years or less.

So-called “trace fossils” are believed to indicate the age of geologic strata. Certain trace fossils lead paleontologists to propose dates into the hundreds of millions of years for a stratum. However, this dating mechanism is arbitrary and patently false as demonstrated by the appearance of living samples. For example, the presence of Coelacanth fossils was assumed to indicate an average geologic age of 130,000,000 years, and a minimum age of 70,000,000 (i.e. 130,000,000 years +/- 60,000,000). In 1938 Coelacanth was found swimming in the Indian Ocean! It is a deep-sea fish that was not uncommon to the locals. Therefore, any stratum with Coelacanth fossils may now be dated at 130,000,000 years +/- 130,000,000. A similar find was the discovery in Australia of live Wollemi Pine trees. Wollemi Pine fossils were once used to demonstrate that a stratum belonged to the Jurassic age. These are but two of the many anomalous examples of false ages from fossils.

If the geologic column is found to be the result of a massive flood, then the strata are of recent origin, and the evidence for an evolutionary timescale is buried.

Go To Part 7

Read more...

Another Evolutionary Embarrassment Part 5

Here is another evolutionary embarrassment. The Evolutionists have found fossils for Crayfish that they have dated to be about 135 million years old. They later found fossils near Utah where they have dated the fossils to be around 220 million years old. Both of these fossil examples resemble in body structure the same as their modern descendants. This destroys the theory that crayfish evolved from lobsters. The fact is that these Crayfish didn't evolve at all. The next question I would ask is, "Did anything evolve?"

Go To Part 6

Read more...

The Attack on Creationist and the Complexity of Life

An Intelligent Design supporter, William A. Dembski, came up with five questions that evolutionists would rather dodge.

They are:

1) According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms “is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin’s bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

2) According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, the “evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” Yet he also states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

3) The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that looks for signs of intelligence from distant space. Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not? Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?

4) Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans? Evolutionists claim that these structures evolved. But if so, how? Could such machines have features that place them beyond the reach of evolution?

5) What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?

Dr. Gary Hurd and Jason Rosenhouse wrote their rebuttals.

Jason made this statement: "Intelligent Design proponents spend most of their time leveling bogus charges against evolution". However, Jason spends his time attacking Dembski and Intelligent Designers and claiming that they do not know what they are talking about. He doesn't attempt to answer the questions at all. It sounds like he is dodging the question.

Dr. Gary Hurd makes this statement: "Scientific Creationism wholeheartedly embraced fundamentalist Christian dogma".

Dr. Gary also spends his time attacking Dembski himself and some of his statements, but avoids and dodges his five questions completely.

It is funny how he attacks people who hold to the Christian dogma, but he doesn't attack himself for holding to his atheistic dogma.

It is quite annoying that they think that their theory has been proven without a doubt and anybody who attempts to discredit it, they attack, call them ignorant, and completely avoids the questions they address.

That fact is that there are many well written papers that discredit evolution. There are also very good reasons not to believe it.

The intelligent design website has a list of some papers here:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/science_3.php

Here is the problem I see. You can go back and forth with these two theories, but who is telling the truth?

These papers attacking Creation Science claims that creationist are nuts. They state that an expert in the field would be able to demonstrate support for their evolutionary theories. But, what if an expert in the field doesn't support their evolutionary theory? Are they going to give the scientist credit? Dr. John Morris is a creationist who is a geologist. Shouldn't he know about dating methods? Of course the evolutionist accuse him of being crazy.

There are creation scientist in all fields of science that are openly or secretly rejecting the theory of evolution.

There are many former evolutionist who have changed their views to creation science.

Dr. AE Wilder-Smith has 3 Doctorates. Is he crazy for not believing in evolution? Why doesn't he get credit?

So, again, why do they dismiss creationist so quickly? All of these scientist get dismissed by evolutionist because they have a "dogma" that they believe in, like the evolutionist don't. I have also noticed that for every article on the web about creationism, there is about 5 articles attacking the creationist. I think that the atheist are really scared because the creationist and intelligent design people are making ground.

I am not a biologist, or a chemist, but I am a computer scientist. What I understand is the complexity of a computer and the extreme complexity of DNA and ultimately the complexity of life. To me, the theory of order coming from chaos doesn't hold water at all. They give their "so called" examples of this happening, but their examples are small, and hard to grasp for me. I mean, for me to be convinced of evolution, I don't want some tiny example, but I want to see something big to be convinced. I want them to create something as complex as a computer by random chance and then I will be convinced. These evolutionist takes this idea for granted and don't even consider it a problem anymore. They barely even argue it anymore. They are more concerned at attacking the creationist. They go after them religiously. Well, maybe that is because they don't like people discrediting their religion. They don't like the idea that people still believe in God. They are still trying to destroy God, but God won't be destroyed that easily. You are really going to have to bring more evidence then the fruit fly, and the IDA fossil to convince me. They claim that the ordinary layman, not being a scientist, are being influenced by the creationist and that is why a recent poll shows that more people believe in creation than evolution. I don't think that is it at all. I think that more and more people realize that random chance doesn't bring life, and this world would be a lot worse if people didn't believe in God.

Read more...