Obviously, not being a research scientist, without free access to data and equipment needed in research, I can not personally demonstrate these things, however, the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research can. they are located at www.icr.org Here is an article from their site dealing with the rapid erosion at Mount Saint Helens: http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r04.htm it mentions, for instance: Badlands-type topography containing gullies up to 50 feet deep, that evolutionists would require to form in centuries formed in just five days, and without water erosion. A one-hundred foot canyon (which is what I was thinking of) that eroded in under four years (and the bulk of it probably erroded within a few days). It is mature, and would appear (by evolutionary standards) to have taken long ages of time to have formed. The fact that similar mass-erosion events have been located elsewhere, such as Alaska and Louisiana. You may have only heard of Mt. St. Helens recently, but creationists have been using it as an example of rapid erosion since the 80's. It seems that, like with the Evolutionists as well, there is a time lag between new theories, and their arrival to the public. This isn't a problem so much for evolutionists, since they have the mass media on their side, nevertheless, it does occur in pulling back theories. For instance, how many know that the recently dicovered "transition form" between dinosaurs and birds from Asia was later shown to be a hoax. I remember seeing Peter Jennings (or maybe it was another anchor) getting up and apologizing for National Geographic, and stating that the fossil had been a hoax. The whole story took about 30 seconds. Or, for instance, the evidence that many evolutionists don't accept Lucy as being our ancestor, since an older, "more human" ancestor was found. Or, for example, my error in the fact that the Paluxi site is no longer accepted by the ICR scientists as being conclusive data. There seems to be a definite lag between theory and public knowledge. Why did the Grand canyon erode only where it is, (and same thing for other canyons, too?) Because most of this erosion occured later, after the Flood proper was over, and while the waters were receeding from the newly-raised mountain ranges and filling the newly-depressed sea basins (and being precipitated in the newly formed ice sheets that created the "ice age"). The common belief is that a temporary lava or rock dam of some sort burst and flooded out the region, which was still relatively soft. You can read a technical article on the process here: http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r02.htm Apparently, even evolutionists feel that lava dam formation and later breaking was involved in the erosion of the Grand Canyon. But they differ on the time scale. Consequently, this article seems to include a nice discussion of radiometric dating. Another article dealing with this topic in regards to Mt. St. Helens can be found at: http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm Using radiometric dating methods, newly formed lava flows at Mt. St. Helens date to around 350,000 years old!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! LOL! And we are supposed to <i>believe</i> these claims??? If the method fails when it <i>can</i> be experimentally verified, how can we trust it when it cannot be verified. ~Caleb
Don't take my word for it... Read the responses of some of the evolutionists to their own theory. <DIV></DIV> <CENTER></CENTER> <HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1> <H1 align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=5>IMPACT No. 136</FONT></H1> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT></P> <HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1> <H3 align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=4><B>EVOLUTION: THE CHANGING SCENE</B></FONT></H3> <P align=center>By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.</FONT></P> <P align=center>Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021<BR>Voice: (619) 448-0900 FAX: (619) 448-3469</FONT></P> <P align=center>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation" October 1984<BR>Copyright © 1984 All Rights Reserved</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT></P> <HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Prof. Derek Ager of the University at Swansea, Wales, in <I>Proc. Geol.</I> Assoc. Vol. 87, p. 132 (1976) has stated</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's<I> Ostrea/Gryphea</I> to Carruther's <I>Raphrentis delanouei</I>, have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."</BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>This admission by Prof. Ager (no friend of creationists) fits in very well with the title of this article—a significant part of the changing scene in evolutionary circles is the changing attitude of evolutionists concerning the fossil record—more and more are now admitting that the missing links are still missing, that they have little or no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>In his article in <I>Natural History </I>86:22 (1977) entitled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Stephen J. Gould, leading spokesman for evolutionists in the U.S. today, said that</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change…. "</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."</BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>From an article published in Paleobiology, Vol. 3 (1977) by S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge we find the following on p. 147:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)." In his review of Steven Stanley's book <I>Macroevolution </I>by D.S. Woodruff (Science 208:716 (1980)), Woodruff says (I believe he is quoting Stanley):</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."</BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The clatter has become so loud that even the popular press has picked it up. <I>Newsweek </I>in an article entitled "Is Man a Subtle Accident?" published Nov. 3, 1980, stated</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>"The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures .... The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."</BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Some evolutionists have come to realize that the fossil record is so bad relative to evolution theory that they want to avoid it entirely as support for evolution. Mark Ridley, a British evolutionist, tells us in his article published in <I>New Scientist </I>90:832 (1981) that</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>"No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."</BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>One might immediately wonder, then, where does Ridley believe we find all the marvelous evidence for the "fact of evolution?" Why, from the "observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy," Ridley tells us. He apparently disagrees with his fellow evolutionist and the most distinguished of all French zoologists, Pierre Grasse', who states in his book <I>Evolution of Living Organisms</I> (English translation, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 4)</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>"Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of present beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute for paleontological documents."</BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>What Grasse' says in his book is that biology offers us no help in our attempt to understand the mechanism of evolution. He says that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be, known. He says certainly mutations and natural selection cannot possibly provide that mechanism.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Many others in more recent times, in view of the growing knowledge that the fossil record produces no evidence for gradual change and that the gaps in the fossil record, particularly at the level of the higher categories, are systematic and almost always large, are now abandoning the neo-Darwinian theory of slow gradual change. Gould has said that as a general principle, neo-Darwinism is dead, although it is still textbook orthodoxy.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>In his comments on a new mechanism for evolution postulated by Edward Wiley and Daniel Brooks, Roger Lewin (<I>Science</I> 217:1239-1240, 1982) says</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>"Natural selection, a central feature of neo-Darwinism, is allowed for in Brooks and Wiley's theory, but only as a minor influence. 'It can affect survivorship' says Brooks. 'It can weed out some of the complexity and so slow down the information decay that results in speciation. It may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested."' </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Let me point out first of all that all of this sounds familiar—it is the source that is astounding. The view just stated is precisely what has been said by creationists ever since Edward Blyth in 1830. Natural selection is a stabilizing force. It is not a creative force, the driving mechanism of evolution, which has been responsible for the conversion of one organism into another, all the way from amoeba to man. But now, notice who is saying this—evolutionists!</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Even more, they are saying that natural selection is not only not the mechanism for evolution, it actually retards the evolutionary process. They say. that natural selection slows down the information decay that results in speciation. That statement is absolutely astounding on two points.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>First of all, their admission that natural selection not only is not the mechanism of evolution but actually acts contrary to evolution is most revealing. Secondly, that speciation, and thus evolution, occurs by the decay of information. Now that is really startling! We creationists have long pressed the point that the random processes supposedly at work in evolution cannot possibly account for the origin of new information required for increase in complexity and the generation of new functions and organs required by evolution. Evolutionists have, on the contrary, insisted that this was possible.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Now Wiley and Brooks are claiming that all of us were wrong, both creationists and evolutionists. Evolution, from the primordial single-celled organisms to the millions of present-day organisms, including man with his 30 trillion cells of over 200 varieties, including a three-pound human brain with twelve billion brain cells and 120 trillion connections, is the result of the decay of information!</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Whatever anyone might think of that theory, certainly we can all recognize that they are rejecting Darwinism. As I have said earlier, many others are doing the same. <I>Science Digest </I>(Sept.-Oct. 1980, p. 55) had an article entitled "Was Darwin Wrong.?" The British Broadcasting Company produced a television program a year or two ago entitled "Did Darwin Get It Wrong?" Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, Steven Stanley and others have abandoned neo-Darwinism for what they call "punctuated equilibrium." They suggest that what we see in the fossil record is that species abruptly appear, fully-formed. They remain virtually unchanged for the duration of their existence, up to ten million years or even more, and they then abruptly disappear and are replaced by other species that also abruptly appear fully formed with no evidence of transitional forms.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>They suggest that the evolutionary transitions occur somewhere out in an isolated area on the periphery of the main population and that the transitions occur very rapidly in small populations. The change is so rapid and the numbers are so small, we are told, that there are no opportunities for fossilization of the transitional forms.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Let me point out, first of all, that this notion of punctuated equilibrium is no mechanism at all. It is simply a new scenario. They are saying that since we don't find transitional forms, evolution could not have occurred slowly and gradually, so obviously, then, it must have occurred rapidly. How and why evolution occurs so rapidly, no one knows. As a matter of fact, the idea that multiplied millions of rapid bursts of evolution have occurred is contrary to the science of modern genetics. The genetic apparatus of a lizard, for example, is totally devoted to producing another lizard. The idea that by some random evolutionary process the genetic apparatus of a lizard could be rapidly reorganized to produce something really significantly different is clearly contrary to everything we know. Evolutionists simply have no mechanism for evolution.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Secondly, the notion of punctuated equilibrium doesn't solve the really serious problem evolutionists have with the fossil record. In fact, it doesn't even address that problem. The idea of punctuated equilibrium was invented to explain the lack of transitional forms between species. But that is not the real problem. The really serious problem is the absence of transitional forms between the higher categories, that is, between families, orders, classes and phyla. The total absence, for example, of transitional forms between invertebrates and the fishes, a vast gulf supposedly spanning 100 million years. We have no transitional forms between basic morphological designs, or what creationists call the created kinds.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Evolutionists find themselves in a most embarrassing position today. They can find neither the transitional forms in the fossil record that their theory demands nor can they find a mechanism to explain how the evolutionary process supposedly occurred. I am reminded of what Owl said in the Pogo comic strip. He said, "If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs for breakfast—if we had some eggs!"</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Certainly we are witnessing a changing scene in evolutionary circles today. They are finally admitting that the fossil record shows little or no evidence for gradual change (which is precisely what we must predict on the basis of creation). Many are now rejecting Darwinism and are suggesting radical new theories concerning the evolutionary process. But, almost all chorus in unison—evolution is a fact!</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Isn't that amazing! One hundred and twenty-years after Darwin the missing links are still missing, and that wonderful, marvelous Darwinian mechanism that was responsible for swinging the majority of scientists over to evolution is now becoming rapidly discredited. Yet, somehow, we are told, everyone knows that evolution is a fact! Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, said in a talk he gave at the American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981, that he now realizes that in accepting evolution he had moved from science into faith. In a recent BBC program Dr. Patterson stated that all we really have of the evolutionary phylogenetic tree are the tips of the branches. All else—the filling in of the trunk and of the branches—is simply story telling of one kind or another.</FONT></P> <HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1> <DIV></DIV> <CENTER></CENTER> <HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1> <H1 align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=5>IMPACT No. 194</FONT></H1> <P> <FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT> </P> <HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1> <H3 align=center><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=4><B>EVOLUTION—A HOUSE DIVIDED</B></FONT></H3> <P align=center>by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*</FONT></P> <P align=center>Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021<BR>Voice: (619) 448-0900 FAX: (619) 448-3469</FONT></P> <P align=center>"Vital Articles on Science/Creation" August 1989<BR>Copyright © 1989 All Rights Reserved</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT> </P> <HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><I>"If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand" </I>(Mark 3:25). Evolutionists ardently defend their house against outsiders, but squabble vigorously with each other inside the house. In this article we present a collage of recent quotes from evolutionists attacking different aspects of their own basic theory. Lest we be accused of out-of-context quoting, we emphasize that each person quoted is a committed evolutionist, even though his remarks may make him sound like a creationist.</FONT></P> <P align=center><B>COSMIC EVOLUTION</B></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The standard evolutionary concept for the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory, but many eminent astronomers flatly reject it.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Both the 'Big Bang' model and the theoretical side of elementary particle physics rely on numerous highly speculative assumptions.<SUP>1</SUP> But if there was no Big Bang, how and when did the universe begin? ... (Hannes) Alfven replies: "It is only a myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being....<SUP> 2</SUP></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>One argument for the Big Bang is the "red shift," but Halton Arp and other leading astronomers say "no."</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>(Arp) maintains that quasars, for example, whose large red shifts suggest they are the most distant objects in the universe, are actually no more distant than galaxies….<SUP>3</SUP></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P align=center><B>EVOLUTION OF LIFE FROM NON-LIFE</B></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>It is commonly asserted that life evolved from non-living chemicals by purely naturalistic processes. However, a leading scientist in this field says:</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.... The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known.<SUP>4</SUP></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P align=center><B>EVOLUTION OF SPECIES</B></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The standard Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theories of evolution argue that new species are developed by natural selection of random variations to fit changing environments. Many evolutionists today, however, are rejecting Darwinism, even though they still cling to evolution. One such scientist is Kenneth Hsu.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The law of natural selection is not, I will maintain, science. It is an ideology, and a wicked one, and it has as much interfered with our ability to perceive the history of life with clarity as it has interfered with our ability to see one another with tolerance.... The law of the survival of the fittest may be, therefore, a tautology in which fitness is defined by the fact of survival, not by independent criteria that would form the basis for prediction.<SUP>5</SUP></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P align=center><B>EVOLUTION OF HUMAN LIFE</B></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Much ado has been made about the Laetoli fossil footprints in Tanzania, dated at 3.5 million years ago, supposedly proving that the australopithecine ancestors of man walked erect.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>But the first detailed study of the gaits and footprints of modern people who walk barefooted indicated the Laetoli prints are much like those of <I>Homo sapiens </I>and were probably not produced by Lucy's relatives, reports Russell H. Tuttle of the University of Chicago.<SUP>6</SUP> It should be obvious that these footprints were made by true human beings; the only reason for rejecting this fact is the assumed 3.5-million year age, a time long before man is supposed to have evolved.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P align=center><B>THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE</B></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The fossil record has traditionally been considered the best evidence for evolution, but the utter absence of true transitional forms continues to be an embarrassment.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be in the rocks of late Precambrian to Ordovician times, when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet transitional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.<SUP>7</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"We conclude that ... neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans.<SUP>8</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE> <P align=center><B>EXTINCTION VERSUS SPECIATION</B></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Evolutionists seem unable to realize the anomaly in the slow rate of speciation versus the high rate of species extinction.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>Today's rate (of extinction) can be estimated through various analytical techniques to be a minimum of 1000, and possibly several thousand species per year .... It normally takes tens of thousands of years for a new terrestrial vertebrate or a new plant species to emerge fully, and even species with rapid turnover rates, notably insects, usually require centuries, if not millennia, to generate a new species.<SUP>9</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE>So far as ever observed, <I>no new species </I>are now being formed. It seems that evolution, if there is such a thing, is going in the wrong direction! <P align=center><B>UNIFORMITARIANISM</B></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, "the present is the key to the past," more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>Our science is too encumbered with uniformitarian concepts that project the modern Earth/Life system as the primary model for interpretation of evolution and extinction patterns in ancient ecosystems. Detailed paleoenvironmental data tell us that the past is the key to the present, not vice versa.<SUP>10</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>One of the key evidences for great age is the uniformitarian interpretation of "evaporites," but this very term is misleading.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>In referring to "evaporite" … the term begs the question as it implies desiccation. For clarity, geology needs a new term; namely "precipitate," rock created by precipitation. Hence rocks of the evaporitic facies could be … precipitites, deposited by precipitation from a supersaturated solution.<SUP>11</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Precipitation is, of course, a much more rapid process than evaporation.</FONT></P> <P align=center><B>SOCIAL HARMFULNESS OF EVOLUTION</B></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Evolutionists strongly complain when creationists point out the historically evil influence of evolutionism. Many evolutionists, however, do recognize this fact.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>... we were victims of a cruel social ideology that assumes that competition among individuals, classes, nations or races is the natural condition of life, and that it is also natural for the superior to dispossess the inferior. For the last century and more this ideology has been thought to be a natural law of science, the mechanism of evolution which was formulated most powerfully by Charles Darwin in 1859.... <SUP>12</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>(Robert Proctor) shows how the major German societies of physical anthropologists collaborated with the SS program of race hygiene, helping to make racial policy .... Eugene Fischer, the most distinguished of German physical anthropologists, regarded by many as the founder of human genetics, was particularly helpful in these efforts .... But surely American physical anthropologists spoke out clearly against the Nazi perversion of their science? They did not.<SUP>13</SUP></FONT></P> <P align=center><B>SCIENTIFIC BIGOTRY</B></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Creationists are not the only ones who find it difficult to get a hearing from the scientific establishment. Even evolutionists who do not conform to the majority viewpoint in evolutionary dogma at a given time encounter this same bigotry, through the so-called "peer review" process. One of the most distinguished modern astronomers is Nobel prizewinner Hannes Alfven, who espouses an alternative cosmology to the Big Bang. Here is his testimony (even Nobel laureates must defer to the scientific establishment!).</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE>... it has given me a serious disadvantage. When I describe the phenomena according to this formalism, most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. <SUP>14</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>But the argument "all knowledgeable people agree that…." (with the tacit addition that by not agreeing you demonstrate that you are a crank) is not a valid argument in science. If scientific issues always were decided by Gallup polls and not by scientific arguments, science will very soon be petrified forever.<SUP>15</SUP></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>For reasons of space, these quotes have been somewhat abbreviated, but they do represent quite fairly (if incompletely) the opinions of the respective authors. It is obvious that evolutionists argue vigorously among themselves, even though they present a solid front when arguing against creationists. Just possibly, the combination of outside attack by creationists with the in-fighting among evolutionists will eventually cause the collapse of the straw house of evolution itself. After all, no one has ever seen real evolution in action, and no one knows how it works, so its foundation is very weak. One day it will be said: " … the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it" (Matthew 7:27).</FONT></P> <P align=center><B>REFERENCES</B></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2> <FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2> 1. R.L Oldershaw, "The continuing Case for a Hierarchial Cosmology," <I>Astrophysics and Space</I> (v. 92, 1983), p. 354.<BR> 2. E.J. Lerner, "The Big Bang Never Happened," <I>Discover</I> (v. 9, June 1988), p. 78. Swedish astronomer Alfven, who has a Nobel Prize in Physics, maintains the universe has always been essentially the same.<BR> 3. John Horgan, "Big-Bang Bashers," <I>Scientific American</I> (v. 257, September 1987), p. 22.<BR> 4. Dose, Prof. Dr. Klaus, "The Origin of Life; More Questions than Answers," <I>Interdisciplinary Science Reviews </I>(v. 13, no. 4, 1988), p. 348. Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Gutenberg University, West Germany.<BR> 5. Kenneth J. Hsu, "Is Darwinism Science?" <I>Earthwatch</I> (March 1989), p. 17. Hsu is Earth Science Head at the Swiss Institute of Earth Sciences.<BR> 6. Bruce Bower, "A Walk Back through Evolution," <I>Science</I> <I>News </I>(v. 135, April 22, 1989), p. 251.<BR> 7. J.W. Valentine and D.H. Erwin, "The Fossil Record," in <I>Development as an Evolutionary Process</I> (Uas, 1987), p. 84.<BR> 8. <I>Ibid</I>, p. 96. Valentine is a geologist at U.C. Santa Barbara, Erwin at Michigan State.<BR> 9. Norman Myers, "Extinction Rates Past and Present," <I>Bioscience</I> (v. 39, January 1989), p. 39.<BR>10. Eric Kauffman, "The Uniformitarian Albatross," <I>Palaios</I> (v. 2, no. 6, 1987), p. 531.<BR>11. Robert S. Dietz and Mitchell Woodhouse, "Mediterranean Theory May Be All Wet," <I>Geotimes</I> (v. 33, May 1988), p. 4.<BR>12. Kenneth J. Hsu, <I>op cit</I>, p. 15.<BR>13. Matt Cartmill, "Misdeeds in Anthropology," Review of <I>Bones, Bodies, Behavior: Essays</I> <I>on Physical Anthropology</I> (Wisconsin University Press, 1988). Science (v. 244, May 19, 1989), P. 858.<BR>14. Hannes Alfven, "Memoirs of a Dissident Scientist," <I>American</I> <I>Scientist </I>(v. 76, May-June 1988), P. 250.<BR>15. <I>Ibid</I>, p. 251.</FONT> </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2> <FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.</FONT> </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>
Credibility, methods, and prerequisites I'll certainly do it this way, too. It's easier, isn't it, to cite entire articles. Starting with your first article: 1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/spin-doctor.html 2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html 3) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/gish-response.html Gish is not credible. I think the above links show much of Dr Gish's approach. And that's just off one site; Gish-related web-sites fall under two categories: criticisms of Gish's scientific and rhetorical methods (evolutionists), and reaffirmations of how bad Gish kicked some evolutionist's butt in a debate (creationists, namely ICR). Hey, Caleb, weren't you talking about evil subcultures, swaying of students' minds, and other hostilities committed by evolutionists in the classroom? Oh, yeah ... a source. That's helpful: http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html And from that same source, some compelling insight: For many Creationists, then, we see that the discrediting of evolution and advancement of Divine Creation Theory carries a greater, more subjective stake. That stake is even better defined a couple of paragraphs later: Problems between faith and science: the traditional Christian approach to these problems largely involves reaffirmation of existing faith. Since God cannot be wrong, the scientific theory must be. This sounds like an exaggeration, but it isn't. We're talking about one's faith in God, and the fear of an afterlife. The sum problem, then, that we seem to be encountering is that Creationists seek not a valid scientific hypothesis, but rather a supportable hypothesis of immediate concern to numb the frustrations of being unable to justify their larger assumption. By signing the declaration mentioned, a scientist revokes his adherence to the scientific method, assuming certain conclusions that cannot be demonstrated before beginning a field experiment. This is bad science tantamount to marketing research. And here we find your citation source: Institute for Creation Research-- Wow ... they really are that bad of scientists. Seriously ... ICR, the authors of the material you provide, research selectively and focus only on the evidence they consider helpful to their cause--in other words, don't consider all the evidence at hand. Furthermore, to be part of ICR, one must take an oath declaring faith to Genesis Creationism. This is not a scientific approach to science. I thought it would be tougher, more tedious. After all, I figured on having to go line-by-line, repeating the litany of what is wrong with the ICR's sense of assumption, but it looks like someone beat me to it. One last quote, though, from the Hokaj link: And also this, from the same link, for comparison: Even with the force of law behind Creationism, it cannot muster the scientific validity to present itself as a viable scientific theory. And I'll give y'all a hint: Demonstrate the Creator! Proper science has no subjective, undemonstrable prerequisites. This is why Creationism is not a science, and why the quest of Creationists to demonstrate scientific credibility--much less equality to evolution--will continue to fail. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would like to present some evidence against creationism and some food for thought. Correct me if I'm wrong but earth was surposedly created 6000-8000 years ago, and global floods raged 4000 years ago, according to creationist theory. If this is correct, there should be no trees on earth older than 4000 years. Or to be specific, have no more than 4000 growth rings. In the White-Inyo mountain range of California there are many trees that are older than 4500 years, one living bristlecone pine tree dates back to 2726 BC, centuries before the date that Christians assign to the global flood. The patterns in tree rings have been matched with those of dead trees, showing the dead trees to have germinated about 6000 BC, which predates the year 4004 BC by 2 millennia!!! But there is an even better example, and it sits in the dining room of my family's home. I counted the growth rings on my familiys Kauri dining table, which was cut from a solid slab. No I didn't really count each one but I estimated, it was roughly 5000 rings across. The original tree trunk had well over 7000 growth rings. This tree was NOT living when it was found. This is swamp kauri - in the 1960s the log was found preserved in a swamp where it had lain for over 8000 years! That tree germinated 15000 years ago, or 13000 BC. This is not the only example of 15,000+ year old swamp Kauri wood around, there is quite a market for it. Even if the length of time it was in a swamp is inaccurate the tree itself still predates creation and the great flood. Thought for the day: If the universe was created around the times assigned by christians to the creation event, then the tree would have been created dead, and at the bottom of a bog. Why would god create a dead tree?
Some thoughts on the great flood too.... 40 days and 40 nights of rain: If the earth was covered in water deep enough to cover mount arrat (5000 metres or 15,000 feet), rain would have fallen at a rate of 5 metres per hour. That rain would be so heavy that within minutes, a massive torent of water would be raging off the continents into the oceans more like tsunami than a flood. Stripping all the soil from the land right down to bedrock. That is such dense rainfall that it would not have fallen steadily but whip up massive vortexes and currents (rather like how a waterfall makes a breeze) this is really the heat and kinetic energy released from the gravitation potential energy of falling rain. This would drive massive storms world wide that could possibly have supersonic wind speeds. The oceans salinity would be diluted such that all salt water marine animal and plant life would die. After all that where did 1.44x10^9 cubic kilometres of water go? (note that is the size of a small moon!)
I think you're beginning to get a picture of the scale of this thing! But allow me correct you on a few issues. I'll start by saying a word about the pre-Flood world. It is believed that before the Flood, mountains were substantially lower, and possibly seas were more shallow. It is also believed that rapid continental drift occured during and/or relatively soon after the flood, meaning that before the Flood, the Earth may have been more like "Pangea" or "Gondwanaland." Also, a little known fact is that rain wasn't the only source of water during those 40 days and nights. Underground aquifers (there are believed to have been more of them back then) were bust open, releasing huge amounts of water. "<i>the same day were all the <i>fountains of the great deep broken up</i>, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. </i>" These factors (less topography to cover and less of the total water being due to rain) will significantly affect your measurements of rainfall and water volume. Maybe not within minutes (or maybe), but that's exactly why this viewpoint is called "Catastrophism" Bingo! And then, as the floodwaters receeded, all these sediments would have been deposited and erroded and lithified. And all while plate tectonics and increased volcano activity was forcing mountains to rise and sea basins to collapse. Yes, there was alot of heat and energy left over in the oceans after the flood, increasing evaporation rates. The still-unstable wind patterns carried the majority of the precipitation to the poles, were they created expanding polar caps, leading to an "ice age." Well, I as I said earlier, this number is probably to large. The majority of what was left over either drained of the rising continents into the newly-enlarged ocean basins, or became trapped in the polar ice caps. =========================================================== Well, technically, at least around 4500, possibly more, which makes your 2726 tree not seem that badly out of date. Let me put up some quotes from creationists articles regarding sequoia's and bristlecones. The entire articles can be found (and should be read) at: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-134.htm (1984) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm (1994) ~Caleb
Plate tectonics and human origins Caleb, tiassa, and co, Here is an interesting link. It will load a JAVA applet. Drag your mouse across the map and see how tectonic plates drifted across the planet surface over the past 200 million years. Click here to view the animation. The site has a number of other animated maps that cover earlier periods, and others that project into the future. The research that went into the studies of plate tectonics are far reaching and include independent work from universities across the world. The results shown at the above web site represent just a drop in the ocean. Other research covering the history of the planet is incredibly extensive leaving very little doubt as to the true age of the planet, its features and their development, the creatures that existed millions of years ago and the rise of mankind some several million years ago. Click here for a family tree of human origins. Click on elements in the chart for more details. Our ancestors date back some 5 million years and the earliest fossil records of homo sapiens are dated at around 130,000 years ago. In terms of volume of current scientific knowledge covering the history of the world, creation stories are a minute fraction in comparison, and can only realistically represent a joke. This really leaves any discussion on “Creation Theory?” as irrelevant and largely a waste of time. However, I know tiassa just loves any debate, and it is a pleasure to read his rebuttals. But I really can’t take the subject seriously, and it seems incredulous that apparent intelligent people might even consider that the stories have any truth to them – but then that is the nature of religious thinking – irrationality. Cris
Beautiful links Cris: Awesome links. I want to cover an expected response from Creationism, which is to point out the big red question marks. Anyone who considers those missing-link question marks to be evidence of a priori in science must necessarily remember that those question marks become the next research goal, whereas the key a priori of Creationism--that is, a Creator--cannot ever elevate itself beyond the status of primary assumption because that Creator cannot be measured, tested, or observed. * http://www.gly.fsu.edu/~kish/dynamic/review3.htm appear to be notes for Professor Kish's geology class at Florida State University; please note the section on Plate Tectonics: So I wanted to throw in this link: http://www.sfu.ca/earth-sciences/courses/317/Chap3/3-PastPlateMotions.htm which has a good deal regarding planetary magnetism, magnetic stripes and how those lend evidence toward an older Earth than Creationism allows. This is a remarkable page, especially if you're a beginning physics student at University, but also here for our present debate. This page will be a pain in the ass, though, for a 56k modem. How important is Pangaea? The following excellent lecture notes are from a 400-level Zoology class, and provide us better insight into the nature of Pangaea (Univ. of British Columbia, I believe.) http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~etaylor/413www/contin_drift.html Bottom line: I think magnetic striping is an excellent bit of evidence pertaining to the age of the earth. Pangaea's clocked at 280 ma. It would seem that to accelerate seafloor spreading to any rate acceptable to Creationist time-frames would destroy most theories of physics with such widespread implications. Since physics describes something so fundamental in the Universe, we could expect different performance results from observational experimentation, and it wouldn't have taken World Wars to wipe out carrier pigeons: they would have starved trying to find their way. This page, too, will be a pain in the ass for a dial-up connection. An excellent insight. In fact, one I can offer a little perspective on, if'n y'all don't mind. *http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/conclusion.html I've posted this link before. But this is essentially the key to it. On the surface, I could care less what people believe. In the end, whatever helps you be a positive factor in life. However, Creationism fits in with a religious paradigm that, as I have countlessly asserted here, poses in its historical and modern forms a detriment to humanity. I still maintain that the potential for a positive mass impact exists, but there is no evidence that it is coming to be anytime soon. So the problem becomes this: * That if we should treat Creationism as science and award it the respect a science deserves in a science classroom, we shall be educating children with undemonstrable facts, lending credibility to the decision-making processes based on affinity and paradigm instead of one based on observable considerations and factors. It leads to a mentality whereby people feel compelled to demand political accommodation for their personal affinities, and suddenly the educating of the young--that is, the preparation of the future of humanity--becomes subject to superstitious politics. Creationism must either provide scientific merit for its Creator, or else back off and let society progress for once. It may be a Creationist's right to believe in the Divine Creation, but it is not any person's right to impose superstition as science and thus drag the world back into the intellectual flatline that seems to foster warfare for lack of anything better. Creationism undemonstrated poses a long-term threat to the survival capabilities of humanity on Earth. And here I want to note that Christianity--the driving force of Creationism--has no dedication to the survival of humanity on Earth: they are waiting for God to come down and put an end to all of this living silliness. Hello? Why don't we educate students to rush headlong toward the abyss of mortal death? That's what you're asking when you demand equity of superstition to science. To be honest, though, I've found that as long as you let Creationists run off at the mouth, they injure their own position. Take Caleb and I: on the one hand, we're talking about the notion of "Creation Science", yet repeated links to back that alleged science decry, deny, or belie the scientific aspirations of Creationism. The NAS document (cited yet again, in this posting) is not a political declaration against Creationism. That conclusion page merely restates the nature of science and why Creationism is of a different nature. Yet even when presented with this, the simplest of explanations regarding why an idea is or isn't science, Creationists continue to assert their, uh, creative science ... whereby a priori declarations need no sustaining evidence or further investigation. I love reading those PhD's decrying the actual scientific process, but that's the problem with basing your theory on archaic, fixed assumptions. No amount of data can reshape the working hypothesis. And that's why the experiment fails. Thanx much for the links, though, Cris. I hope those I've provided can be of some value, as well. Sorry to ramble on; originally I was just after magnetic striping. Have yourself a kind, sunny day. Happy Boom-Boom Day, God save the Flag (don't Americans sing "God Save the Queen" for something? I can't remember what; shows you the state of my patriotism, I suppose ...) and all the wonderful jazz that comes with a hot summer day on which you're supposed to blow things up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Parasites Hi tiassa, Thanks for your comments. Actually I was looking for references to the plants and animals that had appeared to be indigenous to both Brazil and western Africa and which could only be explained if both the continents were at one time connected. I believe it was those discoveries that sparked off much of the early investigations into plate tectonics. Instead I found the animations site – oh well, good enough I think. I didn’t see the missing link issue as a problem. The links between Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo sapiens are accepted. This shows that Homo sapiens evolved from lower and earlier forms, and that is sufficient to debunk the creationist view that we were created as an individual and special species. And that whole link series goes back 1.9 million years, and Homo sapiens fossils goes back 130,000 years, all of which destroys the 4000-6000 years of creationist nonsense for a creation event. But even the missing links should not present a problem for the theory, it is much like a jigsaw puzzle where we can see most of the picture and have all the borders, but some of the pieces have been dropped on the floor, so we have a short delay while we find them. But we know what the pieces must look like. I also tried to see if there are any creationist groups in Europe and the UK, but my search engines didn’t find anything. And with all my years living in the UK I have never come across such a pressure group. It looks like this idiosyncrasy of religious obstinacy is a purely USA aberration. I read your link that described much of the creationist’s background and their attempts to pervert the teaching of science in schools – holy cow what a mess. It is again another evil perpetrated by Christianity that so many children have left the US school system without a strong basic understanding of one of the most important and fundamental scientific theories in the history of mankind. The teachings appear to have been omitted altogether or have been severely diluted. Unforgivable. When oh when will we be rid of this parasitic regime? I’ve included a couple of quotes below that I encountered during my searches. They are not entirely relevant to the subject but I thought you might enjoy them anyway. A possible definition of Christianity- And a way to escape the shackles of religious indoctrination – And I wish you a happy noisy evening as well. Cris
Thanks tiassa, Awright - just finished reading your zoology link - that was what I was looking for earlier. Thanks. Cris
E vs C No contest! Evolution is only a 'theory', Creation is a fact that has to be caught up on by scientist that are feed up with the googolplex peacing together of life origins!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! GOD WORD is triumphant! You shell soon see!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This question simply cannot be answered until we can define what or who God is. I have a theory though, but it is kinda wild although simple.
Re: E vs C Loone, A formal scientific theory has significant evidence for its support. For example the existence of the atom is also only a theory, but based on that theory an atomic bomb managed to kill many thousands of people. That is real. Scientists call this a credible theory. Evolution theory is viewed in the same light. In comparison, your God does not qualify even as a theory, since the concept of his existence resides purely in the imaginations of people like yourself. For him to obtain even a tiny fraction of any credible support compared to evolution then you must be able to show at least that fraction as believable evidence. No one in the entire history of mankind has managed to provide any scrap of credible evidence to show that a god exists. Since the whole of creation ‘theory’ (a misuse of the word) rests on the existence of a god and since even this basic requirement has no supporting evidence then the entire creation concept has similarly zero credibility. Cris
Re: Loone ... Don't think so Tiassa? Well Evolution is only theory and has many flaws and will through out your life time and the kid's kids, have had will have seen many many changes! It's still a theory! The Word of GOD is true! And Science has a long way to catch upon many of it's truths! Many already have been found to be true!
Re: Re: E vs C 'Cris' Cris; The atom bomb is fact not theory, and the atom theory was then fact when it was split and used in as a weapon, and many died fact but there is a difference from solid facts from theory! Evolution is only theory and has a long long way to go to be fact! God exist! He's far above time and space and mere science can not even touch Him! But His creation, [the whole universe] Man can ponder at! And see the fingerprints of God [so to say]!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The rise of new strains of bacteria (eg. antibiotic resitant strains and species) has been well studied, documented, and analyzed over the past 100 years. The emergence of previously nonexistant organisms has been confirmed on the genetic level. This shows that the biological (genetic) composition of the world is not the same as it was 100 years ago. This is a fact among many that makes evolution a credible theory, just as the atom bomb makes the atomic physics a credible theory. Indeed, the measurable impact of ever-changing organisms (in the arbitrary and rather silly quantity of human lives) is likely greater than that of the atomic bomb.
Atomic theory Loone, When an event occurs and is clearly observable then there can be little doubt that it is fact – i.e. there is considerable proof. It is such proofs that establish a fact. Atomic theory is still very current and represents the leading edge of physics research. The discovery of more subatomic particles and their behavior forms the basis for most of this work, together with behavior of the atom itself – e.g. wave theory. Much of the structure of the atom has now been established but much more is still under investigation. As the atomic structure is studied more knowledge is gained which enables further theories to be developed. In other words we do not yet have the full story of the nature of the atom, i.e. it is not yet fact, it is still at the theoretical stage. The physicists during WWII did not have full knowledge of the nature of the atom; they worked purely on theory. But the theory was sufficiently well established for them to create a practical use. At that time quarks, and other subatomic particles were unknown, but that didn’t prevent scientists using the available evidence. In a similar manner Evolution theory is also not yet complete, and is also not officially fully fact. But much of the theory has been well defined and significant research has shown that reality fits the theory in numerous cases. Like atomic theory we know more about the Evolutionary process than we do not. This substantial quantity of evidence is sufficient for us to proceed as if Evolution is fact, as we do with the atom (and as you have done with your understandable erroneous assumption). Those scientists who built the atomic bomb took the same approach – they didn’t know everything but they knew enough. The evolutionary process is sufficiently well established and defined that it makes little sense to ignore the research and propose radically different and conflicting hypotheses. Rather, we need to accept what has been demonstrated as true and move on with other more important matters. Even the Pope has accepted this obvious scenario. We disagree only in the degree of the remaining work to be completed. There is still no evidence for this claim. At best we can only conclude that such an hypothesis has as yet no evidential support. If science cannot touch him then neither you nor anyone else can make any claims to his existence or his nature and abilities. Everything we know on this planet and throughout the history of mankind has been established by science. The entire purpose of science is to establish knowledge. While we currently use formal processes that have clearly not been available throughout history, nevertheless, scientific processes have been unwittingly used throughout time, although they were certainly not as efficient as they are today. Those that were able to reason were able to detect that some events always occurred after a given cause. This ability to observe and reason formed the early basis for modern scientific principles. But if your god is undetectable by science, which is clearly the current situation, and which you assert (he is above science) then you do not have any other alternative means to show that he exists or has any particular abilities. Without any such scientific evidence your claims are vacuous, i.e. they have no credible support. Just more vacuous unsupportable claims. However, have fun whenever you can. Cris
E vs C Cris: Well the atom may have some facts of it's nature and existence and others that are still unknown about them is still theory, science at least know that it is real pliable. Evolution is still mostly theory and is in constant change. Some whole theories have been thrown out since the 1800's and 1900's, some even laughable, some was a total shame; something about a pigs tooth was found and they have said that they have, and can reconstruct a 'missing-link' from a single tooth. And other missing -links where found to be just some extinct form of an ape, not of Mankind. The 'Arptioptorics ? or dinosaur bird thought evolved from dinosaurs was later found out to be older then the dinosaurs. And there are many more changes that I can't list, and I got to find that web site that shows most of the errors and mistakes made in interpreting the fossil record. Still say they are mostly theories of the fossil record and we will see many changes and revisions through out our lives. And Cris, I can touch Him in the Spirit of GOD in side of me! Because in Jesus Christ, all things are posible to those who believeth on Him! And you can to if you only believe with your heart and confess with your mouth, and even you or any of you can see the light!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!