Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time For Class Proving Evolution

That doesn't surprise me. I'd understood that his theory has been tweaked extensively since 18-whatever-it-was. But I'm no expert and will listen.

Look... in my heart of hearts it would not surprise me one bit if life on earth had been seeded, or if there have been interventions along the way. That'd be COOL, actually. It may turn out that this is the conclusion humanity eventually comes to- that Darwinism was wrong to some degree and that the evolution of life has been tweaked or guided to some extent. That is absolutely possible as far as I'm concerned.

So I'm onboard with that possibility.

Where I part ways with the modern Creationist movement is that they are attempting to insert their religion, Christianity, into this... They are trying to literally change the textbooks in our public schools to insert their religion as if it was valid science. That is NUTS. It's just as nuts as if the people who believe in the Mordak stuff below were trying to get their religion put into the textbooks.


"Marduk Creates the World from the Spoils of Battle

����� In the beginning, neither heaven nor earth had names. Apsu, the god of fresh waters, and Tiamat, the goddess of the salt oceans, and Mummu, the god of the mist that rises from both of them, were still mingled as one. There were no mountans, there was no pasture land, and not even a reed-marsh could be found to break the surface of the waters.

����� It was then that Apsu and Tiamat parented two gods, and then two more who outgrew the first pair. These further parented gods, until Ea, who was the god of rivers and was Tiamat and Apsu's geat-grandson, was born. Ea was the cleverest of the gods, and with his magic Ea became the most powerful of the gods, ruling even his forebears.

����� Apsu and Tiamat's descendents became an unruly crowd. Eventually Apsu, in his frustration and inability to sleep with the clamor, went to Tiamat, and he proposed to her that he slay their noisy offspring. Tiamat was furious at his suggestion to kill their clan, but after leaving her Apsu resolved to proceed with his murderous plan. When the young gods heard of his plot against them, they were silent and fearful, but soon Ea was hatching a scheme. He cast a spell on Apsu, pulled Apsu's crown from his head, and slew him. Ea then built his palace on Apsu's waters, and it was there that, with the goddess Damkina, he fathered Marduk, the four-eared, four-eyed giant who was god of the rains and storms.

����� The other gods, however, went to Tiamat and complained of how Ea had slain her husband. Aroused, she collected an army of dragons and monsters, and at its head she placed the god Kingu, whom she gave magical powers as well. Even Ea was at a loss how to combat such a host, until he finally called on his son Marduk. Marduk gladly agreed to take on his father's battle, on the condition that he, Marduk, would rule the gods after achieving this victory. The other gods agreed, and at a banquet they gave him his royal robes and scepter.

����� Marduk armed himself with a bow and arrows, a club, and lightning, and he went in search of Tiamat's monstrous army. Rolling his thunder and storms in front him, he attacked, and Kingu's battle plan soon disintegrated. Tiamat was left alone to fight Marduk, and she howled as they closed for battle. They struggled as Marduk caught her in his nets. When she opened her mouth to devour him, he filled it with the evil wind that served him. She could not close her mouth with his gale blasting in it, and he shot an arrow down her throat. It split her heart, and she was slain.

����� After subduing the rest of her host, he took his club and split Tiamat's water-laden body in half like a clam shell. Half he put in the sky and made the heavens, and he posted guards there to make sure that Tiamat's salt waters could not escape. Across the heavens he made stations in the stars for the gods, and he made the moon and set it forth on its schedule across the heavens. From the other half of Tiamat's body he made the land, which he placed over Apsu's fresh waters, which now arise in wells and springs. From her eyes he made flow the Tigirs and Euphrates. Across this land he made the grains and herbs, the pastures and fields, the rains and the seeds, the cows and ewes, and the forests and the orchards.

����� Marduk set the vanquished gods who had supported Tiamat to a variety of tasks, including work in the fields and canals. Soon they complained of their work, however, and they rebeled by burning their spades and baskets. Marduk saw a solution to their labors, though, and proposed it to Ea. He had Kingu, Timat's general, brought forward from the ranks of the defeated gods, and Kingu was slain. With Kingu's blood, with clay from the earth, and with spittle from the other gods, Ea and the birth-goddess Nintu created humans. On them Ea imposed the labor previously assigned to the gods. Thus the humans were set to maintain the canals and boundary ditches, to hoe and to carry, to irrigate the land and to raise crops, to raise animals and fill the granaries, and to worship the gods at their regular festivals."
_________________________

Again, all of your questions illustrate that you've never made any effort to investigate what science says about evolution.

I guess you missed the part about me making a 'a' in comparative anatomy. I only got a 'b' in genetics but it was because the mid- term was one genetic problem that took an hour to work through. I was the only one in class who got it right so the sucker ended up throwing it out.

The trouble with arguments from authority is authorities can be wrong. The trouble with quoting from an introduction is that anyone can write an introduction and include personal bias. Even Ray "Banana Man" Comfort wrote an amazingly nonsensical intorduction the Origin of Species. The trouble with quotes from 1956 is that a great deal has been learned since then in every branch of science. The leading experts of 1956 in physics, cosmology, chemistry, aeronautics, computer science and every other branch of science made their contributions and have been left in the dust by over half a century of hard work by their decendents. As evidence the above quote is an extremely leaky bucket.

What I have not seen from the creationist side of the isle, and would very much like to see, is any sort of positive argument.

So I respectfully request from the creationist camp: an argument, based on verifiably accurate evidence, that is indicicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science.

No, I didn't miss that. That's inadequate, as exemplified by your obvious lack of basic understanding about what evolution proposes.

Do you have any idea just how moronic that question is? Most likely not, I suppose. You slime dwellers don't read much philosophy, or logic, do you?

You are making claims about reality. Why would you expect anyone to accept them as true if you refuse to provide any evidence? Please explain why asking for evidence of a claim is morinic. Use simple words that we mere slime dwellers can understand. Do you have anything to offer this discussion other than unwarranted insults?

wswolf,

Someone posted that their evolutionist has won every debate against creationists. The last debate I know Dr. Kindell did was with a Ph.D biologist. When it came time for the rebuttal the evolutionist said, "There's nothing I can say to rebutt Dr.Kindel." Here is part of an essay I wrote to myself so I have a reason from science to believe creationists have it correct while evolutionists don't.

Based on science there is not enough time for evolution to take place. If you don't take time to read it try to control yourself and not attack it. You will only look silly to those who do read it.

Like a parrot repeats things, I quote those who have studied and/or done research; whether in the lab or in the field. I read many books and listened to several lectures by Drs. Thomas J. Kindell, Henry Morris, Duane T. Gish, Clifford Wilson, John Morris, Donald Chittick, Jon Salin, and many others. Dr. Kindell is author of the almost unique book Evolution On Trial With Evolutionist At The Witness Stand. He uses the quotes of prominent evolutionist to show that to the unbiased person, the physical evidences in the earth tend to support creation. Dr. Henry Morris is perhaps the most prolific author of scientific creation material. He is the author of books such as The Genesis Flood, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, Many Infallible Proofs, Scientific Creationism, and many more. Dr. Gish wrote Evolution: The Fossils Say No, which was updated and renamed Evolution, Challenge of the Fossil Record about twenty years ago, which I believe has sold about 2,000,000 copies. He recently put out another book. The new work is titled Evolution: the Fossils Still No. Dr. Gish is probably the most prominent debater for special creation, from a scientific stand point, in the world today. Jon Slin wrote Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the Genome. All of these men are very interesting speakers and generally speak on a layman's level. The material used in this essay is from these men, and others not listed. I have listened to Dr. Kindell more than all the others combined. Therefore, I use his quotes and thoughts more than those of the other authors. In one of Dr. Kindell's lectures, he started by bringing up the point that,

"The single most controversial of all the controversial subjects in the whole creation evolution spectrum of evidences is the age of the earth. The age of the earth is the ultimate, absolute sacred cow of the individuals who believe in the theory of evolution. The common people on the street don't know much about thermal dynamics, quantum mechanics, or mathematical probability. They don't know anything about genetics or biochemistry, or even about the gaps in the fossil record. The evolutionists know that the average person on the street knows one thing positively: If there is credible evidence that the earth is relatively young...on the order of just thousands of years instead of billions of years, then the average man on the street realizes that evolution is impossible. They more or less understand that the time frame is the ultimate Achilles� heel of evolution. It has to have an enormous (enormous with a capitol "E") time frame. If you take away that enormous time frame, the whole concept collapses, having absolutely nothing to stand on."

Neither creationists nor evolutionists can absolutely prove, based on the scientific method, how old the earth is. Science is the result of testing and retesting, observing and verifying. Whenever you extrapolate into the past, you have to take present process rates and assume that the process rate has not changed as you go back into the past. There is another untestable but major assumption made. One assumes no other influences or factors took place in the past to change rate. This is called uniformitarianism. Of course there is no way in the world to scientifically know what happened in the distant past. Like creationists, evolutionists just have to use a lot of blind faith. Ken Hamm observes, "If you had someone who was there, then you could know for sure." Dr. Kindell says, "There is an eye witness Who was there, Who saw the origin of the universe and Who knows everything."

There is an almost universal belief in one historical event. Dr. Clifford Wilson says that in almost every culture of the approximately 200 that he has studied, there is belief in a world wide flood. He agrees with most anthropologists and archeologists that if something shows up in several different cultures, it has its origin in fact; based on the scientific principle of cause and effect. This is the bedrock for scientific investigation.

If there really was a world wide flood we would find enormous unmistakable evidence for it. There appears to have been a huge "local" flood at almost any road cut sight in any country in the world and regional floods where ever a canyon is cut. Geologists, archeologists, paleontologists and average individuals find evidence of marine life just about anywhere that man has chosen to investigate. Is there an extremely accurate historical document that tells the educated world that a world wide flood actually occurred?

We will look at a very limited amount of the generous circumstantial evidence which God created. Dr. Kindell said in a lecture,
"That's what we have to deal with when it comes to looking at the age of the universe and the earth from the scientific perspective. When you put all the physical evidences of processes that we can measure in the earth and the solar system, WE FIND THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM FALL ON THE SIDE OF YOUNG AGES. (Most people don't know this because of at least two reasons. One is they've been brainwashed all their lives, and the second is this material is not usually mentioned.) The indicated ages are much more in line with the Biblical teaching."

Biblical ages can be determined from the genealogies which were inspired by God and listed in the Scriptures. Six thousand (6,000) years old is young if you compare it to the four point six billion (4,600,000,000) years that the evolutionist constantly try to use.

How about the sign that used to instruct guests at Yellowstone National Park about the twenty-seven petrified forests? The park service, being influenced by the prejudiced belief that the earth is billions of years old and the Flood of Noah�s time did not occur, wanted to help the visitors understand the �scientific facts�. The sign proudly, but ignorantly, informed the viewer that the petrified forests are standing in the very place where they grew over a period of several million years.

Then Mount Saint Helens erupted. About one-half a cubic mile of dirt, rocks, ash and geological debris slid down the mountain. This debris displaced all the water in Spirit Lake making the whole lake a tidal wave. It raced up the side of the next hill uprooting everything in its path. Eventually gravity brought the lake back to a new lakebed; along with a million trees or more. Eventually, the trees became waterlogged and sank. Dr. Steve Austin dove to the bottom of the lake and observed the trees appeared as though they were growing in place. Some creationists took this knowledge to Yellowstone, and with permission, dug around the petrified trees. None of them have roots. At least none with roots longer than two to three feet long. That means every one of them had been uprooted from somewhere else and violently transported by water to their present location. We are talking about a petrified forest of forty square miles! Sounds like Noah�s Flood.

While the creationists were researching the roots, they also checked the tree rings. Again, all as in every petrified tree checked anywhere in the world, had less than one thousand seven hundred growth rings. You might ask, So what! What�s the big deal? Here is the fun answer. All the speakers I have heard or read on the subject maintain the Flood of Noah happened 1,656 years after Creation Week. Today we find trees over three thousand years old. Some Bristlecone pine trees even have up to four thousand five hundred rings. These same species, when discovered as petrified, always have less than one thousand seven hundred growth rings. Does this prove they started growing during Creation Week? No, but it is interesting, isn�t it.

Dr. Kindell teaches there are two dating systems that are used primarily by evolutionist as absolute proof that the earth and the universe have to be billions of years old. Radiometric dating is one. Although it masquerades as absolute dating, it�s not absolute, because it is based on un-provable assumptions. (Before we go any further, does it seem reasonable to think there would be a product which appears to be daughter product, but in fact if evolution is true, is on the way to becoming the radio active material in the first place?) What would happen to some of the calculations if God created some of these processes in equilibrium just six thousand years ago? Obviously, they are guaranteed to be inaccurate for dating millions or billions of years. Dr. Kindell is somewhat paraphrased in the following statement.
"Arbitrary assumptions are influenced by the bias of the person doing the dating. Depending on what the arbitrary assumptions are and how the calculations are being made, one can make the age of the earth any age one wants. No one knows absolutely the correct values to plug into the equation. Basically, whoever is running the equation uses it to fill a particular philosophical bias to guide him in putting in the values. A scientist can make the earth appear very old or very young depending on how he wants to run the calculations. Therefore it is NOT convincing evidence to the informed objective reader."

Is it unreasonable to think God created radioactivity in balance with the appearance of one half-life expended? God says in His Word that He is of order. Consider this. How old did Adam and Eve, and in fact the entire universe, look when they were first created? They and the entire universe were mature. Living organisms were ready to produce, not reproduce, offspring. The idea of radiometric material starting out with no daughter material present is not scientific because science is not based on guessing. Perhaps the material was in equilibrium to start with. Only God knows. Science is based on things we can prove, and dating the origin of the earth by radiometric dating using the concept that no daughter material was present is guessing. We can just as easily use radiometric dating to "prove" that the earth is young.
Again using Dr. Kindell's words,

"Now lets change two fundamental and arbitrary assumptions that are used in the evolutionist's big bang cosmology. These things are absolutely blatant assumptions. These are things which are unequivocally not based on scientific information. These beliefs, held by blind faith, are required for the evolutionist to guarantee that they get a universe that appears to be billions of years old; based on the big bang. These evolutionist faith positions lessen the value of the central thyme of creation. They assume that the earth is not near the center of the universe. This has some philosophical implications as well as scientific. Some of the philosophical implications are that the planet earth is an obscure planet way off out there in some inconsequential solar system in a remote galaxy in a forgotten area of the universe. This then makes man of no significants.

They also assume that the universe has no boundaries. This is, of course, contradictory to the Big Bang theory because we think of the Big Bang as starting from a little dense particle, The Singularity, that inflates out and, in fact, has a boundary. It's like an ever expanding sphere and the earth could be near the center. But they say, 'No. We don't really use that assumption.' They don't use that because if they assume that the earth is located near the center of this expanding universe, and that it is a bounded universe rather than unbounded, then this expansion would create a tremendous time dilation according to the proven aspects of Einsteinian general relativity. Basically what Einstein theorized in general relativity, which has now been proven with the use of atomic clocks, is that time can be different in different parts of the universe; based on the influence of gravity. (Don't confuse this with his special theory of relativity which deals with velocity time dilation; based on the idea that getting closer to the speed of light affects time so that time becomes different and relative.) Gravitational time dilation has been proven. It is scientific knowledge."

Some very fun information for the Bible believer has been brought to light by some non-creationists. Dr. Hubble, for which the Hubble telescope was named, and others have discovered by measuring the red shifts of galaxies, the earth certainly appears to be in the center of the universe. The Milky Way Galaxy is surrounded by a sphere of galaxies, which is surrounded by a sphere of galaxies, which is surrounded by a sphere of galaxies for about fifteen million light years. If the Milky Way was moved in any direction by one fifteenth of one percent (.0006%) of the assumed diameter of the universe, the spherical shaped dispersion of the galaxies would not be observable. They would blur together. To be sure, to the casual observer, it certainly appears we are in the center of the universe. But then, this is where Jesus shed His blood to redeem His creation. With all that said, we are going to look at evidences which give relatively young ages for the earth and all of God's creation. This changes the blind faith into informed faith.

We are now going to look at a few things that positively do not grant the evolutionist enough time for his theory to take place. These are from real scientific observations that can be verified by any objective observer who wishes to accept the truth rather than accept what he has been taught blindly.
The first one to be considered here is the deterioration of short term comets. The short term comets are those like Halley's Comet which come around about every fifty years to two hundred years. Dr. Kindell likened comets to dirty snowballs. These comets orbit the sun in highly elliptical orbits. Their tails always point away from the sun because the sun's radiation or solar wind actually blows material off the comet which forms the tail. Obviously they can't orbit forever since they are loosing mass. Eventually they will be gone. Astronomers have actually observed comets breaking up and disintegrating. It's interesting that all the short term comets would be completely disintegrated within as little as ten thousand years. The fact that short term comets are still here would indicate that the solar system was created less than ten thousand years ago.

Evolutionists often appeal to the Oort Cloud. It is cold so it can not be observed by infrared telescopes. It is dark so it can�t be seen with optical telescopes. In other words, it is not science it is accepted by blind faith. It is an ad hock invention to get around the obviously young solar system.

Another evidence from our solar system is the fact that we have dust and small asteroids close to the sun. This material is also acted on by that same solar radiation: This radiation acts on the fine dust and actually blows it out of the solar system. The dust actually accelerates to many tens of thousands of miles per hour. From about two inches and up, the asteroids are too big to actually be pushed out. The solar wind acts on them in such a way that their orbital speed decreases. When they are going too slowly to orbit, they just spiral into the sun. We can see that both by pushing the material out and causing it to spiral into the sun, the solar wind sweeps out or vacuums in the dust and fine debris in the solar system. Dr. Kindell says of this effect,
"It is so efficient that it would clean out every particle, out to the orbit of the planet Jupiter, in just two billion years. This is called the Poynting�Robertson effect; of course because of the scientists Pointeen and Robertson worked it out. There are tremendous amounts of fine dust and material remaining even very close to the sun. If the solar system is just six thousand years old, that would certainly explain why we have all this very fine material so close to the sun. That material should have been swept clean literally millions of years ago. So, this appears to be an indication of a relatively young age for the solar system, which of course includes earth"

We can see galaxies that are billions of light-years away. A light-year is the distance that light can travel at approximately one hundred eighty-six thousand (186,000) miles per second in a year's time. To save you the arithmetic, it is about six trillion (6,000,000,000,000) miles. And yet we can see stars and galaxies that are supposedly measured to be billions of light-years away. The light was supposedly traveling for billions of years to get from there to here. Using the present speed of light and the distance that light would have to travel today presents the same problem that every chronometer has when we try to extrapolate back into time. We are measuring the rate that we now see. Perhaps light traveled at an infinite speed when God first created it. We only have a hint of what this creation was prior to the Curse.

An interesting possibility was brought up by Dr. Russell Humphreys in his book called Starlight and Time. Solving the puzzle of distant starlight in a young universe. Dr. Humphreys outlines one possible way God could have created the universe to guarantee we would see the stars and galaxies no matter how far away He placed them. Consider the Scripture in Isaiah 40:22 where He "stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." This actually teaches that God began the universe in the initial creation by starting it out in a very dense state and then spreading it out like someone stretching out a tent or a curtain. Hebrews 1:10-12 conversely teaches that God will eventually "roll them up:
"You, Lord, in the beginning did lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; they will perish, but you remain; and they all will become old as a garment, and as a mantle you will roll
them up."
He rolled them out to start with and will roll them up when He is finished. Humphreys teaches that what Isaiah 40:22 states would be a definite way of explaining how we can see light from those stars and galaxies that are billions of light years away. Since the earth is located near the center of the universe, red shift would be explained. It also would explain so called back ground radiation which the Big Bang claims.

We will appeal to Dr. Kindell for the following information.
"The reason we could see the star light is that with tremendous gravitational influence, only six literal days would be passing on the earth and in our solar system, but the defused gravitational time dilation, according to Einstein, would cause everything out in the far reaches of space to be going extremely fast: Billions of years worth in time compared to earth. It has been established experimentally with atomic clocks that time is relative, as mentioned above.
"When God created the universe, He created time (see Titus 1), space, matter and energy. He created them to work according to the laws of physics, which includes relativity. Therefore, time can be different in different parts of the universe because of gravitational time dilation. Exodus 20:11 informs us that God 'in six days...created the heavens, the earth, the sea and everything in them. And on the seventh day He rested.' The Bible is written from the perspective of earth standard time. But in the far reaches of the cosmos because of its gravitational dilation from the expansion of the universe as God stretched out the heavens, light at its present speed would easily reach earth so that on the sixth day, Adam and Eve who were created as mature adults could look up and see stars and galaxies that are literally billions of light-years away. God did it in six days of earth standard time."

About 150 years ago a man by the name of Charles Lyell went around looking for some physical indicators on the earth that would disprove the biblical chronology. Dr. Kindell speculates about why Lyell did this. He says Lyell did this so he could say something like,

"Look we have physical evidence in the earth which cannot be correlated with the biblical chronology. Therefore the Bible is not to be taken literally. At best It is allegorical. It is not scientific. In fact, It is mythology. Therefore we can go and speculate about evolution, and all these ages of time, and we don't have to listen to what the Bible says anymore."

Dr. Kindell, in his lecture on the age of the earth, said that one thing Lyell looked at was the gorge below Niagara Falls. As the Niagara River follows its course and pours over the falls, it erodes the uplifted cliff from which it is falling. Over the years a big gorge has been cut back from where the cliff was uplifted a few thousand years ago. When Lyell visited the falls, he asked the local people how many feet it erodes each year. They told him it erodes two to three feet every year. Some of the locals had lived there for decades and had actually observed this during those years. Lyell observed it for a few months and declared (as Dr. Kindell paraphrased),
"In my view, it only erodes about one foot per year. These locals are a bunch of hicks who don't know anything. Therefore to erode that whole gorge, it took a lot longer than the six or seven thousand years that the Bible allows."

Consequently he went out and told anyone who would listen, "Anybody who believes the Bible is stupid, unscientific and ignores physical data and is an ignoramus living in the dark ages." I would ask, "Who was being ignorant and unscientific?" All the attacking worked for Lyell. A lot of Christians began to doubt the accuracy of the genealogies in God's Word. They were unwilling to hold on to the teachings of the fathers and believe the God of Scripture. The doubters began to say things like, "Well, I guess The Word can be reinterpreted. Maybe Lyell is right about The Bible being allegorical. The amount of time since creation is not important is it?" The first crack in the church's foundation started. In Psalm 11:3 It says, "If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" The Biblical authority was undermined by so-called Bible believing educators and leaders. From that point on, more and more cracks started and old ones spread. Cracks like, "How can we be sure God created in six literal days?", "Does 'virgin' in Matthew and Luke in reality mean a sexually pure girl or just a 'young' unmarried girl?", "Did Jesus really die on the cross?", "Perhaps there was no resurrection.", and "Isn't it allegorical that Jesus is returning for the church?" What then follows these cracks is the attack, "Since you can't trust some of your Bible, how can you believe any of it?" And our own experiences are challenged.

Isn't it hard to believe that just by challenging the age of the earth, the foundation of the church started crumbling? We must realize that the Word of God is the final authority on everything It addresses.

The orbit of the moon has been measured so long that science has documented its orbit is changing. It recedes about one and one half inches each year. There is an astronomical law called the Roche Limit. It states as a smaller astronomical body approaches a larger astronomical body, it can only come within a certain limited distance before the stronger gravity of the larger body will destroy the smaller body. As a result the moon could not have started any closer than the Roche Limit at its closest, and most likely has been receding ever since. If you put that in the perspective of billions of years, you'd look out in the sky and you wouldn't be able to find the moon. (A billion is a thousand millions and a million is a thousand thousands. We're talking a huge number.) It would be a speck of light like a planet or a star. The fact that the moon is still very prominent in the sky indicates that it has not been there very long.

Perhaps some of you saw the photographs in LIFE magazine many years ago (1954). A meteorite actually crashed through the roof of a woman�s house and hit the womaan on her thy. IT still a black burn where the skin was chared. Fortunately, the roof absorbed most of the energy. Possibly some of you have visited the big meteor crater in Arizona. It is quite spectacular. There are even larger ones that have been found as a result satellite photography. The craters was so huge that they were not recognized as a craters until man's technology had allowed him a more spectacular view of the earth that God created. At any rate, they show undoubtedly that the earth, even though it has a protective atmosphere, is periodically struck by meteorites. Apparently some of them are extremely large. There aren't huge numbers that hit the earth every year, and in fact in a single year it's not really very significant. But, if you multiply that by the evolutionist's billions of years, then the total number of impacts becomes very significant indeed.

We should be able to find many craters along with deposits of meteorite material almost anywhere in the crust of the earth. When we look in the strata of naturally open places like Grand Canyon, we should find tons, literally tons of meteorites or at least their fragments. The multiple hundreds of millions of them should be all over the place. What we find is an extreme absents of meteorite material. That�s why they bring such a high price when discovered. This is, as we creationist would predict, consistent with the idea of a young earth. Isn�t this what the Scripture indicates?

There is a famous picture taken from the Apollo Eight lunar mission when it orbited the moon. A picture of an earth rise over the horizon of the moon was taken and it very definitely depicts a difference between the earth and the moon. The conspicuous thing is earth has clouds: It obviously has an atmosphere which supplies some protection. The moon has no such atmosphere and is very pock marked with meteorite strikes and other space debris.

When scientists first began to think seriously about putting a man on the moon, a lot of them were concerned. They thought that it would be impossibility because it was billions of years old and the influx of meteoric dust from the cosmos would be almost an insurmountable problem. This dust was the object of lots of measurements during the sixties. The amount of material coming in was believed to have accumulated in a huge layer of dust on the moon. They assumed the dust to be at least fifty feet thick and un-solidified because the moon has no weather to consolidate and compact the dust. The general consensus was that very fine cosmic dust would be like sifted flower. Scientists were convinced the landing craft would disappear into this dust if men tried to land on the moon. They were so convinced they required the lunar craft to be built with large pads hopefully to float or rest on the dust. Neal Armstrong, the first man to step out of the space craft said, "I can scrape with my boot through the dust onto solid rock." It was about an inch thick. They were taken aback because the creationist began to point out, "Well look, if the astronauts had found that thick layer of dust, they would have said, 'It's because the moon is billions of years old.' but since they didn't find it we creationists use the reverse logic to show that the moon is rather young."

Measuring the dust has continued. The data from the sixties and the data we get now have some major inconsistencies. During the sixties about a thousand times more was coming into our atmosphere than what we measure now. This appears to indicate that this dust comes in waves. In spite of this, if the earth and the moon are billions of years old, there can be hundreds of fluctuations and there would still be a lot more than an inch of dust there. As Armstrong would tell you, "There's only enough for a good footprint."
In Dr. Kindell�s lecture on the age of the earth, he says,

"Conversely there is a reason the creationist would predict that there should be large quantities of dust on the moon if in fact it is billions of years old. The dust would be of lunar origin though, not from space. It is an aspect of lunar dust that presents a major problem to the thinking evolutionist. That is the fact that because the moon does not have the protection of an atmosphere, its surface is bombarded by full strength ultraviolet light and other cosmic radiation which is estimated to break down even the hardest lunar rocks at at least the rate of three ten thousandths of an inch per year. To give you an idea of how small that is, that's about 1/16 the thickness of a human hair. Not much. Again though, if you multiply that by just one billion years (remember a billion is a huge number that is casually thrown around by evolutionist), there would be thirty three thousand feet of pulverized, powdered rock on the surface of the moon That's enough to erode the entire lunar mountain ranges. The lunar mountain ranges are supposed to have been there for billions of years. As radiation strikes the tops of these mountains, gravitation would slough the material off the tops of them. The astronauts should have found, as they went out with the lunar rover, tremendous sloughed off deposits of that dust at the bases of the mountains. Just like Lyell's belief, since it was not founded on the Truth, the dust was not there. Indeed the dust was very thin every where. The evolutionists never have come up with a good explanation for that. In addition, there should be no sharp features on the moon. The fact that they exist in sharp detail indicates an extremely young age for the moon."

Stalactites are some sharp features that give the honest evolutionist trouble. In years past we were taught it took about one hundred thousand (100,000) years to produce one cubic inch. We usually see stalactites in caves. The most famous cave for Americans is probably Carlsbad Caverns. If we take one of those tours, the tour guide will inform us as a result of their brain washing, "It took hundreds of thousands or even millions of years for these stalactites to form." But if we take a look at how fast they grow in known areas, we can know positively that there is a lot of room for error. In fact in World War Two many subway tunnels were opened up below London as bomb shelters. After the war they were no longer needed and closed. When they were opened up later, it was discovered that they were infested with stalactites When there is enough of the correct chemicals in the water that is seeping through, it can leach out material that can and does produce stalactites in a relatively short time. In fact within fifty years after it was constructed, the Lincoln Memorial had stalactites growing under it up to six feet long.

In Dr. Gish's book there is photographic evidence of at least one stalactite in the Carlsbad Cavern that formed so rapidly that it produced some very unexpected evidence of rapid growth. A bat apparently died and fell down on a growing stalagmite. The bat was entombed and preserved, because the rate of deposition was so great.

Creationist geologists know that, after the flood, there would be a lot of remnant flood water remaining on the earth for a long time before it drained off or evaporated. If some of it seeped through the rocks and leaked through caverns such as Carlsbad Cavern there would be plenty of chemicals in it. And in a matter of just centuries, or less, the Carlsbad Cavern's stalactites and stalagmites would have easily been produced. There is documenting evidence to prove it.

Next, let�s ask a challenging question. Why is the sign at the entrance of Carlsbad Cavern gone? Several decades ago the sign at the entrance of Carlsbad Cavern informed the visitors the caverns were two hundred and eighty million (280,000,000) years old. Then a few decades ago, the sign was proudly revised to reflect new cave knowledge: The caverns are approximately ten million (10,000,000) years old. Later the revised sign had to be revised. It proudly informed the visitors the caverns were two million years (2,000,000) old. But, facts are hard on ignorant prejudice. More recent discoveries show the caverns could be formed in as little as a few centuries. The new revised sign is.....well, gone.

The Genesis Flood produced phenomena about which we are still learning. After the flood huge deposits of minerals eroded into lakes or the ocean. They are still eroding. There are different ways this can be considered. One is to look at all the specific chemicals in the continents that have been identified going into the oceans by means of river erosion and river run off. Every single one of these can be documented to favor a young age for the continents. Every single one of those gives ages way too young to accommodate the theory of evolution. This indicates that the age of the ocean is just too young to support the theory of evolution of life. The theory of evolution contends that the evolution of life started in the ocean. The evolutionists started to use the chemical runoff calculations, but abandoned them because every time they came up with ages far too young to support their pet theory of an ancient ocean of billions of years old. Needless to say, they discontinued measuring them. They eventually concluded that these tests could not be accurate and didn't publish their findings.

Along the same line of thought, the lack of sediments that scientists have found on the ocean bottom are a major problem. At present rates of erosion all that sediment can be accounted for in less than fifteen million years, not billions of years. Now does it mean it took that long? No, that's just an upper limit of how long it would take at present rates. Since Noah�s Flood was a world flood, it predicts this. The creationists took this information because there is no legitimate scientific reason to reject it. By giving ages too young to accommodate the theory of evolution, it supports a recent creation. The amount of sediments supports Noah�s Flood.

A really big problem the evolutionists have is based on the known cubic tonnage of material that is on the continents today and the known amount of sediments that have been measured draining into the oceans each year. Scientists have found that it would require fourteen million years to erode the continents into the oceans at the present rate; on average. This would take then all down to sea level and in the process would destroy any and all evidence of the fossil record. And yet, some of the continents have places like The Grand Canyon, where we have about a mile thickness of sediments containing fossils which the evolutionist swear represent hundreds of millions of years of geologic and evolutionary time. It doesn�t take a genius to realize if the continents are completely eroded every fourteen million years, there can be no geological column with out a world wide flood. Based on known facts, there should be no record of geological time that spans hundreds of millions years preserved anywhere in the world.

At The Grand Canyon and other places like that where we can see large samples of strata, we see irrefutable evidences of a huge recent flood that have not had time to erode into oblivion. As Ken Hamm says,
"We know from the Bible from Someone Who was there, Who knows what He is talking about, that there was a great year long flood that affected the earth in a catastrophic manner. And sediments were laid down all over the earth very rapidly by means of that catastrophe."
So, even if we don't assume what we know from God's Word and just take the standard assumption of the present rates and extrapolate back into the past, we end up with an age way too young to accommodate the theory of evolution. All this sedimentation information is lethal to the theory of evolution.

The Bible indicates the continents rose after the flood. This happened about four thousand four hundred years ago. The Mississippi Delta is a bit bigger than what would accumulate at the present rates of deposition in that amount of time. When the flood drained off, there was a massive amount of water rapidly draining off the continents and carrying huge amounts of sediment. If we compare it with the amount that the evolutionary time frame would predict, there's still insufficient sediment to give even a glimmer of hope to the measuring evolutionist. Remember it only takes 14,000,000 years for the entire continent to erode. Consequently the entire Gulf of Mexico would have been filled, and in fact would not even exist. There is no evidence the continent has been drifting, so they can't appealed to that.

Many of the oil reservoirs we find are under tremendous geostatic pressure. Remember old movies when they struck oil!? As usual, this presents a severe problem for the evolutionists. The sedimentary rocks that incase these oil reservoirs have a known permeability factor. Fluid disperses through them under pressure. In most cases, this permeability is such that all the pressure would have dissipated in as little as ten thousand years (10,000). In the more dense rock, it could take up to 100,000 years. But, certainly not millions of years. The evolutionists want us to believe these oil field reservoirs were formed as much as 100,000,000 years ago. (Remember, each zero indicate a numerical value that is ten times greater than the preceding zero) Any geostatic pressure should have dissipated a long, long, long time ago. Absolutely here should not be any pressure. But, it�s there in abundance.

Using an electron mass spectrometer, scientists have been able to detect carbon fourteen in every sample of coal and every fossil from every location in the world. Even more fascinating is they appear to be about the same age. The problem for the evolutionists is carbon fourteen, until very recently, could not date any anything beyond about fifty thousand years. Now they can measure carbon fourteen in samples, which evolutionists would date at ninety thousand years. Carbon fourteen has even been found in diamonds! Someone might appeal to contamination, but in every lab? And diamonds are too hard to contaminate. Since fossils, coal, and diamonds are supposed to be multiple millions of years old, this has back fired on them. There is not suppose to be even a detectable trace, and yet it is in everything tested.

For the creationist who believes in the Flood there is no problem. All these things were buried in the Flood at the same time just a few thousands years ago.

Speaking of things that are buried, consider the following. Here is a quote from Dr. Donald Chittick, a PhD chemistry. After one of his lectures in 1999, a woman from the audience asked about the millions of years required to form coal and oil. Dr. Chittick demonstrates scientific facts are really quite hard on the previously held un-scientific beliefs; which he previously held. That is the belief that millions of years are required to form these products of violent, catastrophic earth activity. He states,
�There are two kinds of oil. There is oil that comes from animal material and it has porphyrins, nitrogen from the proteins and stuff. Oil that comes from plant material, which is the majority of the oil discovered, has hydrocarbons in it. Free notably of nitrogen compounds. How was coal and oil made? Well, they used to say it took millions of years to form coal and oil. What is necessary to form coal? The same process forms both coal and oil. You bury a large amount of green plant material, plant material is cellulous, a carbohydrate. When you heat a carbohydrate, it looses water. It dehydrates, like when a pie boils over in the oven. The sugar in your pie is a carbohydrate. When that boils over, the heat dehydrates the sugar and the water leaves. This leaves the carbon behind. Well, if you bury plant material, green plant material, it gets hot. The heat then, because it is cellulous, causes a dehydration reaction; a loss of water. But, the chemical reaction of loosing water, itself, makes heat, so it gets hotter, which makes it loose more water, which makes more heat, which makes it get hotter, and it spirals up loosing water.

�One of two processes will happen. If the geological formation is such that the water of dehydration can leak away, then we leave the carbon behind and we form coal. In fact you can plot right on a straight line the dehydration amount percentage of the grade from lignite to anthracite right on a straight-line degree of dehydration. If, on the other hand, the geological formation is such that the water of dehydration cannot leak away and we have little alkaline clay, volcanic ash for example, then you form oil. Both coal and oil had to be formed in less time than that required for the heat to leak away. If it had been a slow gradual process, the heat would have leaked away and never reach this coal or oil forming chemical reaction spiral. We have now made artificial coal and oil in the laboratory. First time was at Argon National Laboratory in 1980 and again in 1993. The coal that is made by this process is identical to the natural coal. If you aren�t a real coal expert, you can�t tell the difference. And oil is the same way. So now we know it had to happen in a very short while.�

The Great Genesis Flood explains how we got the oil reservoirs and the coal deposits. In fact all the huge sedimentary deposits for that matter are predicted by The Flood. How does one produce the juge oil deposits with uniformitarianism?

In the lab heat and compression have been shown to produce coal from certain organic materials in as little as an hour and a half. Also it only takes about twenty minutes to convert a ton of fatty type protein into a barrel of crude oil by subjecting it to heat and pressure. There was plenty of heat and compression during the Great Genesis Flood to accomplish both of these phenomenon.

Lord Kelvin was a creationist who loved to bring up the crustal temperature of the earth when discussing the age of the earth with his adversaries. He is quoted as saying,
"If we assume what the evolutionist say is true, for the sake of argument, the earth condensed out of a hot gaseous cloud, and was white hot and molten to begin with, and gradually cooled down, we can use the laws of physics and thermal dynamics, and determine how long that would take. We can use calculations, equations based on the cooling of a sphere.", so he did the calculations and went on to say, "At best to cool down to its present temperature, it would only take about twenty two million years." It was discovered radioactive decay would create heat in the crust of the earth. So, his opponents argued, "Radio active decay creates enough heat, like putting a stove in the room, to keep the earth hot longer. That gives us the time we need." Lord Kelvin said, "No. There's not nearly enough radio activity in the crust of the earth to make that big of a difference." and "It wouldn't make any significant difference if they went and calculated it again."

Dr. Harold Slusher of the University of Texas at El Paso, and his associate Thomas B. Gamwell reported it in a technical monograph. They took the old Kelvin calculations, and put in the best estimates of the amount of radio activity in the crust of the earth (which is rather rare). Dr. Slusher said, "Based on the best estimates given by the evolutionist themselves, it only changes it to forty-two million years."

He is not saying that is how old the earth is, but if we assume it started out white hot and molten, that's all the time required to cool to its present life zone temperature. This is again showing there just is not enough time for evolution to have occurred. The evolutionist want us to believe the earth started out white hot and will eventually suffer what is called "The ultimate heat death.", and end cold. That is, all available energy in the universe will have dissipated into unavailable energy. God�s Word tells us the exact opposite. He says the earth started out cool covered by water and conversely will end by melting. The following paragraphs show from the science of geology that we can depend on God�s Word.

Apparently, at the instant of creation, God created some radioactivity in the crust of the earth. In particular I am referring to that which produced polonium halos which are generated by polonium 214. THEY APPEAR TO ARGUE FOR AN INSTANTANEOUS CREATION OF AN EARTH WITH A SOLID CRUST. Dr. Robert Gentry has found massive amounts of what appears to be primordial polonium. No one has done more independent, and thorough, research than he has on this subject. He is considered to be the world's premiere expert on the subject of preocloic halos.

Polonium is the normal decay chain product of uranium 238. When it decays in solid rock its radiation produces changes in the color. These are called halos. The radiation penetrates through the rock a certain depth based on its power. Scientists can actually tell what kind of element gave off the radiation by the halo it produces. It is a message in stone telling us what kind of isotope it was. For example, polonium 210 has 5.3 million electron volts, and polonium 214 has 7.69 million electron volts. Therefore, it penetrates deeper into the rock when it gives off its radiation than the former. A significant thing is that normally we find polonium 214 as one of the intermediate decay chain products of uranium 238. Dr. Gentry has found massive amounts of what appears to be primordial polonium that is not associated with a uranium parent. It appears to have been created in the rocks at the instant of creation.
This is very exciting because Polonium 214 has a half life of only 164 millionths of a second. That means in a tiny fraction of a second it is completely decayed away, leaving only its halo.

If the earth started as a white hot molten liquid and not a solid, how did the flash of color changing energy causing the halo effect to get trapped in the rocks if they were liquid? Dr. Gentry argues that these halos are literally the signature of God. It appears that God purposefully created primordial polonium at the origin of the planet to show that He created the basement crustal rocks of the earth instantly and in a solid form. In that instant of creation, when these elements were also created, polonium 214 flashed off its energy and the color was trapped as a photograph in the rocks. This shows the basement rock wasn't molten, it wasn't slowing cooling down for millions of years.

In the Bible, the Psalmist says, "He spoke and it was done. He commanded and it stood fast." These halos appear to show us that is indeed exactly how quickly God did it. Dr. Robert Gentry says,

"The half life of polonium 214 is only 164 micro second. According to one theory of the planets, the earth cooled down from a hot gaseous mass, and gradually solidified over a period of hundreds of millions of years. If this were so, polonium halos could not possibly have formed because all the polonium would have decayed soon after it was synthesized, and would have been extinct when the crustal rocks formed. Unless the creation of the radioactivity and the rocks were simultaneous and instantaneous, there would be no picture, no variant preocloic halos. Further by the virtue of the very short half life, the radioactivity and the formation of the rocks must be almost instantaneous."
The halos are testimonies of God�s creation in the rocks. Even in their prejudice, unbelieving scientists are without excuse.

Bible believers have the ultimate information, though. We have the Word of Someone Who was there in the beginning. As Ken Hamm says, "God knows everything about everything and was there and gave us His eyewitness account." His Word is accurate history. God says He created heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them (including angels, demons, dinosaurs, fish and people) in six twenty-four hour days. One can determine from the genealogies that God created all this about six thousand years ago.

.....and what's with all these people who think the world is round?

Are you refering to the prophets who wrote the Bible tousands of years ago? They are all alive forever more.

So in the last 6,000 years:

An Ice Age came and went several times

The central USA has been flooded by the ocean several times and several generations of the Rockies and the Appalachians have rose and disappeared somehow quickly

Yellowstone has had at least 3 super-eruptions
Toba had even bigger eruption

An even more massive MEGA eruption covered Siberia in 10,000 cubic miles of lava

A 1-mile wide meteor hit Manson, Iowa, excavating a 30 mile-wide crater
An even bigger meteor hit the Yucatan Peninsula
An even BIGGER meteor hit Sudbury, Ontario

South America has moved over 1/2 mile a year away from Africa generating massive earthquakes and tsunamis every week

I wonder why we are still here?

You make some straw men there and then ask a question.

For the fun of it I will give you some facts. In the last 6,000 years there have been creation, entropy introduced, and a World Wide Flood brought on by extreme vocanism and water erupting from under the ground; which predicts one ice age. The other events happened in conjunction with the World Wide Flood. Evoluton cannot explain even one of the ice ages they want to belive in.

By the way you missed the meteorite that hit in what is now Rissia.

If "several generation of Rockies and the Appalachieans have rose and disappeared" why are there fossils in them? After all, Ph.D. level geologists know the continents completely erode in only fourteen million yeas.

The answer to why we are still here is God's Grace.

Copernicus is calling.

Ringman,

Thank you for your courtious, and massive, reply. You obviously expended a good amount of time and thought and I, for one, appreciate it.

There is far too much material to digest quickly, especially since it is getting late.

As an initial impression I think debates are mainly for invigorating audiences and are, with few exceptions, a better way determine the better debater than which side of the debate is true. Since many (most?) audiences have a poor understanding of basic science the debater favoring evolution has to teach them something about the nature of science before beginning to explain complex ideas. There is usually not time for this in a debate format. The creation side has only to do a "Gish Gallop", throwing out dozens of assertions few of which could be refuted in the time allowed.

Of the authors you mention; Morris, Gish and Hamm are familiar and throughly debunked long ago. Kindell is new to me but his arguments are not. I call them vampire arguments; drive a steak through it's heart, sever it's head, stuff it with garlic, bury it at the crossroads and it will rise again with the next full moon. Don't know that I will have time to deal with all of them before this thread fades away but will take a whack at some as time allows.

Walt

wswolf,

You bring up the audience. Forget the audience. The problem is the Ph.D biologist could not rebutt Dr. Kindell. He does have an understanding of science. He is an example of why every year dozens of Ph.D level scientists turn from evolutionism to some form of creation.

I watched a debate with Dr. Kindell in Medford. The opponent pretended to have severe chest pain. An abulance was called. Dr. Kindell answered a few questions from the audience to be polite and then went to the hospital.

His opponent had already left. The ambulance drivers were still there and told Dr. Kindell the guy was faking it and wanted a ride home. They informed him law required they deliver him to the hospitol.

Evolutionism cannot be defended from science. Dr. Kindell was "an ardent evolutionist" as he describes himself. Many years ago he told me, "Christians have two brains. One is lost and the other is out looking for it." But he continued to study science (ten fields). Science convined him he was wrong. He became a creationist. Later he becme a Christian and then a Bible believing creationist. Finally when he could find no scientific reason not to beleive God's Word ment anything other than what It states he became a firm defender of six day creation created by the God of the Bible 6,000 years ago.

Nice dodge. Copernicus deals with the solar system.

Now look up Hubble's discovery from the 1920's. Then check it again in the 1970's and then again in the 1990's. But then that would require you to beleive in what astronomical science displays for any Ph.D astronomer to see for himself and recorded.

Hubble called his discovery quantized red shifts. He said it appeared there is a spere of galaxies about a million light years plus or minus out from the Milky Way. Another million light years plus or minus and another sphere of galaxies, etc, etc. Sorta like a BB inside a pea and the pea inside a marble and the marble inside a pingpong ball and the pingpong ball inside a golf ball and so on and on and on and on.

There are random galaxies between these quantized groupings.

Copernicus showed that the earth is the center of the earth and nothing more. Galileo was put on the rack for thinking similarly and then uttered "And yet it moves" after being released.

I know what red shifts are. To use that to put the earth in the center of the universe is sadly lacking in what a red shift means.

Read Stephen Hawking, and Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes or anything else by Stephen Jay Gould.

ironbender,

We use what one evolutionist says to refute an evolutionist we don't care for? Maybe he can explain away all those other scientific observations I wrote about in the essay.

You nailed it.

Did God fake all of the fossil evidence to make the earth look older than it really is?
Did God fake all of the geological evidence to make the earth look older than it really is?
Did God fake all of the other scientific evidence (chemical, biological, etc.) to make the earth look older than it really is?

Literal Creationists see nothing wrong with having a Biblical bias, because they�'know' it�s true; and Mormons see nothing wrong with having a Book of Mormon bias, because they 'know' it�s�true; and Muslims see nothing wrong with having a Qur�an bias, because they 'know' it�s�true, and�Scientologists�see nothing wrong with having a Dianetics�bias, because they 'know' it�s true, and so on.

Scientists are also biased by scientific findings. Scientists�too see nothing wrong with their scientific bias, because they 'know' it�s true. I think the key distinction here is that scientists are letting the evidence lead the story, rather than letting the story lead the evidence. And the evidence suggests that we live in a natural world ruled by natural laws.
That's not to say that a Creator didn't set it all in motion.

Science alters it's views to fit the facts, while others alter the facts to fit their views.