Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 26 June 2017, 18:25:40 PM *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 ... 133 134 [135] 136 137 ... 140
  Print  
Author Topic: Science Disproves Evolution  (Read 384593 times)
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1014


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: 1146



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: 1014


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: 1146



View Profile
« Reply #2013 on: 27 April 2017, 2:06:44 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: 27 April 2017, 2:10:05 AM by Pahu » Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1146



View Profile
« Reply #2014 on: 27 April 2017, 2:11:26 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: 1146



View Profile
« Reply #2015 on: 27 April 2017, 2:13:23 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: 1014


View Profile
« Reply #2016 on: 27 April 2017, 4:29:44 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
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1146



View Profile
« Reply #2017 on: 05 May 2017, 2:20:44 AM »

Rapid Burial


Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish (a), show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions (b) that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas (c). These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments that formed today’s rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood.  The fossil record is not evidence of slow change (d).


Figure 7: Fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. The fossilization process must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found.


Figure 8: Fish in Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.


Figure 9: Fish in Curved Fish. The curved back shows that this fish died under stress.


Figure 10: Dragonfly Wing. This delicate, 1 1/2-foot-long wing must have been buried rapidly and evenly to preserve its details. Imagine the size of the entire dragonfly!

a. Thousands of jellyfish, many bigger than a dinner plate, are found in at least seven different horizons of coarse-grained, abrasive sandstone in Wisconsin. [See James W. Hagadorn et al., “Stranded on a Late Cambrian Shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin,” Geology, Vol. 30, No. 2, February 2002, pp. 147–150.]

Coarse grains slowly covering a jellyfish would allow atmospheric oxygen to migrate in and produce rapid decay. Burial in clay or mud would better shield an organism from decay. If coarse-grain sand buried these jellyfish in a storm, turbulence and abrasion by the sand grains would tear and destroy the jellyfish. To understand how thousands of jellyfish were gently collected and preserved in coarse-grained sand, see pages [195-212].
    
Charles Darwin recognized the problem of finding fossilized soft-bodied organisms such as jellyfish.  He wrote:

“No organism wholly soft can be preserved.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 330.

Once again, a prediction of evolution is seen to be wrong.

Preston Cloud and Martin F. Glaessner, “The Ediacarian Period and System: Metazoa Inherit the Earth,” Science, Vol. 217, 27 August 1982, pp. 783–792. [See also the cover of that issue.]

Martin F. Glaessner, “Pre-Cambrian Animals,” Scientific American, Vol. 204, March 1961, pp. 72–78.

b. Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.

“...preconditions for the preservation of soft-bodied faunas: rapid burial of fossils in undisturbed sediment; deposition in an environment free from the usual agents of immediate destruction—primarily oxygen and other promoters of decay, and the full range of organisms, from bacteria to large scavengers, that quickly reduce most carcasses to oblivion in nearly all earthly environments; and minimal disruption by the later ravages of heat, pressure, fracturing, and erosion....But the very conditions that promote preservation also decree that few organisms, if any, make their natural homes in such places.” Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1989), pp. 61–62.

c. Presse Grayloise, “Very Like a Whale,” The Illustrated London News, 1856, p. 116.

Sunderland, pp. 111–114.

David Starr Jordan, “A Miocene Catastrophe,” Natural History, Vol. 20, January–February 1920, pp. 18–22.

Hugh Miller, The Old Red Sandstone, or New Walks in an Old Field (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1858), pp. 221–225.

d. Harold G. Coffin, Origin By Design (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1983), pp. 30–40.

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

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1014


View Profile
« Reply #2018 on: 05 May 2017, 18:53:24 PM »

Creationists hold that the universe is a few thousand years old. Scientific evidence including but not limited to radioisotope dating, shows that it is billions of years old. Unless and until the creationists can demonstrate a process where the decay rate of radioisotopes can be accelerated  millions of times by external means, all their explanations are nonsense..
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1146



View Profile
« Reply #2019 on: 05 May 2017, 22:07:02 PM »

Creationists hold that the universe is a few thousand years old. Scientific evidence including but not limited to radioisotope dating, shows that it is billions of years old. Unless and until the creationists can demonstrate a process where the decay rate of radioisotopes can be accelerated  millions of times by external means, all their explanations are nonsense..


Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted?

For decades creation scientists have shown that the answer to this question is a clear NO! Its results have been shown to be inconsistent, discordant, unreliable, and frequently bizarre in any model. Creationists have, in particular, pointed out the weak assumptions on which the method is based, and the contradictory nature of its results. A research consortium has recently convened at ICR to go further and develop a workable understanding of the radioisotope decay data from a young-earth perspective. The old-earth model doesn't work, and a better model must replace it.

However, as we look forward to a better alternative, it would behoove us to look back and restate the powerful tried and true arguments relating to the erroneous assumptions and contradictory results.

Assumption One: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past. We know that some elements decay over time into another element, i.e., uranium (parent) changes into lead (daughter). Since these decay rates are now very stable, this has seemed to be a reasonable assumption. However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated.

For example, the existence of short half-life polonium halos in rock have been used by many to argue for rapid formation (i.e., creation) of host rocks. Even evolutionists admit that the halos are a mystery. Yet nearby a full uranium halo might be found which would take a long period of time to form. These two 'mutually-exclusive' facts convince one that something has been overlooked.

Assumption Two: No parent or daughter material has been added to or taken from the specimen. We know of many ways in which the materials can be made mobile, most particularly through ground water leaching. But even when questionable specimens are rejected, many results are still unusable, and explained away by contamination.

Furthermore, since the dynamic Flood of Noah's day covered the entire globe, what rock could have escaped its effects?

Assumption Three: No daughter material was present at the start. Only rocks and minerals which formerly were in a hot molten condition (like lava) can be dated. But what if the original melt already had some radiogenic lead? The resulting rock would inherit a deceivingly "old" date. In recent years, the "isochron" method has been derived to differentiate between inherited material and true daughter material. Unfortunately, even this has now come into disfavor. Many "pseudo-isochrons" have now been published which yield bizarre, useless dates.

This assumption actually denies the possibility of creation, for God may have created an array of radioisotopes which, if analyzed with false assumptions, could be misinterpreted as age.

The method's unreliability is shown when rocks of known age are dated. For instance, the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens dates at 2.8 million years old! Such anomalous results are common.

http://www.icr.org/article/1169
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1014


View Profile
« Reply #2020 on: 07 May 2017, 2:53:49 AM »

The whole creationist argument is summed up in this phrase
Quote
[  God may have created an array of radioisotopes which, if analyzed with false assumptions, could be misinterpreted as age.
  /quote]

Why go to all the trouble of trying to discredit isotopic dating when you can simply say that?
Stick to your interpretation of the Bible, and do not try to do science.
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1146



View Profile
« Reply #2021 on: 11 May 2017, 2:46:04 AM »

Parallel Strata


The 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  178-189 ).


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]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1014


View Profile
« Reply #2022 on: 11 May 2017, 23:45:34 PM »

Quote
Parallel Strata

It would seem that when God was planting the false evidence He got some of it wrong.
As He is infallible, how can that be?
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1146



View Profile
« Reply #2023 on: 12 May 2017, 1:02:09 AM »

Quote
Parallel Strata

It would seem that when God was planting the false evidence He got some of it wrong.
As He is infallible, how can that be?

What false evidence?
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1014


View Profile
« Reply #2024 on: 12 May 2017, 15:55:56 PM »

You have just posted evidence of parallel strata which you claim were put there by God to fool the profane into thinking that the earth was very old.
Unfortunately He let a tree grow through it. Bad mistake.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 133 134 [135] 136 137 ... 140
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines