|Thread ▼ Details|
|Author||Topic: Someone Assembled Quite an Argument...|
Inactive Suspended Member
Complete with Sources. Take a look at this.
The Links are sources, not plargarism, sorry evolutions, no excuses.
Some Questions I'd like to have Answered.
Recent Problems with Evolution
Quotes From Evolutionists who admit Evolution has no proof and cannot be proven
Huge Problems with Evolution that "Scientists" simply overlook
Why do Evolutionist ignore the studies of Zuckerman?
50 Reasons Evolution is Wrong
10 Reasons Evolution is Wrong
Why Evolution is Wrong:
The Origin of Matter
Objections of the Doctrine of Evolution
EVOLUTION: THE SECRET BEHIND THE PROPAGANDA
Creation is supported by more Scientific Facts than Evolution
Evolutionists on the Verge of Distinction
And some more links:
The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions. (Note: It is important to understand by this statement that we are not disputing simple variations that some call "microevolution," whose micro-changes are often observed but never lead to a fundamentally different kind of plant or animal.) The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false:
1. the universe is billions of years old
2. life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals
3. mutations create or improve a species
4. natural selection has creative power
In this section we will deal with the first of these assumptions. The others will be dealt with elsewhere. If, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the universe is not billions of years old, all other arguments about evolution become meaningless and unnecessary.
In children’s fairy tales, we are told:
In modern "science" textbooks we are told:
The same basic fairy tale (evolution) is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.
In nearly all discussions and debates about evolution that I have held at universities and colleges, I ask the evolutionists how certain things could have evolved by chance. Their answer is nearly always "Given enough time..." Time is the evolutionists’ god. Time is able to accomplish anything the evolutionists can propose. Time can easily turn a frog into a prince. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos.
But let’s remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:
1. Evolution becomes obviously impossible.
2. Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.
3. Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.
Let’s imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over one thousand years.
"That’s impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for a thousand years, and I can prove it!"
"How can you prove I’m wrong?" I say.
"Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say.
"Okay," I admit, "you’re right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!"
"No!" you say. "Casio didn’t make the Databank watch until twelve years ago."
"All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here twelve years ago then."
"Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and it’s still running. That proves it has been here less than five years."
While we still can’t prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.
The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days. Then, approximately 4400 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a worldwide Flood. This devastating, year-long Flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Gen. 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen. 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumption—that today’s slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always been—is faulty logic, and ignores catastrophes like the Flood. (2 Pet. 3:3-8 says that the scoffers are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood.)
Listed below are some of the factors from various branches of science that limit the age of the universe (including earth) to within the last few thousand years. Though it cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, its age can be shown to not be billions of years old. Each of the following evidences of a young earth is described in great detail in the books referenced below. Source number and page number are given for the following statements (at the bottom of this page):
Evidence from Space (A book)
The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive. (1, p. 169; 2, p. 30; 4, pp. 56-63; 5, p. 26; 6, p. 43
The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (2, p. 26; 3, p. 22; 4, p. 15; 6, p. 35; 7; 9, p. 25) *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)
"I get a picture therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice, level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first, and sinking majestically out of sight." -- Isaac Asimov, Science Digest, January, 1959, p 36
Lyttleton felt that the X-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rocks "could, during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep." -- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, vol. 115, pp. 585-604
The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old. (2, p. 31; 3, p. 27; 4, p. 35; 6, p. 37; 7)
Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks. (4, p. 26)
The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents. (3, p. 25; 6, p. 43; 7)
The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. (8, p. 177; see also 4, p. 51, for information on rock "flow")
The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. (3, p. 29; 6, p.44)
At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years. (3, p. 29; 4, pp. 30 and 59; 6, p. 44)
Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old. (4, p. 45)
Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. (5, p. 26; 4, p. 43; Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old. (4, p. 3)
Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.
Evidence from Earth
The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions. (1, p. 157; 2, p. 27; 3, p. 20; 5, p. 23; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25; 10, p. 3
Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7)
The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years. (2, p. 32; 3, p. 24; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 37; 7)
The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) (3, p. 23; 6, p. 38; 7)
The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution. (3, p. 25; 7)
A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution. (1, p. 155; 6, p. 28; 7)
The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years. (5, p. 27; 6, p. 39; 7)
The Sahara desert is expanding. It easily could have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook.
The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now. (7; 9, p. 26; 10, p. 37)
Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years. (7)
Evidence from Biology
The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years. (1, p. 167; 3, p. 27; 6, p. 41; 7)
The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. (6, p. 39; 7)
The oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old. (6, p. 40; 7)
Another factor to consider: The genetic load in man is increasing. Geneticists have cataloged nearly 1300 genetic disorders in the human race. It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hand of the Creator but has been going downhill as a result of our disobedience to the laws established by the Creator and the increased radiation from the sun. The Bible teaches that we live in a sin-cursed world as a result of Adam’s sin.
Evidence from History
The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old. (1, p. 160)
Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known.
Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years.
The following Bible verses tell when "the beginning" was:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)
Evolutionists love to assume uniformitarian processes. Many of the preceding evidences follow the same logic evolutionists use all the time in dealing with carbon dating, strata formation, genetic drift, etc.
It is interesting to read the ramblings of nay-sayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to answer theses evidences for a young universe. See how many times they use words like: we believe, perhaps, could have, there is some reason to believe, etc. Evolutionists may need billions of years to make people believe a rock can turn into a rocket scientist, but that time just isn’t available.
Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, April 1985.
McLean, G. S.; McLean, Larry; Oakland, Roger. The Bible Key to Understanding the Early Earth. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Southwest Radio Church, 1987.
Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983.
Ackerman, Paul D. It’s a Young World After All. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1986.
Blick, Edward F. A Scientific Analysis of Genesis. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Hearthstone Publ. Ltd., 1991.
Petersen, Dennis R. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. South Lake Tahoe, Calif.: Christian Equippers International, 1987.
Hovind, Kent E. Creation Seminar, Parts 1-7 (most items referenced onscreen—available from Creation Science Evangelism, 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, Fla. 32503).
Wysong, R. L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. Midland, Mich.: Inquiry Press, 1976.
Baker, Sylvia. Bone of Contention. Creation Science Foundation Ltd., Sunnybank, Queensland 4109 Australia: 1990.
Moore, John N. Questions and Answers on Creation-Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977.
Brown, Walt. In the Beginning--available from CSE ($20.50)
Been there, done that, and that, and that.
As you can see (If you follow those links) FFGFollower wasn't able to defend the exact same "argument" you cut-n-pasted; why do you think you can do any better?
Also, you need to check your links. At least one of them (as I recall) is actually a pro-evolution link with a misleading title.
Not a one of the points of this argument has any merit whatsoever. However addressing them all is beyond the scope of a single thread. Why don't you pick a few of the ones you like best and we'll discuss them? (This is what FFGFollower, for whatever reason, refused to do.) As it stands now this "argument" is too broad to lead to real discussion. I for one stand ready to refute any of the items you ask me to. (That's why I'm asking you to pick a few; it's hardly fair for me to pick the ones to refute, as you could always claim I'd picked the easiest ones.) Pick the ones you think are the thorniest and we'll hash 'em out. That's an honest offer, I promise.
Kind of a nice compilation (of many topics), but you're going to have to narrow it down considerably if it's going to work as a topic.
Please choose 1 (or a few related) points, and start a new topic, or take them to an appropriate old topic.
This one is closing down.
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019