Science Disproves Evolution

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A

Ariel82

Guest
#501
#501
Grey said:
Did you just repost the thing I was quoting as a reply?
Click to expand...
not sure what it has to do with evolution

but the article said that most likely the prophecy was about the mainland city of Tyre and not the island city and had some historical journals that said the mainland city is UNDERWATER.

It makes a distinction between "great Tyre" of the mainland and "little Tyre" on the island.

It says some other things but that was the main point of the article you seemed to miss.

In approximately[SIZE=-1]A.D.[/SIZE] 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels. “Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d.). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre.
From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbour in its midst.... There is no harbour like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city.... In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907, emp. added.).
Click to expand...
Many cities are given the name of an old city, but its not the same as rebuilding that city on the original site which will not happen if it is truly buried under the sea.

there is a difference between the town of York in England and New York state in the US.

We also have many towns with the name Aurora in the US, We have one in North Carolina, Colorado, Alaska, etc. However just because they share a name doesn't mean they are the same town.
 
J

jerusalem

Guest
#502
#502
please.....when dissecting prophecies in scripture don't neglect their dual nature or the use of one name as a replacement name for an entirely different place. it was for lack of understanding the dual nature of prophecies concerning the coming of messiah that many israelites didn't recognize Him at His first arrival. they wanted Him to come as the Lion of Judah but rejected Him when He arrived as the suffering servant. also, commonly understood name changes were used at the time of scripture writing as codes were necessary due to persecution. they haven't been taught in the churches as they should or there wouldn't be so much confusion on the subject
 
G

Grey

Guest
#503
#503
20471-004-0035B65F.jpg

Welcome to Tyre, clearly surrounded by water as evident in this picture.
 
Pahu

Pahu

Senior Member
#504
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
#504

Parallel Strata
​


Earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time (The mechanism involved is explained on pages 186-198 ).


Figure 11: Polystrate Fossil. Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had burial been slow, the tree top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide. (Notice the 1-meter scale bar, equal to 3.28 feet, in the center of the picture.)

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
 
Dude653

Dude653

Senior Member
#505
Mar 19, 2011
12,962
1,146
113
#505
So im watchin this show on national geographic on which they did a study on human behavior and how our social behavior is similar to that of apes, such as the way we take the submissive role when trying to fit in to new group, or how we come together and seek physical contact when afraid. This by no means proves that we evolved from apes. Plenty of animals have similar behavior traits, hwever this does not prove a common ancestor. If anything, it proves a common designer. Maybe humans do share some ape behavior traits, but you aint gonna see me swingin from a tree and throwin poop. Just sayin:)
 
G

Grey

Guest
#506
#506
Pahu said:

Parallel Strata
​


Earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time (The mechanism involved is explained on pages 186-198 ).


Figure 11: Polystrate Fossil. Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had burial been slow, the tree top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide. (Notice the 1-meter scale bar, equal to 3.28 feet, in the center of the picture.)

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Click to expand...
And another copy paste, Polystrate fossils, occuring after periods of rapid deposition caused by volcanic eruptions, floods, mudslides, icesheet movements, and earthquakes. Is this evidence of a universal earth flood? No, why? Because there isn't universal polystrates globally, if you examine the known polystrates differing in site from another polystrate they exist in separate layers. Not evidence for a universal flood -- though perhaps for a local mudslide/flood/volcanic eruption/earthquake at one point in time. The site promotes it as if its a shocking new revelation when in fact geologists knew about them well before even the website was made.

redherring.png
 
G

Grey

Guest
#507
#507
Dude653 said:
So im watchin this show on national geographic on which they did a study on human behavior and how our social behavior is similar to that of apes, such as the way we take the submissive role when trying to fit in to new group, or how we come together and seek physical contact when afraid. This by no means proves that we evolved from apes. Plenty of animals have similar behavior traits, hwever this does not prove a common ancestor. If anything, it proves a common designer. Maybe humans do share some ape behavior traits, but you aint gonna see me swingin from a tree and throwin poop. Just sayin:)
Click to expand...
great, and thats why scientists don't rely on how species act solely to see if they evolved, thats why they use current bone structures, fossils, genetics, and geographic separation.
 
S

Siberian_Khatru

Guest
#508
#508
I think I'm starting to see the correlation!


 
P

Phillipy

Guest
#509
#509
Pahu said:
Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had burial been slow, the tree top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood.
Burial can be as slow as hundreds of years without the wood decaying, there's nothing suspicious about 'polystrate' trees (which is only a creationist term), they don't cross layers of vastly different age.
You yourself presented that floods can float trees that sink upside down producing this effect, so there's really no reason here to think that a *global* flood did it. Many (usually swampy) environments produce petrified wood, the interesting thing to me is the upside down ones- but clearly a global flood isn't necessary to do that if we know local floods can (and perhaps mudslide events).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pahu

Pahu

Senior Member
#510
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
#510
Phillipy said:
Pahu said:
Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had burial been slow, the tree top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood.
Burial can be as slow as hundreds of years without the wood decaying, there's nothing suspicious about 'polystrate' trees (which is only a creationist term), they don't cross layers of vastly different age.
You yourself presented that floods can float trees that sink upside down producing this effect, so there's really no reason here to think that a *global* flood did it. Many (usually swampy) environments produce petrified wood, the interesting thing to me is the upside down ones- but clearly a global flood isn't necessary to do that if we know local floods can (and perhaps mudslide events).
Click to expand...
True, but does that fact rule out a global flood?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
G

Grey

Guest
#511
#511
Pahu said:
Phillipy said:
Pahu said:
Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had burial been slow, the tree top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood.

True, but does that fact rule out a global flood?
Click to expand...
No, but its certainly not evidence that there was one!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Pahu

Pahu

Senior Member
#512
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
#512
Grey said:
Pahu said:
Phillipy said:
No, but its certainly not evidence that there was one!
Click to expand...
Not by itself, but there is evidence for the Flood:

The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under earth’s crust. Standard “textbook” explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined. Entire chapters are devoted to the italicized topics listed below.

  • ​
  • The Grand Canyon (pages 202–235)
  • Mid-Oceanic Ridge
​
Earth’s Major Components
​
Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 150–183)
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
​
Submarine Canyons
​
Coal and Oil
​
Methane Hydrates
​
Ice Age
​
Frozen Mammoths (pages 252–282)
Major Mountain Ranges
​
Overthrusts
​
Volcanoes and Lava
​
Geothermal Heat
​
Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 186–198)
Limestone (pages 244–249)
​
Metamorphic Rock
​
Plateaus
​
The Moho and Black Smokers
​
Salt Domes
​
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
​
Changing Axis Tilt
​
Comets (pages 286–318)
Asteroids and Meteoroids (pages 322–348)
Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 350–395)


​
Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of trillions of hydrogen bombs.[SUP]1[/SUP] The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain to a great extent why the earth looks as it does.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
G

Grey

Guest
#513
#513
Pahu said:
Grey said:
Pahu said:
Not by itself, but there is evidence for the Flood:

The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview

New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under earth’s crust. Standard “textbook” explanations for many of earth’s major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below and briefly described in the next 11 pages, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined. Entire chapters are devoted to the italicized topics listed below.

  • The Grand Canyon (pages 202–235)
  • Mid-Oceanic Ridge
​
Earth’s Major Components
​
Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire (pages 150–183)
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
​
Submarine Canyons
​
Coal and Oil
​
Methane Hydrates
​
Ice Age
​
Frozen Mammoths (pages 252–282)
Major Mountain Ranges
​
Overthrusts
​
Volcanoes and Lava
​
Geothermal Heat
​
Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 186–198)
Limestone (pages 244–249)
​
Metamorphic Rock
​
Plateaus
​
The Moho and Black Smokers
​
Salt Domes
​
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
​
Changing Axis Tilt
​
Comets (pages 286–318)
Asteroids and Meteoroids (pages 322–348)
Earth’s Radioactivity (pages 350–395)


​
Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden, unrepeatable event—a global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of trillions of hydrogen bombs.[SUP]1[/SUP] The hydroplate theory, explained later in this chapter, will resolve all these mysteries.But first, what is a hydroplate? Before the global flood, considerable water was under earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidence—all consistent with the laws of physics—constitute the hydroplate theory and explain to a great extent why the earth looks as it does.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
Click to expand...
And another copy paste, and no, the deeper the water under rock, the more heated it is due to pressure. Thats why there's magma in the core and not water "from the deep".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
G

Grey

Guest
#515
#515
Its ironic to reference spock when a few people on here see the solar system as possibly geocentric, and even a few more see the lunar landing as faked.
 
Pahu

Pahu

Senior Member
#516
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
#516

Fossil Gaps 1
​


If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).

a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.

Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
 
G

Grey

Guest
#517
#517
Pahu said:

Fossil Gaps 1
​


If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).

a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.

Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Click to expand...
And another copy paste! Quite frankly talk to any biologist or paleontologist and ask them if there are gaps. They will say of course there are, why? Because fossilization is an incredibly difficult process to undergo. This is no secret, in fact its discussed in many modern science classrooms. However we do see transitional forms,
Homo habilis - 1.5-2.5 Million Years Ago
Homo rudolfensis - 1.9 Million Years Ago
Homo georgicus - 1.8-1.6 Million Years Ago
Homo ergaster - 1.9-1.25 Million Years Ago
Homo erectus - 2-0.3 Million Years Ago
Homo cepranensis - 0.8 Million Years Ago
Homo antecessor - 0.8-0.35 Million Years Ago
Homo heidelbergensis - 0.6-0.25 Million Years Ago
Homo neanderthalensis - 0.23-0.03 Million Years Ago
Homo rhodesiensis - 0.3-0.12 Million Years Ago
Homo sapiens sapiens - 0.25-0 Million Years Ago
Homo sapiens idaltu - 0.16 Million Years Ago
Homo floresiensis - 0.10-0.012 Million Years Ago
 
Pahu

Pahu

Senior Member
#518
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
#518
Grey said:
And another copy paste!
Click to expand...
Filled with scientific facts!

Quite frankly talk to any biologist or paleontologist and ask them if there are gaps. They will say of course there are, why? Because fossilization is an incredibly difficult process to undergo. This is no secret, in fact its discussed in many modern science classrooms.
Click to expand...
And yet among the millions of fossils that have been collected and classified, there has not been found one transitional form.

However we do see transitional forms,
Homo habilis - 1.5-2.5 Million Years Ago
Homo rudolfensis - 1.9 Million Years Ago
Homo georgicus - 1.8-1.6 Million Years Ago
Homo ergaster - 1.9-1.25 Million Years Ago
Homo erectus - 2-0.3 Million Years Ago
Homo cepranensis - 0.8 Million Years Ago
Homo antecessor - 0.8-0.35 Million Years Ago
Homo heidelbergensis - 0.6-0.25 Million Years Ago
Homo neanderthalensis - 0.23-0.03 Million Years Ago
Homo rhodesiensis - 0.3-0.12 Million Years Ago
Homo sapiens sapiens - 0.25-0 Million Years Ago
Homo sapiens idaltu - 0.16 Million Years Ago
Homo floresiensis - 0.10-0.012 Million Years Ago
Click to expand...
Where is the evidence any of the above evolved into the other? Also, how do you know those dates are accurate? Here is some information you may find interesting:

DATING OF TIME
IN EVOLUTION: 1

​

The 19 dating methods used to establish ancient dates, are not accurate. Here are scientific facts. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENT: Dating of Time in Evolution: 1

The Factor of Time: Evolutionists think it can do magical things
Radiodating: Assumptions and inaccuracies of carbon-14 dating
Rock Strata Dating: An introduction to its flaws (see Fossils and Strata for much more on this)

​
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

THE FACTOR OF TIME

Evolutionary theories cannot do what is claimed for them, even when given long ages in which to do it. Yet, without long ages, evolutionists cannot make their theories plausible.Long ages is not evolution. Whether or not scientific dating methods are accurate has nothing to do with whether evolutionary theories work. However, in this article, we will learn that the time dating methods, which appear to stretch out the past to great lengths, are amazingly unreliable.

Magical time. Time is not a magical substance that can work great wonders. If a cow cannot change itself into a whale today, how could it do it in a thousand years? Yet, as we shall learn in this article, evolution teaches that, if given enough time, a cow (or some other mammal) will eventually swim out into the ocean and become a whale.—pp. 11-12.

More time, less likelihood. Actually, a reputable scientist has deduced that, the longer the amount of time that passes, the less likely it is that the desired evolutionary change could possibly occur!—p. 12.

Real time vs. theory time. As noted in the preceding major article in this Encyclopedia (Age of the Earth), actual human records reveal that past time has been very short.—pp. 12-13.

Flawed time date methods. Did you know that none of the evolutionary dating methods agree with one another! They all give different dates! There are so many false assumptions, errors of various types, and misinterpretations that researchers discard most of the dates and never report on them. Instead, only those dates are used which nicely support evolutionary theories. The laughable part is that the stated ages of the strata were hunched out in the nineteenth century, long before modern dating methods were discovered.—p. 13.

Long ages needed. Evolutionists need long ages in order to pretend that their theories are true. Yet all the non-historical dating methods are unreliable. In contrast, as shown in Age of the Earth, the evidence points toward the origin of our world being about 6,000 years old, with the universal Flood somewhere around 2348 B.C.—p. 13.

RADIODATING

Major dating methods. There are three primary radioactive dating methods: (1) uranium-thorium-lead dating, (2) rubidium-strontium dating, and (3) potassium-argon dating.In each system, the "parent" element decays to a "daughter" element, and a certain amount of time is supposed to elapse throughout the decay process.—pp. 13-14.

Six initial assumptions. Each of these dating methods can only be accurate if each of the following assumptions always apply:1: Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products during the process. When something is in the ground for a long period of time, how can anyone be certain that this is true?2: Each system must initially contain none of the daughter products. But, of course, no one was back there then to know that.3: The decay rate must never change. Who was standing there all those years with a time clock in his hand?4: There can be no variation in decay rates. But one researcher has already demonstrated that it actually happens. 5: If any change occurred earlier in certain atmospheric conditions, this could profoundly affect radioactivity. There are reasons to believe this has happened.6: Any change in the Van Allen radiation belt would greatly affect the rates, and that could also have occurred.—pp. 14-15.

Five radiometric dating inaccuracies. Here are several reasons why uranium and thorium dating methods cannot be relied on. Each of these five problems is very, very likely to have occurred over past time, thus devastating the value of the computed dates:(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the parent substance. (2) Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leaked out. (3) Inaccurate lead ratio computations may have been worked out in the lab. (4) During the decay process, neutron capture (from a radiogenic lead) may have contaminated the results. (5) Clock settings would initially be greatly varied, if the substances originally were (as evolutionists claim) derived from molten materials.—pp. 17-19.

Thorium-lead dating. The same flaws with uranium are applicable to thorium. In addition, contamination factors, common to both, may trigger different results in thorium than in uranium. A powerful evidence that these dates are useless is the fact that uranium and thorium dates always widely disagree with one another.—p. 19.

Lead 210 and helium dating. These are two other dating methods. Lead 210 can leak or be contaminated by entry of other leads. Helium, being a gas, leaks so radically that it is also useless for dating purposes.—p. 19.

Rubidium-strontium dating. This is a widely used dating method at the present time. But, in addition to all the other problems mentioned earlier,—the experts have been unable to decide on the half-life of rubidium! This is like saying we will use a certain wall clock to figure time with, while having no idea what each "hour" that passes on that clock equals: five minutes or two days. To add to the problem, strontium 87 is easily leached away, thus ruining the computation.—p. 19.

Potassium-argon dating. Since potassium is found in fossil-bearing strata, this is a favorite method. But the experts cannot agree on the half-life of potassium, and argon is a rare gas that quickly escapes from the rock into the atmosphere. In addition, potassium can easily be leaked. Finally, the notoriously defective methods used for uranium dating must be used to figure potassium-argon dates.Yet, in spite of these mammoth defects, potassium is the most common method of dating fossil-bearing rocks. As with the other dating methods, its results are reported only in those instances in which they seem close enough to the nineteenth-century strata dating theory.—pp. 19, 21.

Problems with all radiodating methods. Here is a remarkable example of what we are talking about: All the dating methods were applied to the moon rocks. The result: dates varying from 2 million to 28 billion years! Yet, as we found in Age of the Earth, non-radiogenic dating methods show the moon to be only a few thousand years old.—p. 22.

Emery's research. *G.T. Emery discovered that long half-life radioactive elements (the kind discussed in this present article) do not have consistent half-lives! This would be like having a clock, with one "sixty minutes" actually eight minutes long, with another two days in duration.In spite of these facts, evolutionists, in desperation, continue to hang their theories on cobwebs.—pp. 22-23.

Just one catastrophe. *F.B. Jeaneman noted that just one catastrophe, such as a worldwide flood, would throw all the dating clocks off. Immense contamination of all radioactive sources would occur; there would be major shifting of rock pressure and reversals in earth's magnetic core.—p. 23.

Five ways to change the rates. All aside from contamination and other problems, everything hinges on unchanging decay rates. But *H.C. Dudley noted five ways they could change. Dudley actually changed the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, and stress in molecular layers. He also cited research by Westinghouse laboratories which changed the rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.—p. 23.

ROCK STRATA DATING

Strata and fossil dating. An in-depth analysis of fossil and strata dating will be presented inFossils and Strata. But, right here, we will note the relationship of radioactive dating to fossils and strata—and find there is no relationship!Fossil and sedimentary strata dating were imaginatively invented in the nineteenth century and are totally useless. Radioactive dating of fossils and strata are also useless. Consider this:

Only three usable test results. It is impossible to date fossils or strata by radioactive dating. In fact, only three test dates have ever been accepted! All the others vary so wildly that they have been thrown out. Tens of thousands of tests, costing millions of dollars in salaries and lab time, have been discarded because they have been found to be useless.Random guesses, unproven possibilities, and confused data; that is the story of fossil and strata dating.—pp. 23-25.

Astounding discrepancies. Of the 1,400 radioisotopes known to exist, only 75 have half-lives longer than 700 years. In 1978, John Woodmorappe carried out exhaustive research to ascertain the dates given to materials in the 11 major strata levels. In each case, he found variations in the millions or billions of years! The dates just do not agree with one another.—p. 25.

DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION - 1
 
Last edited:
G

Grey

Guest
#519
#519
Pahu said:
Filled with scientific facts!



And yet among the millions of fossils that have been collected and classified, there has not been found one transitional form.



Where is the evidence any of the above evolved into the other? Also, how do you know those dates are accurate? Here is some information you may find interesting:

DATING OF TIME
IN EVOLUTION: 1

​

The 19 dating methods used to establish ancient dates, are not accurate. Here are scientific facts. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENT: Dating of Time in Evolution: 1

The Factor of Time: Evolutionists think it can do magical things
Radiodating: Assumptions and inaccuracies of carbon-14 dating
Rock Strata Dating: An introduction to its flaws (see Fossils and Strata for much more on this)

​
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

THE FACTOR OF TIME

Evolutionary theories cannot do what is claimed for them, even when given long ages in which to do it. Yet, without long ages, evolutionists cannot make their theories plausible.Long ages is not evolution. Whether or not scientific dating methods are accurate has nothing to do with whether evolutionary theories work. However, in this article, we will learn that the time dating methods, which appear to stretch out the past to great lengths, are amazingly unreliable.

Magical time. Time is not a magical substance that can work great wonders. If a cow cannot change itself into a whale today, how could it do it in a thousand years? Yet, as we shall learn in this article, evolution teaches that, if given enough time, a cow (or some other mammal) will eventually swim out into the ocean and become a whale.—pp. 11-12.

More time, less likelihood. Actually, a reputable scientist has deduced that, the longer the amount of time that passes, the less likely it is that the desired evolutionary change could possibly occur!—p. 12.

Real time vs. theory time. As noted in the preceding major article in this Encyclopedia (Age of the Earth), actual human records reveal that past time has been very short.—pp. 12-13.

Flawed time date methods. Did you know that none of the evolutionary dating methods agree with one another! They all give different dates! There are so many false assumptions, errors of various types, and misinterpretations that researchers discard most of the dates and never report on them. Instead, only those dates are used which nicely support evolutionary theories. The laughable part is that the stated ages of the strata were hunched out in the nineteenth century, long before modern dating methods were discovered.—p. 13.

Long ages needed. Evolutionists need long ages in order to pretend that their theories are true. Yet all the non-historical dating methods are unreliable. In contrast, as shown in Age of the Earth, the evidence points toward the origin of our world being about 6,000 years old, with the universal Flood somewhere around 2348 B.C.—p. 13.

RADIODATING

Major dating methods. There are three primary radioactive dating methods: (1) uranium-thorium-lead dating, (2) rubidium-strontium dating, and (3) potassium-argon dating.In each system, the "parent" element decays to a "daughter" element, and a certain amount of time is supposed to elapse throughout the decay process.—pp. 13-14.

Six initial assumptions. Each of these dating methods can only be accurate if each of the following assumptions always apply:1: Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products during the process. When something is in the ground for a long period of time, how can anyone be certain that this is true?2: Each system must initially contain none of the daughter products. But, of course, no one was back there then to know that.3: The decay rate must never change. Who was standing there all those years with a time clock in his hand?4: There can be no variation in decay rates. But one researcher has already demonstrated that it actually happens. 5: If any change occurred earlier in certain atmospheric conditions, this could profoundly affect radioactivity. There are reasons to believe this has happened.6: Any change in the Van Allen radiation belt would greatly affect the rates, and that could also have occurred.—pp. 14-15.

Five radiometric dating inaccuracies. Here are several reasons why uranium and thorium dating methods cannot be relied on. Each of these five problems is very, very likely to have occurred over past time, thus devastating the value of the computed dates:(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the parent substance. (2) Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leaked out. (3) Inaccurate lead ratio computations may have been worked out in the lab. (4) During the decay process, neutron capture (from a radiogenic lead) may have contaminated the results. (5) Clock settings would initially be greatly varied, if the substances originally were (as evolutionists claim) derived from molten materials.—pp. 17-19.

Thorium-lead dating. The same flaws with uranium are applicable to thorium. In addition, contamination factors, common to both, may trigger different results in thorium than in uranium. A powerful evidence that these dates are useless is the fact that uranium and thorium dates always widely disagree with one another.—p. 19.

Lead 210 and helium dating. These are two other dating methods. Lead 210 can leak or be contaminated by entry of other leads. Helium, being a gas, leaks so radically that it is also useless for dating purposes.—p. 19.

Rubidium-strontium dating. This is a widely used dating method at the present time. But, in addition to all the other problems mentioned earlier,—the experts have been unable to decide on the half-life of rubidium! This is like saying we will use a certain wall clock to figure time with, while having no idea what each "hour" that passes on that clock equals: five minutes or two days. To add to the problem, strontium 87 is easily leached away, thus ruining the computation.—p. 19.

Potassium-argon dating. Since potassium is found in fossil-bearing strata, this is a favorite method. But the experts cannot agree on the half-life of potassium, and argon is a rare gas that quickly escapes from the rock into the atmosphere. In addition, potassium can easily be leaked. Finally, the notoriously defective methods used for uranium dating must be used to figure potassium-argon dates.Yet, in spite of these mammoth defects, potassium is the most common method of dating fossil-bearing rocks. As with the other dating methods, its results are reported only in those instances in which they seem close enough to the nineteenth-century strata dating theory.—pp. 19, 21.

Problems with all radiodating methods. Here is a remarkable example of what we are talking about: All the dating methods were applied to the moon rocks. The result: dates varying from 2 million to 28 billion years! Yet, as we found in Age of the Earth, non-radiogenic dating methods show the moon to be only a few thousand years old.—p. 22.

Emery's research. *G.T. Emery discovered that long half-life radioactive elements (the kind discussed in this present article) do not have consistent half-lives! This would be like having a clock, with one "sixty minutes" actually eight minutes long, with another two days in duration.In spite of these facts, evolutionists, in desperation, continue to hang their theories on cobwebs.—pp. 22-23.

Just one catastrophe. *F.B. Jeaneman noted that just one catastrophe, such as a worldwide flood, would throw all the dating clocks off. Immense contamination of all radioactive sources would occur; there would be major shifting of rock pressure and reversals in earth's magnetic core.—p. 23.

Five ways to change the rates. All aside from contamination and other problems, everything hinges on unchanging decay rates. But *H.C. Dudley noted five ways they could change. Dudley actually changed the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, and stress in molecular layers. He also cited research by Westinghouse laboratories which changed the rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.—p. 23.

ROCK STRATA DATING

Strata and fossil dating. An in-depth analysis of fossil and strata dating will be presented inFossils and Strata. But, right here, we will note the relationship of radioactive dating to fossils and strata—and find there is no relationship!Fossil and sedimentary strata dating were imaginatively invented in the nineteenth century and are totally useless. Radioactive dating of fossils and strata are also useless. Consider this:

Only three usable test results. It is impossible to date fossils or strata by radioactive dating. In fact, only three test dates have ever been accepted! All the others vary so wildly that they have been thrown out. Tens of thousands of tests, costing millions of dollars in salaries and lab time, have been discarded because they have been found to be useless.Random guesses, unproven possibilities, and confused data; that is the story of fossil and strata dating.—pp. 23-25.

Astounding discrepancies. Of the 1,400 radioisotopes known to exist, only 75 have half-lives longer than 700 years. In 1978, John Woodmorappe carried out exhaustive research to ascertain the dates given to materials in the 11 major strata levels. In each case, he found variations in the millions or billions of years! The dates just do not agree with one another.—p. 25.

DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION - 1
Click to expand...
How do you define science? Also how do you define facts? You may wish to consult a dictionary.

Oh I see, you haven't found transitional forms? Perhaps you should look harder.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidence for evolution of the listed species? Take your pick, genetic or fossil record and bone similarities?

Ah a dating argument, how original! Sadly your copy paste is incorrect when it says there are three methods rather there are 5 each have their own limitations known by scientists, which when measured properly converge on one another.

uranium 238-lead 206, uranium 235-lead 207, thorium 232-lead 208, rubidium 87-strontium 87, and potassium 40-argon 40

Try and formulate your own arguments rather than just puppeting those of pseudo-science creationist websites.
 
Pahu

Pahu

Senior Member
#520
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
#520
Grey said:
Evidence for evolution of the listed species? Take your pick, genetic or fossil record and bone similarities?
Click to expand...
We have already found the fossil record to lack evidence. We can deal with genetic "evidence" later if you wish. Let us focus on similarities:

SIMILARITIES

​

"All animals have legs, therefore all animals descended from a common ancestor."—That is the evolutionary theory of similarities. Yet, as we carefully examine the evidence, we find this idea is not scientifically sound. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.

CONTENTS: Similarities

Similar and Different Structures: Not only alike but different
Convergence: Similarities are supposed to prove evolution
Divergence: Differences are supposed to prove it also
Mimicry: Brainless creatures smart enough to change their physical structure Pentadactyl Limb: The classic "five bone" proof
Gene Barrier: But do not forget the hereditary barrier

​
Related Articles

SCIENTISTS SPEAK about Similarities: Scientists explain that similarities in different animals do not imply common ancestry
CHROMOSOME Comparisons: Chromosomes and DNA ought to directly tell us which species are related to which

​
Page numbers without book references refer to the book, SIMILARITIES, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

Evolutionists carry on an ongoing desperate search for evidences supporting evolution. But their problem is that they really cannot find any! The theory of "similarities" is one of their attempts to find evidence where there is no evidence.Similarities is one of three strange "evidences" of evolution: The other two are vestiges, and recapitulation. The first is empty, the second is ridiculous, and the third a hoax. Let us first turn our attention to similarities.

SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT STRUCTURES

Similar structures. Evolutionists try to find likenesses between various types of creatures. Those similarities are then used as "evidence" that one creature evolved from another or that both evolved from a common ancestor.For example, both you and the spider have legs, therefore either you descended from the spider or from some other creature which the spider also evolved from or there is the possibility the spider descended from you.Yes, there are similarities. But, because of the DNA code, evolution cannot happen. That code is a barrier stopping one species from changing into another. So similarities can only point to the fact that each species was made by a single Master Designer who had immense intelligence, power, and ability. Similarities also reveal that the Designer used the best method for making many different creatures. For example, regarding those legs: It works far better for living creatures on land to walk and run rather than to crawl or roll over and over. So most land creatures have legs of one type or another.Yet the mechanics of making legs is quite complicated; no creature could make his own, but that is where the evolutionists say they originated.It is simplistic to suggest that legs prove evolution, when we all know that the extremely complicated DNA coding for each true species is quite different. Evolution teaches the nonsensical idea that, because a creature needed legs, therefore it grew them! Yet such a concept violates a number of solid biological facts.—pp. 11, 13.

Different structures. Animals not only have similar structures, they have different ones also. Considering these differences, the idea of common ancestry fades out. Yes, a man, a bunny rabbit, and a spider have legs,—but the legs surely are different from one another! And everything else about them is different also.—p. 13.

Similar factors which could not be related. The octopus has an eye quite similar to man's. Yet we are not even slightly related!The bubonic plague only attacks Norway rats and humans, but that does not mean we are descended from rats.In proportion to the body, the weight of a dwarf monkey is greater than that of a human—but that does not mean the dwarf monkey is descended from us.Studying Cytochrome C (an amino acid sequence), it was found that turtles are more like people than like rattlesnakes. Are we then closely related to turtles? Of course not. Similarities only reveal that we all have the same Originator.Then there is convergence and divergence. Evolutionists claim that both prove evolution—yet they are the opposite of one another!—pp. 13-14.

CONVERGENCE

"Convergence," as a supposed "evidence" of evolution, is said to occur when different creatures have similar organs. For example, the eye of the human and the eye of the octopus.But convergence actually disproves evolutionary theory, for it reveals that a Master Planner made both us and the octopus. We both are very similar in one little respect (our complex eyes), but very different every other way.—p. 14.

DIVERGENCE

Then there is "divergence." Divergence is said to occur when there are very different (diverse) features—in plants or animals which ought to be "closely related." Evolutionists call this "divergent evolution," yet it obviously disproves evolution!There are creatures which look alike in many ways, yet have certain organs which are remarkably different. For example, consider the shrimps. Some have compound eyes which are structured totally different from one another! There is a shrimp with "lens cylinders"; each of the cylinders bends the light smoothly to focus on a single point. Another shrimp has a "mirror system" within its eyes!How did the shrimp figure that out?—pp. 14-15.It is an intriguing fact that evolutionists will attempt to use facts on all sides of an issue to prove their theory. Convergence and divergence is an example.

MIMICRY

Mimicry is the name given to the theory that one almost-mindless creature had been carefully watching others for a time—and then decided to change its body to look like theirs! Of course, this is utterly ridiculous, yet you have heard and read it repeatedly in scientific literature.For example, the Monarch butterfly tastes terrible because its body cells contain poisonous milkweed juice (absorbed while it ate those leaves as a caterpillar). So the evolutionists tell us that the Viceroy butterfly got to thinking one day: "If I change my colors to closely match those of the Monarch, enemies will leave me alone also." That sounds like a fairy tale; that IS a fairy tale! Yet it is the evolutionary concept of "mimicry."There is no doubt that intelligent planning is responsible for these fantastic copycat arrangements. Someone thought it through, but it was not the butterfly!For example, there are insects which look exactly like leaves and moths which have all the sprinkled markings of certain tree bark. Then there are the bottom-dwelling fish which change colors to exactly match the grain and color of the sand they are resting on!Butterflies, insects, and fish did not devise such miracles. God did it.—p. 15.

PENTADACTYL LIMB

This is the similarity most frequently pointed to by evolutionists as the outstanding example of similarities. They have given to it the awesome name, "pentadactyl limb." Surely, with a name like that, it must be scientific. ("Penta" means five, and "dactyl" means finger.)This is said to be the "five-boned" arm and leg found on all land vertebrates. (They calculate it as one bone each; in the arm, wrist, and hand, and two in the lower arm.) In reality, there are many, many bones in the wrist and hand, but we are supposed to ignore that in making this comparison.Why would all vertebrate arms and legs have those five principle divisions? The answer is obvious: It is a design factor, enabling arms and legs to have the widest possible useful movement.What then does this prove? It proves that a single Master Designer, God, made arms and legs. It surely does not prove that the creatures made themselves, copied one another, or that, because mice have the "five bones" in their arms and hands, we descended from them.—pp. 17, 19.

THE GENE BARRIER

In spite of efforts to use surface similarities in features to prove that one species came from another, the truth is that the DNA code in our genes forbids the possibility that any true species could come from any other one!Many more examples could be cited to show that apparent similarities point, not to evolution, but to a single Master Draftsman / Mechanic who made us.—p. 21.

SIMILARITIES
 
You must log in or register to reply here.