Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 27 April 2017, 11:17:01 AM *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 ... 133 134 [135]
  Print  
Author Topic: Science Disproves Evolution  (Read 373565 times)
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 969


View Profile
« Reply #2010 on: 20 April 2017, 0:43:29 AM »

So what?
There is other overwhelming evidence which supports the reality of evolution.

When are we going to see peer reviewed experiments demonstrating that the rate of decay of radioisotopes can be accelerated thousands of times by external means?
Where did the women in the land of Nod, who provided a bride for Cain come from?
Logged


Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1116



View Profile
« Reply #2011 on: 20 April 2017, 2:20:35 AM »

So what?
There is other overwhelming evidence which supports the reality of evolution.


The disciplines of science disprove evolution. For example:

Secular scientists—those who discount miracles and Genesis history—constantly reiterate that science proves millions and billions of years. But those who make this assertion either ignore or have never heard contrary evidence or the faulty assumptions that should give open-minded researchers reason to pause.



Sun Paradox Challenges Old Earth Theory

Scientists previously uncovered fossil algae in Archean rocks—evidence of life in a period that evolutionists date from 3.0 to 3.5 billion years ago.1 At that supposed time, the sun would have been 70 percent less luminous compared to today, making Earth's surface icy and uninhabitable.

But if those rocks are truly 3.0 to 3.5 billion years old, the meager solar energy delivered by the younger sun at that time would have prevented algae or any other life form from growing.

Attempting to come up with something to counter the icy-earth scenario, authors publishing in Science postulated that Earth was somehow warmed by high levels of greenhouse gases to compensate for the great lack of solar radiation.1 To investigate this possibility, the team sampled quartz veins from Archean rocks of the Dresser and Apex formations in Western Australia that were thought to be nearly 3.5 billion years old.

These quartz veins were formed by hydrothermal activity and contain trapped gases and fluids locked in crystals. The study authors assumed the trapped gases represent the ancient atmospheric gas levels.

However, the research results were discouraging, at best.

As researcher Dr. Ray Burgess from the University of Manchester said, "The amount of nitrogen in the [supposed ancient] atmosphere was too low to enhance the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide sufficiently to warm the planet."2 In fact, the study even showed that the so-called ancient atmosphere contained slightly less than today's levels of atmospheric nitrogen, making the "faint young sun paradox" even more perplexing to those committed to a billion-year history.

While the study authors point to a slight chance that the high carbon dioxide (CO2) pressures they found in the gaseous rocks might have helped sufficiently warm the earth, no conclusive research has yet proven this point.2 So, where did the 3.5 billion-year-old algae come from if it grew in a cold era without even the existence of atmosphere-warming gases?3

At the end of the day, when all the high-tech laboratory equipment has completed its tasks, the "faint young sun paradox" remains a "mystery" in the evolutionary time scale. But if these scientists considered that Earth is only thousands of years old—as clearly stated in the Bible—then there would be no need to reconcile old life with an old sun.

Creation scientists do not wrestle with this paradox, because the sun, planets, and Earth are all young and were created whole.4 Solar radiation on Day Four of the creation week, near the beginning of time itself, was not much different from today and perfectly suited for life—an explanation that frees scientists from this unnecessary conundrum.

References

1. Marty, B. et al. 2013. Nitrogen Isotopic Composition and Density of the Archean Atmosphere. Science. 342 (6154): 101-104.
2. Climate puzzle over origins of life on Earth. The University of Manchester press release, October 4, 2013.
3. Thomas, B. Can Solar 'Belch' Theory Solve Sun Paradox? Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org March 21, 2012, accessed October 22, 2013.
4. Lisle, J. The Solar System: The Sun. Acts & Facts. 42 (7): 10-12.

http://www.icr.org/article/7734/393/
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 969


View Profile
« Reply #2012 on: 20 April 2017, 4:12:59 AM »

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418310/a-solution-to-the-faint-young-sun-paradox/
This explains the faint sun paradox

http://www.colorado.edu/today/2013/07/09/cu-study-shows-how-early-earth-kept-warm-enough-support-life
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1116



View Profile
« Reply #2013 on: Today at 02:06:44 AM »

Embryology 2


Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief [of the “biogenetic law”]. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).

b.   Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this “biogenetic law” that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, distorted his data. Thompson explains:

“A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the ‘convergence’ of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof of evolution is valueless.” W. R. Thompson, p. 12.

“To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ‘hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.’” Pitman, p. 120.

A Professor Arnold Bass charged that Haeckel had made changes in pictures of embryos which he [Bass] had drawn. Haeckel’s reply to these charges was that if he is to be accused of falsifying drawings, many other prominent scientists should also be accused of the same thing …”Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 76–77.

M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp. 142–143.

Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27–34.

“...ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species [phylogeny]. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point.” Fix, p. 285.

 “[The German scientist Wilhelm His] accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel’s book].” Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 430.

“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” Michael K. Richardson, as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p. 1435.

“When we compare his[/i] [Haeckel’s] drawings of a young echidna embryo with the original, we find that he removed the limbs (see Fig. 1). This cut was selective, applying only to the young stage. It was also systematic because he did it to other species in the picture. Its intent is to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life.” Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, “A Question of Intent: When Is a ‘Schematic’ Illustration a Fraud?” Nature, Vol. 410, 8 March 2001, p. 144.

c.    “Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.”  Michael K. Richardson et al., “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
« Last Edit: Today at 02:10:05 AM by Pahu » Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1116



View Profile
« Reply #2014 on: Today at 02:11:26 AM »

Embryology 2


Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief [of the “biogenetic law”]. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).

b.   Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this “biogenetic law” that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, distorted his data. Thompson explains:

“A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the ‘convergence’ of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof of evolution is valueless.” W. R. Thompson, p. 12.

“To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ‘hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.’” Pitman, p. 120.

A Professor Arnold Bass charged that Haeckel had made changes in pictures of embryos which he [Bass] had drawn. Haeckel’s reply to these charges was that if he is to be accused of falsifying drawings, many other prominent scientists should also be accused of the same thing …”Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 76–77.

M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp. 142–143.

Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27–34.

“...ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species [phylogeny]. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point.” Fix, p. 285.

 accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel’s book].” Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 430.

“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” Michael K. Richardson, as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p. 1435.

“When we compare his[/i] [Haeckel’s] drawings of a young echidna embryo with the original, we find that he removed the limbs (see Fig. 1). This cut was selective, applying only to the young stage. It was also systematic because he did it to other species in the picture. Its intent is to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life.” Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, “A Question of Intent: When Is a ‘Schematic’ Illustration a Fraud?” Nature, Vol. 410, 8 March 2001, p. 144.

c.    “Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.”  Michael K. Richardson et al., “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

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

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1116



View Profile
« Reply #2015 on: Today at 02:13:23 AM »

Embryology 2


Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief [of the “biogenetic law”]. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).

b.   Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this “biogenetic law” that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, distorted his data. Thompson explains:

“A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the ‘convergence’ of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof of evolution is valueless.” W. R. Thompson, p. 12.

“To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ‘hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.’” Pitman, p. 120.

A Professor Arnold Bass charged that Haeckel had made changes in pictures of embryos which he [Bass] had drawn. Haeckel’s reply to these charges was that if he is to be accused of falsifying drawings, many other prominent scientists should also be accused of the same thing …”Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 76–77.

M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp. 142–143.

Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27–34.

“...ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species [phylogeny]. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point.” Fix, p. 285.

 “[The German scientist Wilhelm His] accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel’s book].” Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 430.

“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” Michael K. Richardson, as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p. 1435.

“When we compare his[/i] [Haeckel’s] drawings of a young echidna embryo with the original, we find that he removed the limbs (see Fig. 1). This cut was selective, applying only to the young stage. It was also systematic because he did it to other species in the picture. Its intent is to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life.” Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, “A Question of Intent: When Is a ‘Schematic’ Illustration a Fraud?” Nature, Vol. 410, 8 March 2001, p. 144.

c.    “Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.”  Michael K. Richardson et al., “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

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

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 969


View Profile
« Reply #2016 on: Today at 04:29:44 AM »

Posting the same thing 3 times does not make it more compelling.

"
Quote
Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings 

So falsifying facts can only be done by creationists?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 133 134 [135]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines