Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[total relism]

Biblical Creation vs Evolution

Threads have been merged so this thread has turned into a general creation vs evolution thread. If you are interested in biblical creation or want to ask any questions or challenge creation feel free to post. For information from the creation perspective see

post 1 and 2- Age of the earth
post 21- common lies evolutionist use in textbooks to indoctrinate us into believing in their faith
post 22- Sources exposing common lies and debates between phd creationist and evolutionist doing the same
post 23- Responds to common "proofs" of evolution such as bacteria resistance, natural selection etc
post 37- Quotes from scientist about evolution you will never see the media report
post 38- why i dont have enough faith to be an evolutionist
post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc
post 40- predictions based on creation
post 41 and 43- the fossil record. Lies evolutionist use to claim missing links and how the fossil record supports creation.



Deep time the Creator God of the Evolutionist

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."
—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

“time is in fact the hero of the plot...given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait time itself performs mircels”
-George Wald “the origins of life” physics and chemistry of life


“Consider (1) Deep Time has characteristics and powers that belong to God alone. In fact, the parallels are truly amazing! For example, Deep Time has the power of creation. According to His followers, he has made stars, planets, and galaxies. He has made canyons, and mountains. Deep Time separated the continents and oceans. He has made all living creatures through his servant – Evolution. Indeed, Deep Time took the elements of this world, and from that dust he made man. These are all powers and actions that are rightly reserved for God alone (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 33:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 1:9-10, Genesis 1:20-25, Genesis 2:7).But it doesn’t end there. Deep Time is also said to have tremendous power to direct the course of events in the universe. Deep Time creates and destroys species and civilizations at a whim. He gives life and takes it away. He continually shapes the earth as he sees fit – changing deserts to lush gardens, and gardens to deserts. Deep Time existed long before man, and will continue long after man, or so we are told. Again, these are characteristics that are rightly attributed only to God (Acts 17:26, Job 42:2, Isaiah 46:10, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Acts 17:25, 1 Timothy 6:13, Job 1:21, Isaiah 51:3, 43:19-20, Genesis 13:10, Deuteronomy 29:23, Genesis 17:1, Deuteronomy 33:27, Isaiah 43:10, Revelation 22:13).But according to his disciples, nothing is too difficult for Deep Time! He is able to do any miracle! Consider this famous quote from Dr. George Wald, “Time is the hero of the plot. … Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs the miracles.” Yes, the gradual evolution of dust into people may seem impossible. But with Deep Time, all things are possible! He is the “hero of the plot!” Compare this with the characteristics associated with the biblical God (Matthew 19:26, Jeremiah 32:17).(2) Disciples of Deep Time worship him with reverence and awe. They may deny this with their words, but their actions indicate that they do cherish this god above all others. This makes sense: if indeed Deep Time does have the powers and abilities that his disciples attribute to him, then he should be worshiped. Such worship takes place in the schools and universities, where Deep Time’s wonderful works are praised all the day long.The worship of Deep Time is found in many a science textbook too. Sandwiched in between the discussions of science will be stories about the amazing feats of Deep Time. A little science here, and an amazing story there. Although Deep Time has nothing to do with science, often the science and the stories are interleaved such that it can be difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends! The mixture makes for an entertaining, though deceptive read.Devotees take their religion very seriously. Deep Time must not be questioned. That would be sacrilege! Those who fail to worship at the altar of Deep Time are ridiculed, and face being expelled from the classroom. Textbooks that fail to acknowledge the supreme lordship of Deep Time are not likely to be used, or even published. Those who wish to work as professors must swear allegiance to Deep Time and His servant Evolution if they want to be hired.Deep Time is not the Living God. Nor is Deep Time an aspect of God, a creation of God, or an ally of God. Deep Time exists only as a concept, created by the mind of men. He has no literal existence. Although his disciples ascribe to him many of the characteristics of the biblical God, it is clear that Deep Time is fundamentally different than the God of the Bible.”
-Jason Lisle Deep time the God of our age




Radiometric Dating

"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages".
-Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating" Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]


What they are measuring is not ages but rather a ratio of a “parent” element to a “daughter” element, that alone cant give you a age. The parent element in the rock decays at a observable rate under normal conditions into its daughter element. Only when the evolutionist adds his assumptions does he believe he can get a “age” from the rock. These unprovabel assumptions are the downfall of radio metric dating as a claim to prove the earth is older than the biblical account. All the assumptions used have been at one time or another have been shown false. In fact evolutionist will claim that past rates such as the mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were different in the past.

Assumptions

1] That each system is a closed system. Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products being measured.
2] Each system most initially have contained no daughter components, which is unprovable.
3] The process rate must always be the same.
Some other assumptions. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet this could greatly effect the clocks in minerals.

Carbon dating assumptions

1] The air around us has for the past several million years, had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.
2] The very large amount of oceanic carbon has remained constant.
3] Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.
4] Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.
5] The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.
6] Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.

“It [c-14 ]is not an infallible technique, and, as any field archaeologist knows, contamination of the sample is always a serious possibility. Trusting the method to produce an “absolute date” for a single artifact was absurd.” -Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (June, 1983), p. 307.

7] No seepage of water or other factor has brought additional carbon 14 to the sample since death occurred.
8] The fraction of carbon 14 which the living thing possessed at death is today known.
9] Nitrogen is the precursor to C=14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant.
10 Earth's magnetic field: Earth's magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today

“A stronger magnetic field is significant because the magnetic field partly shields the earth from the influx of cosmic rays, which change nitrogen atoms into radioactive carbon-14 atoms. So a stronger magnetic field in the past would have reduced the influx of cosmic rays. This in turn would have reduced the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere. If this were the case, the biosphere in the past would have had a lower carbon-14 concentration than it does today...So if you mistakenly assume that the radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere and biosphere have always been the same as they are today, you would erroneously estimate much older dates for early human artifacts, such as post-Babel wooden statuettes in Egypt. And that is exactly what conventional archaeology has done.”
-Dr. Andrew A Snelling Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field


For more on the decay of the magnetic field see here
https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis....etic-Field.pdf

Other Issues

Radiometric dating falls outside of the realm of science since science must be observable. The rocks and their decay from parent to daughter has not been observed through the samples entire supposed millions or billions of years since its formation. Radiometric dating would not work unless the evolutionist already had an earth history time line in place. When you send the sample in they ask you what layer it was found in and with which fossils. Otherwise they would not know what dates are “good” and what are “bad” since variations occur. Any date that returns in contradiction to the fossils and evolutionary time line, is than declared a “bad” date and disregarded as contaminated or some other excuse.

“No evidence contrary to the accepted framework is allowed to remain. Evolution stands, old earth ideas stand,g no matter what the true evidence revels. An individual fact is accepted or rejected as valid evidence according to its fit with evolution...observation plays second fiddle to the assumptions ”
-John Morris The Young Earth

The KBS Tuff is a great example. The KBS Tuff was originally dated 230 million years old. The evolutionist exspalined it away as excessive decay because it did not match with the fossils. Than it was given a new date of 2.6 million years dated by 3 separate methods that all confirmed and was used as a great example of the proof and accuracy of radiometric dating. But than a human fossil was found in the layer and they know redated the layer at 1.8 million years confirmed by radiometric dating yet once more. Another great example is Santo Domingo rock formation in Argentina argon/argon dated at 212 million years. This date agreed with the surrounding ages of rock the fossil wood from a extinct species of tree. However bird tracks were also found but were explained away as some bird type dinosaur and the age for the formation was published in the journal Nature in 2002. Than other evolutionist showed the tracks were from a modern sandpiper [not yet evolved] a small common bird. The rocks were redated to 37 million years old by lead/uranium dating to match the bird tracks. The former dates were explained away as faulting. The fossils decide the age not the radiometric dating. Dates are only accepted if they go along with what evolutionist already claim the age of a layer.

"‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out-of-date,’ we just drop it."
-T. Save-Soderbergh and *Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed. *Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in *Pensee, 3(1): 44].

"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"."
-Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9]


Most samples are only tested by one method, when multiple methods are applied you often get contradictory results. If one matches the predetermined age, it is accepted and the rest are rejected. Radiometric dating would disprove the evolutionary time line of earth history if it were not for evolutionist preconceived ideas about ages and fossils and their willingness to throw out any “date” that does not conform to their beliefs. Worse still, some published and accepted dates are imaginary. Take the example of German anthropologist Reiner Von Zieten who over his 30 year career “systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other “stone age remains.” Some of the fossils he used were fake fossils, others were a few hundred years old that he claimed were as old as Neanderthals. He was unable to use the radiometric dating equipment he claimed he used to date fossils with and was only found out when he tried to sell his universities fossil collection to a U.S Museum. Added that carbon dating and radiometric dating can also be used to show the earth is young.

Some of the results from observable history


“If it doesn't work whenever it can be checked for essentially all recently formed rock date old. How dare we assume this assumption is trustworthy when no checks can be applied”
-John Morris the Young earth

Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4,600 years. -W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)

living mollusks (such as snails) had their shells dated, and were found to have "died" as much as 2,300 years ago.
- M. Keith and *G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634.

Mortar from Oxford Castle in England was dated by radiocarbon as 7,370 years old, yet the castle itself was only built 785 years ago.
-E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.

10 years after the Mount Saint Helen explosion rocks were potassium argon dated at 350,000 years. Different methods gave different results with an average age of 2.8 million.

Mount Ngaruuhoe from 1954 was potassium argon dated at 3.5 million years old. Another sample gave “ages” of .8 million years.

A 1800-1801 Honolulu flow in Hawaii returned ages of 2.6 and 2.96 million years.

1969 lava flows in Africa were rubidium-strontium dated 773 million years old
-k bell and jlpowell 1969 strontium isotopic studies of alkalic rocks the potasium rich lavas of the biruga and toro-ankole regions east and central equatorial africa journal of petrology 10 536-572

Mt Etna was tested 24 years later and dated at .35 million

A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years.
-Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61

Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years
-G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55

Wood was cut out of living, growing trees and tested. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago. - B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)

"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat."
-Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.

"Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."
—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146

Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old.
-Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210

a coal mine in Queensland Australia potassium argon dated at 39-58 million years and carbon dated at 30-45,000 years old.
-See the young earth John Morris

Other dates

"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old -Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499]

In a supposed 20 million year old granite received a uranium thorium lead date 97 million years and a zircon dat of 1,483 million years
- r.r parish 1990 u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems Canadian journal of earth sciences 27 1431-1450

The same sample gave a range of 343 million to 4,493 million
-a.w webb 1985 geochrondogy of the masgrate block minerals resources review south australia 155 23-27

an age of 9.588 billion older than earth was received in an argon sample
-Tim Harrison 1981 excess ar in metamorphic rock broken hill new south wales earth and planetary science letters ss 123-149

Okudaira et al. measured isochron ages of a rock called amphibolite sampled from south-east India. With the rubidium-strontium method they obtained an age of 481 million years but with samarium-neodymium the age was almost double at 824 million years -Okudaira, T., Hamamoto, T., Prasad, B.H. and Kumar, R., Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr dating of amphibolite from the Nellore-Khammam schist belt, S.E. India: constraints on the collision of the Eastern Ghats terrane and Dharwar-Bastarcraton, Geological Magazine 138(4):495–498, 2001; http://geolmag.geoscienceworld.org/c...ract/138/4/495

The same rock in the grand canyon gave dates of 6 million, 17 million and 65 million years. Another rock was dated as 1.5 billion years old and 6,000 years old.
-Institute for creation researcher rate group http://www.icr.org/rate/

the Grand Canyon's Brahma schist rock layer, ranging from 1.2 to 1.8 billion years--a 600-million-year difference
http://www.icr.org/article/radioisot...s-another-dev/

a maximum possible age of 516 million was given to what was a supposed to be 1,100 million rock layer of the grand canyon. Rocks suppose to be 100 million were samarium-neodymium dated at 1.7 billion
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past p809-820 2009

a difference of 1.3 billion came from the same rock sampled in Australia
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past p823 2009

A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years This was a joint event of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) Carbon-14 dated dinosaur bones - under 40,000 years old Carbon-14 dating of bones from 8 dinosaurs -
-August 15, 2012 presentation by Dr. Thomas Seiler at the AOGS-AGU (WPGM) 2012 conference in Singapore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ
http://newgeology.us/BG02-A012%20Abstract.pdf

"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200.
-Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.

uranium thorium lead dated 1,753 million in a sample suppose to be 21 million
-ir parrish and r tirrul 1989 u-po age of the baltoro granite northwest himalayans and implications for monazite u-pb systematicks geology 17 1076-1079

128 ages were recorded anywhere from 161 million years to 514 million
-cs pickles 1997 determination of high spatial resolution argon isotope variations in metamorfic biotipes geochemica et cosmoshimica acta 61 3809-3833
p807

The Rate Group dated zircons that gave ages of 1 billion and 6,000 by two separate methods.
A basalt in the grand canyon gave ages of k-Ar 10,000 1.17 million 3.67 million 2.63 million and 3.6 million and a rb-sr of 1.143 billion
-see John Morris the Young earth p 52

The scientists who did the Rangitoto tests dated 16 volcanoes in all. Eleven of these were able to be compared with carbon-14 dates. In every case the potassium-argon dates were clearly wrong to a huge extent. Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old. Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years
-Ceram, 1971, p.257-259

A survey of the 15,000 radio carbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:
"[a] Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.
"[b] Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as 'infinite.'
"[c] Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.
"[d] Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.
Six C-14 ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the formation of the Bering land bridge. The dates ranged from 4390 to 15,500 B.P. [years Before Present].

"The first problem was that the results were so disarranged from bottom to top of the core that no two samples were in the same order. Then the oldest date was discarded because it was inconsistent with other tests elsewhere.
"Then the remaining dates were assumed to be contaminated by a fixed amount, after which the authors concluded that the delta under study had been formed 12,000 years ago. This is what happens to men who operate without an alternative.
-Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 17.


Wood from Jurassic rocks in the UK, said to be 190 million years old, gave an age of 24,000 years using carbon dating.
-Tas Walker http://creation.com/geological-conflict

an age of 3,500 million was given in what was supposed to be 426 million old rock
-is williams 1992 some observations on the use of zircon u-pb geochronogy in the study of granite rocks transactions of the royal society of edinburgh 447-458

The youngest rocks in grand canyon was dated 1,153 by rubiduim strontium, that is the same age as the oldest rocks in grand canyon 1,111 and 1,060 for the oldest rocks
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past 843 2009

A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
-New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466]

Thirty eight laboratories worldwide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. -Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10]

The data from one of the San Juan Basin dinosaur limb bones showed a range of "ages" from roughly 15 to 85 million years. Some of the calculated "ages," though, lined up with the already assumed age of 64 million years, and these data were hand-picked to represent the "age" of the fossil. Thus, the technique was called "the first successful direct dating of fossil vertebrate bone"—a classic case of circular reasoning. -Fassett, J. E., L. M. Heaman and A. Simonetti. 2011.
Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Geology. 39 (2): 159-162.

fossil wood carbon dated at 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old, the limestone it was in dated at 183 million
-Snelling A geological conflict young radiocarbon age for ancient fossil wood creation 22 [2] 44-47 2000

isochron ages of 481 million and 824 million years same rock
-bkudaira et al sm-nd and rb-sr dating of amphibelite from the nellore-khammam schist belt.se india constraints on the collision of the eastern gnats terrane and dharwar-bastar craton
geological magazine 138 [4] 495-498 2001

"an age of 24,600 BP for a supposed Cretaceous mosasaur humerus bone 70 million years old
-Lindgren, J. et al. 2011. Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins. PLoS ONE. 6 (4): e19445. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0019445

martian rock ALH84001 originally dated at 4.5 billion years old, than re-dated at 400 million by other radiometric dates to fit the new theory.
-Kerr R.A 1996 ancient life on mars? Science 273 864-866 Lapen T J et al 2010 a younger age for ALH8001 and its geochemical link to shergottie sources in mars. Science 328;347-351


Radiometric dating in support of a young earth

That c-14 is still found fossils,diamond and various samples that are claimed to be millions and even billions of years old, indicates itself a young earth.


“Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!”
-Dr Andrew Snelling Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds

Pieces of fossilized wood in Oligocene, Eocene, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian rock layers supposedly 32–250 million years old all contain measurable radiocarbon, equivalent to “ages” of 20,700 to 44,700 years Similarly, carefully sampled pieces of coal from ten U.S. coal beds, ranging from Eocene to Pennsylvanian and supposedly 40–320 million years old, all contained similar radiocarbon levels equivalent to “ages” of 48,000 to 50,000 years. Even fossilized ammonite shells found alongside fossilized wood in a Cretaceous layer, supposedly 112–120 million years old, contained measurable radiocarbon equivalent to “ages” of 36,400 to 48,710 years. Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years.
-A. A. Snelling, “Radiocarbon Ages for Fossil Ammonites and Wood in Cretaceous Strata near Redding, California,” Answers Research Journal 1 (2008): 123–144. R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287 J. R. Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, D. R. Humphreys, and S. A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey Jr. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 127–147. J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630 B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.
10 coal samples from evolutionary dating at 40 million to 350 million years all radiocarbon dated around 50,000
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx


Excessive decay in the past?

“Recent experimental evidences verify that the decay rates of radioisotopes can very significant from the current accepted values- by as much as 1 billion times faster when exposed to certain environmental factors.”
-Dr Cupps PHD Nuclear Physics Clocks and Rocks

Creationist explanation for the old ages is simply that the decay rates have not been constant throughout all of history. That there was a event or multiple events that accelerated the decay rates in the “clocks” of the rocks. In lavatory experiments we have been able to produce billions of years of decay in hours. Decay rates can be changed by a factor of trillions. Polonium halos prove millions of years of radioactive decay in micro seconds hours and days in earth history. One rock dated by the rate group shows that one rock decayed 1.5 billion “years” worth of decay in 6,000 years . argon age of 5 billion years can be obtained in 3 to 10.5 hours. Diamonds have been argon dated 6 billion years older than earth
-s zushu m ozima o nith 1986 k-ar isochron dating of zaire cubic dimonds nature 326 710-712


radiohalos show at least 100 million years of decay in days at most weeks minutes in some cases
heat can produce accelerated decay radioactive decay
p847
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx

many mechanism can cause radioactive decay, decay rates can be changed by a factor of trillions p 848
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx

polonium halos from 3 different layers 35 million to 245 million years old had to form within months of each other
-R.L gentry wh cristie dh smith jf emery sa renalds r walker ss christy radiohalos in colified wood new evidence relating to the time of unranium introduction and colaification science 194 315-318


Fossils and Geological Column Millions of Years old?

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."
—*J.E. O’Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism and Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

“And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we than turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossils record”
-Niles Eldridge the rethinking of Darwinian evolution

“The fossils date the rock, and evolution dates the fossils.... circular reasoning, instead of proceeding from observation to conclusion, the conclusion interprets the observation which “proves” the conclusion...thus the rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks. The unquestioned assumption of evolution provides the context for the entire process”
-John Morris The Young Earth Master Books 2007

Rocks are not dated buy their appearance, as all types are found in all layers. They are not dated by minerals, as minerals of all type can be found through the whole column. They are not dated by location, as rock formation of older ages are found on younger “ages” all the time and more often strata “ages” are missing totally. Only 4% of earth has a total of 10 layers. They are not dated buy dating method. They are dated by the index fossils but these fossils alone cant give you a date, only the preconceived assumptions of evolution can. It is all done with circular reasoning. The rocks date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks. Without index fossils there could be no geological column.

“But wait a minute! We cannot even use 99 percent of the fossils to date them by, since we can find the same type of fossils in one stratum as in many others! And in each stratum are millions of fossils, representing hundreds and even thousands of different species of plant and/or animal life. The result is a bewildering maze of mixed-up or missing strata, each with fossil prints from a wide variety of ancient plants and animals that we can find in still other rock strata.What are these magical fossils that have the power to tell men finding them the DATE—so many millions of years ago—when they lived? These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals
-Vance Terrell Science vs Evolution

“Any rock containing fossils of one type of trilobite (Paradoxides) is called a "Cambrian" rock, thus supposedly dating all the creatures in that rock to a time period 600 million years in the past. But rocks containing another type of trilobite (Bathyurus) are arbitrarily classified as "Ordovician," which is claimed to have spanned 45 million years and begun 480 million years ago The dating of each stratum—and all the fossils in it—is supposedly based on index fossils, when it is actually based on evolutionary speculations, and nothing more. "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."
—-Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 31.

We find living index fossil these are suppose to date certain layers of rock millions of years old, yet there alive today.

“A circular argument arises interpret the fossils record in terms of a particular theory of evolution. Inspect the interpretation and note that it confirms the theory, well, it would, wouldn't it”
-Tom Kemp new scientist a fresh look at the fossil record

"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."
—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.


Is there a geological column?

The geological column is found only one place, in government textbooks. Most all fossil bearing sea creatures are on the continents not in the ocean, fossils today are not forming on continents so the present cannot be the key to the past. Today we do not form vast sedimentary layers spread across continents, marine creatures in vast graveyards. So the present is not key to the past.

“it seems axiomatic that the harder you look at a rock the more incomplete its stenography appears to become”
-torres h.s some personal thought on stratigraphic precision in the 20th century the earth inside and out,some major contributions to geology in the 20th century geological survey London no 192 p251-272 2002

“85% of earths surface does not even have three layers in the right order we are always finding older layers on top of younger layers and all mixed up”
-Holt biology p285 1989

“if the whole column were together it would be 100 miles think”
-Holt biology

“if the layers are different ages why is there no erosion marks between layers”
-Merrill earth science 1993 p114 no evidence of aging

“if there was a column, unfortunately no such column exist”
-hbj earth science 1989 p326

a worldwide study on all strata was done by John Woodrappe's world research project it was published in creation research society quarterly. He found fossils do not tend to overlay one another in successive strata ,instead they tend to be mixed together in successive strata . 1/3 span 3 or more levels. there is not an orderly progression of strata from bottom to top higher strata . Instead they are found here and there in what approximates a chance arrangement such fossils are often clumped at a great horizontal distance from the index fossils they are suppose to overlay. only small % of all localities of any given fossil override or are overlain by any other sigal fossil of another geological period. Thus fossils of different gemological periods invariably tend to shun each other geographically and this in itself may be taken as prima facie evidence that all fossils are ecological and/or biogeographic equivalents of each other- negating all concepts of evolution geologic periods and geologic time.

[total relism]

Evidence for a Young Earth


“When one considers that the most reasonable explanation for the fossils in various rock strata is a sudden catastrophic burial—[along with] the absence of transitional [fossil] forms in the rock strata, the presence of collagen in dinosaur bones supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, and the presence of measurable 14C in that collagen—it becomes very difficult to hold an old-earth view “
-Dr. Cupps earned his Ph.D. in nuclear physics at Indiana University-Bloomington is Research Associate at ICR.


There are about a hundred dating method that show the earth cannot be as old as the evolutionist need it to be. The data are well known in the scientific literature but do not make it to the school classrooms or on CNN. Here are some examples.


Erosion Rates of Continents


“if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
-C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668

The continents would have eroded away over 250 times if they were as old as the evolutionist say. Earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.

-J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264


Using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years”


-S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155


Even using the slowest possible rates of erosion the continents would have eroded in 623 million years. The resulting measured rates [lower than normal ] would give only 9.6 million years until all above sea level continents would be totally eroded. As one evolutionist said

“In geological terms, in other words, there ought to be no land forms or land surfaces of an age greater than 30MYA and certainly no older than the Cenozoic...yet many features that are several tens of millions, or even a few hundreds of millions of years old, remain....since these land forms exists, they must be possible.””
-Twindale CR and Campbell EM Australian Land forms Understandings a low, flat, arid arid or a landscape Rosenberg publishing new south wales Australia 2005


So they must reject observable testable science [erosion rates] to hold on to their belief in millions of years.


Levels of Salt in the Oceans


Giving best possible assumptions and generous calculations to the evolutionist the salt would have accumulated in the oceans in a maximum possible age of 62 million years. Many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans. This has been used as a way to date the earth since 1715 when it was first calculated to be maximum of 80 to 90 million years old. Today every kilogram of sea water contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium, the oceans contain 1,370 million cubic kilometers of water making a total of 14,700 trillion tons of sodium in the oceans. Every year rivers and other sources dump 457 million tons of sodium into the oceans.

-M ,Meybeck, 1979 concentrations des eaux fluvials en majeurs et apports aux oceans, revuede geologie dynamique et de geographie Physique 21 [3] 215-246 F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779


The rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year.


-F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779
S.A Austin and D R Humphreys 1990 the seas missing salt proceedings of the second international conference on creationism vol 2 R E Walsh and C L books,eds Pittsburgh Pa creation science fellowship 17-33


Assuming the oceans originally had no sodium and given the best possible assumptions and rates for evolutionist, than the current sodium would have accumulated in less than 62 million years. Far less than the 3 billion they claim the oceans to be. Also more recent studies show salt is entering much faster than previously thought, showing more groundwater which is higher concentration of salt is being discharged via river flow more than 40% than the previously thought 10%.

-W S Moore 1996 Large groundwater inputs to coastal waters reveled by 226 Ra enrichments Nature, 380 [6575] 612-614 T M church 1996 An underground route for the water cycle Nature 380 [6575] 579-580


Additional calculations for for many seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ocean-says-no/



Galaxies Wind Themselves up too Fast

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.


Ocean Floor Sediments

sediments are being eroded from the continents by a average of 24 billion tons as a low estimate. It is estimated that the ocean floor has a average depth of less than 400 meters.

-WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940

There is only one know way to remove sediments from the ocean floor by subduction, it is estimated that about 1 billion tons per year of sediments are subducted.

-WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940

The other 23 tons accumulate at the ocean bottom, at that rate the sediments would have accumulated in just about 12 million years. According to evolution these processes have been occurring for 3 billion years.


Decay of Earths Magnetic Field

10,000 years ago it would have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle. The strength of the magnetic field has been reliably and continually measured since 1835. From these measurements, we can see that the field's strength has declined by about seven percent since then, giving a half-life of about 1,400 years. This means that in 1,400 years it will be one-half as strong, in 2,800 years it will be one-fourth as strong, and so on. There will be a time not many thousands of years distant when the field will be too small to perform as a viable shield for earth. Calculating back into the past, the present measurements indicate that 1,400 years ago the field was twice as strong. It continues doubling each 1,400 years back, until about 10,000 years ago it would have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle. The inescapable conclusion we can draw is that the earth must be fewer than 10,000 years old. Compare this "clock" with others used to estimate earth's age. This method utilizes a long period of measurement, amounting to over one-tenth of a half-life, whereas radioisotope decay has been accurately measured for only about 100 years, while its half-lives are typically measured in the billions. The short half-life should be favored by uniformitarians for it minimizes the chances that something dramatic has happened to change things, since longer spans are more susceptible to out-of-the-ordinary events. Magnetic field decay also involves a whole earth measurement, and on this large scale it cannot be easily altered or "contaminated," as could any rock selected for radioisotope dating. The young-earth implications are even stronger when the energy of the field is considered rather than its strength, for the energy's half-life decays each 700 years.

http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field/
http://creation.com/the-earths-magne...earth-is-young



Earth-Moon System

the tides when the moon would have close enough would have drowned all life on earth twice a day and shattered the moon. How long has the moon been receding? Friction by the tides is slowing the earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum.7 The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.8 NB: this is the maximum possible age — far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks) — not the actual age.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../2006/0811.asp


Comets Disintegrate too Quickly

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]

-Steidl, P.F., ‘Planets, comets, and asteroids’, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73–106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983) 5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092


Human Population Growth

It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.That’s not very much. Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. Say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square meter per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square meters. If every one of those square meters were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people


Geneticists recently analyzed human gene differences
-Tennessen, J. et al. 2012. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes. Science. 337 (6090): 64-69.

The research team investigated the amount of diversity among today’s human genes and how long it took to reach the current amount of diversity. They concluded that human genes diversified recently. The authors wrote, “The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago.”
Recent studies indicate that mutationns, most of which are nearly harmless, accumulate at a rate of at least 60 per human generation.
- Conrad, D. et al. 2011. Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families. Nature Genetics. 43 (7): 712-714. Genesis 9:19.

The rapid explosion of human genetic diversity over the last 5,100 or so years easily fits the biblical model
if the evolutionary timeline is true, then human population growth and genetic diversity were miraculously unchanged for a few million years before suddenly exploding in just the last few thousand years. What are the odds that every married couple would have had almost exactly two offspring—just enough to replace the parents—survive into the next generation for over two million years or 100,000 straight generations?


Dinosaur Blood Vessels

“Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.”
"Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"
-Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.


Hemoglobin and proteins decay rates from observable science proves they cannot be millions of years old. Some cannot last 2.7 million years frozen.

There are also many bacteria dna etc that have been found that also could not last that long
-Schweitzer, M.H. et al., Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:6291–6296, June 1997. Return to text.
http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report
Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
<www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c> Return to text.“Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009

collagen found dated as 80ma , yet proven cannot last more than 2.7 ma frozen.

-Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
<www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf

It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.

-Nielsen-Marsch, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation 30(3):12–15, 2008.


also dna and material that should have decayed away has been found in these supposed ancient ice cores

-Willerslev, E. et al. 2007. Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland. Science. 317 (5834): 111-114.
http://www.icr.org/article/bacteria-...from-greenland
Loveland-Curtze, J., V. I. Miteva and J. E. Brenchley. 2009. Herminiimonas glaciei sp. nov., a novel ultramicrobacterium from 3042 m deep Greenland glacial ice. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 59: 1272-1277.



half life of collagen at 7.5 Celsius last 130 thousand years. Optimal preservation conditions.

-Nielsen marsh c bimolecules in fossil remains multidisciplinary approach to endurance the biochemist pp 12-14 june 2002
also responds to claims of contamination.
Joc 27 [1] 2013


“when you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded comepletley”
-Schweitzer m nova scince nov may 2009 cross/tv/21726




Polystrate fossils



Often trees are petrified connecting multiple layers of rock strata supposed separated by hundreds of millions of years proving 100% positive they were deposited around the same time not over millions of years.




Bent Rock Strata




all these layers at certain spots are bent showing they all formed while wet around the same time otherwise they would have harden and broke.


“In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition”
-Austin, S.A. and J.D. Morris, ‘Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences’, Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986) pp.3–15. Address in ref. 12




Flat Gaps






“Paraconformities, or flat gaps, pose a serious problem for the concept of long geologic ages. On the surface of our restless earth, during the period of the gap with the proposed millions of years of weathering, tectonic activity, and drifting of continents, you have either deposition or erosion of the sedimentary layers. If there is deposition there is no gap because the layers just keep building up. If there is erosion the contact surface (underlayer) should be highly irregular, and not flat. The flatness of the gaps indicates little time has occurred at the gaps.The flat gaps, with their incredibly widespread sedimentary layers just above and below, severely challenge the many millions of years proposed for the standard geologic time scale. The complete absence of the deep erosion expected at these gaps over their alleged long ages is very difficult to explain within the long-age uniformitarian paradigm.”
-‘Flat gaps’ in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages Ariel A. Roth


Measurable C-14 Within Ancient Samples

If the radioactive element carbon-14 breaks down quickly—within a few thousand years—why do we still find it in fossils and diamonds? It’s a dilemma for evolutionists, who believe the rocks are millions of years old.

“Even if every atom in the whole earth were carbon-14, they would decay so quickly that no carbon-14 would be left on earth after only 1 million years. Contrary to expectations, between 1984 and 1998 alone, the scientific literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record, supposedly spanning more than 500 million years. All contained radiocarbon “
-Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney

Paul Giem, “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins 51 (2001): 6–30.

It has even been found in diamonds.

-R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287
J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research InitiativeHYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/carbon-14#fnMark_1_14_1", eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630. D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.

[Pannonian]

Erosion Rates of Continents


“if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668

The continents would have eroded away over 250 times if they were as old as the evolutionist say. Earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.

J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264


Using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years”


S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155


Even using the slowest possible rates of erosion the continents would have eroded in 623 million years. The resulting measured rates [lower than normal ] would give only 9.6 million years until all above sea level continents would be totally eroded. As one evolutionist said

“In geological terms, in other words, there ought to be no land forms or land surfaces of an age greater than 30MYA and certainly no older than the Cenozoic...yet many features that are several tens of millions, or even a few hundreds of millions of years old, remain....since these land forms exists, they must be possible.””
-Twindale CR and Campbell EM Australian Land forms Understandings a low, flat, arid arid or a landscape Rosenberg publishing new south wales Australia 2005


So they must reject observable testable science [erosion rates] to hold on to their belief in millions of years.

Have you heard of the Atlantic Ocean? Have you heard of Iceland? Did you know the Himalayas are getting taller every year?

[total relism]

Have you heard of the Atlantic Ocean? Have you heard of Iceland? Did you know the Himalayas are getting taller every year?

right the mountains are still their, as is above land surface. Awkward for the evolutionist yes. Maybe Lyell's assumption of the observable past of uniformitarnism was wrong after all?

[Pannonian]

right the mountains are still their, as is above land surface. Awkward for the evolutionist yes. Maybe Lyell's assumption of the observable past of uniformitarnism was wrong after all?

Do you know what's going on under the Atlantic?

[total relism]

Do you know what's going on under the Atlantic?

The himlayas are eroding.

http://recherche.crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr/...le1150&lang=fr

But no one is saying that new rock is not being pushed up in some places. If the world were millions and billions of years old their would be some at least small recent islands. But to claim large land masses [especially not near fault lines/ volcanoes] have been around for hundreds of millions of even billions of years, defies observable science and is based on faith, and i would say indoctrination.

[Pannonian]

The himlayas are eroding.

http://recherche.crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr/...le1150&lang=fr

But no one is saying that new rock is not being pushed up in some places. If the world were millions and billions of years old their would be some at least small recent islands. But to claim large land masses [especially not near fault lines/ volcanoes] have been around for hundreds of millions of even billions of years, defies observable science and is based on faith, and i would say indoctrination.

Of course the Himalayas are bloody eroding. But India is still pushing north nonetheless, at a rate exceeding the effects of erosion. Meanwhile, the Atlantic is getting bigger, and consequently the Pacific is getting smaller, and new rock is getting vomited out. Or rather, more of a constant dribble from what I've seen.

[total relism]

Of course the Himalayas are bloody eroding. But India is still pushing north nonetheless, at a rate exceeding the effects of erosion. Meanwhile, the Atlantic is getting bigger, and consequently the Pacific is getting smaller, and new rock is getting vomited out. Or rather, more of a constant dribble from what I've seen.

Are you british? sorry to see england go out to my team croatia. Damn the french.



I have a drip from my sink into a can that is half full. Yet a whole in the bottom releases far more than the drip can add, will this can become full or empty over millions of years? near empty right? erosion rates far exceed any uplift. Further as i stated even if this were not so, the claim that above water land surfaces [especially not near fault lines/ volcanoes] have remained for the length that evolutionist claim without eroding and being replaced by newer, younger, uplifted rock, cannot be so. Their in lies the issue. Further add the flat gaps from my op that shows the erosion did not happen, and its should at least cause one to think of the assumptions of uniformtarnism.


Could you link to me the claim that India is gaining material faster than losing it.

[Pannonian]

Are you british? sorry to see england go out to my team croatia. Damn the french.



I have a drip from my sink into a can that is half full. Yet a whole in the bottom releases far more than the drip can add, will this can become full or empty over millions of years? near empty right? erosion rates far exceed any uplift. Further as i stated even if this were not so, the claim that above water land surfaces [especially not near fault lines/ volcanoes] have remained for the length that evolutionist claim without eroding and being replaced by newer, younger, uplifted rock, cannot be so. Their in lies the issue. Further add the flat gaps from my op that shows the erosion did not happen, and its should at least cause one to think of the assumptions of uniformtarnism.


Could you link to me the claim that India is gaining material faster than losing it.

Look for stats on how the Himalayas are gaining height. The Himalayas contain fossils from the sea floor. Also see the Yunnanese folds on the eastern end of the Himalayas, and how mini-ecologies evolved in each valley.

[total relism]

Look for stats on how the Himalayas are gaining height. The Himalayas contain fossils from the sea floor. Also see the Yunnanese folds on the eastern end of the Himalayas, and how mini-ecologies evolved in each valley.

You made the claim I would prefer you support it. I would like to see what you based your claim on. I never made the claim so I see no reason to support your find.Yes the himalayas have deep sea creatures on them [as does every major mountain range] this does indeed support the creation position.

[Pannonian]

You made the claim I would prefer you support it. I would like to see what you based your claim on. I never made the claim so I see no reason to support your find.Yes the himalayas have deep sea creatures on them [as does every major mountain range] this does indeed support the creation position.

Bloody hell. You've made the claim that erosion would wear down all land, an argument that has been amply disproven by anyone with but a basic knowledge of plate tectonics. Tectonics that have been proven with magnetic data, and more recently with camera footage of rock being cycled above ground along the Atlantic rift, the north end of which is above ground in Iceland. The most dramatic above ground example of the effects of plate tectonics is the Himalayan range, which is the Indian continent pushing against the Asian continent. Oh, and if you want to throw Uniformitarian arguments around like it's the ultimate proof of God's creation, blow your mind away with some Catastrophism and read up on KT.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1.1

Then a big rock smashed into the earth and killed nearly everything.

[total relism]

Bloody hell. You've made the claim that erosion would wear down all land, an argument that has been amply disproven by anyone with but a basic knowledge of plate tectonics. Tectonics that have been proven with magnetic data, and more recently with camera footage of rock being cycled above ground along the Atlantic rift, the north end of which is above ground in Iceland. The most dramatic above ground example of the effects of plate tectonics is the Himalayan range, which is the Indian continent pushing against the Asian continent. Oh, and if you want to throw Uniformitarian arguments around like it's the ultimate proof of God's creation, blow your mind away with some Catastrophism and read up on KT.



Then a big rock smashed into the earth and killed nearly everything.

One thing is for sure, we are dominating this thread . I think you maintain a misconception of what my op argues with the erosion of continents and this has led to your responses. I did not say no land today [assuming evolutionist age of the earth] would be above water, i admitted some small newer land islands would be [assuming constant tectonic rates] above water. Only that the claimed ancient land masses and ages assigned to them by evolutionist would have been long ago eroded into the ocean.


You had claimed that India is gaining material more than losing through erosion. I asked that you support this [with a reference] and show it true. Instead all you have done is say it is [as i thought might be the case] being pushed "north" into asia as well as state the fact that new rock is added and plates currently move a slight bit. You than conclude these are arguments against the current rates of erosion and the argument in my op. The issue i see as i already said is that the erosion rates far exceed the new material being added. I tried to do an analogy for you. If a bath tub is filled with water at a gallon per hour, yet has a hole in the tub that drains 2 gallons an hour, the water level will drop. Overtime you will not find more than 1 gallon at a time and in fact very little in the tub. Same with the erosion, if some is added at a lesser rate it still [as my op showed] cannot replace what is lost. Even if it could replace at those rates, the claim that ancient above water land surfaces [especially not near fault lines/ volcanoes] have remained for the length that evolutionist claim without eroding and being replaced by newer, younger, uplifted rock, cannot be so. Their in lies the issue. Further add the flat gaps from my op that shows the erosion did not happen, and its should at least cause one to think of the assumptions of uniformtarnism.


As for Catastrophism and the K/T boundary, yes, evolutionist have been forced to fit in some Catastrophism into their understanding of earths past. Largely because of the work of creationist started with the genesis flood.

https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Flood.../dp/159638395X

But i think a future thread may better fit a discussion on the K/T boundary as well as the claim "Then a big rock smashed into the earth and killed nearly everything." But more important, are you British? all the "bloody" language make me think so. Did you watch the world cup?

[Gilrandir]

So, all this thread is meant to say that the universe is 7000 years old?

[total relism]

So, all this thread is meant to say that the universe is 7000 years old?

I think it is more saying that uniformitarnism is a false assumption. Nothing could "prove" in the scientific sense the age of the earth if it is thousands or billions going into the observable past leaves the realm of repeatable science. Any attempt to do so takes the summations of uniformtarnism witch contradict themselves if it points to an old earth or young. So maybe it is that we cannot know the age of the earth by any modern in our time scientific methods.

[Pannonian]

I think it is more saying that uniformitarnism is a false assumption. Nothing could "prove" in the scientific sense the age of the earth if it is thousands or billions going into the observable past leaves the realm of repeatable science. Any attempt to do so takes the summations of uniformtarnism witch contradict themselves if it points to an old earth or young. So maybe it is that we cannot know the age of the earth by any modern in our time scientific methods.

There's a hell of a lot more evidence for that model than that of the Young Earthers, whose evidence amounts to zero.

[Husar]

One thing is for sure, we are dominating this thread . I think you maintain a misconception of what my op argues with the erosion of continents and this has led to your responses. I did not say no land today [assuming evolutionist age of the earth] would be above water, i admitted some small newer land islands would be [assuming constant tectonic rates] above water. Only that the claimed ancient land masses and ages assigned to them by evolutionist would have been long ago eroded into the ocean.

So you're assuming constant tectonic movement and constant decay of land mass, yet above you question the decay of atoms because of "all the factors that could influence it"? I would think there are way more things that could affect the rate of continental decay and tectonic movement than the rate at which atoms fall apart over thousands of years.

If you make a lot of these small assumptions, the total sum of your argument is just one big assumption based on your personal feelings. And science, while not entirely clear, hints at non-constant tectonics. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-ssm061014.php

Besides, carbon dating is far from the only thing that hints at the age of our solar system and so on. The moon's surface on our side basically got burnt by hot Earth before there were any "plates" that could have tectonics. What would be your explanation for that?

[Pannonian]

Besides, carbon dating is far from the only thing that hints at the age of our solar system and so on. The moon's surface on our side basically got burnt by hot Earth before there were any "plates" that could have tectonics. What would be your explanation for that?

God did it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have never quite understood how some of those who believe in an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipuissant deity could instantly presume to confine that deity's sense of time to the sidereal 'day' we experience in our own ordinary existence.


"You are the alpha and the omega....but you measure time my way."



Such hubris...

[Pannonian]

I have never quite understood how some of those who believe in an eternal, omnipresent, and omnipuissant deity could instantly presume to confine that deity's sense of time to the sidereal 'day' we experience in our own ordinary existence.

"You are the alpha and the omega....but you measure time my way."

Such hubris...

The deity may be eternal, omnipresent and omnipuissant, but they are not omnioracular. As the deity does not speak directly, it's within the power of those who do to make up whatever nonsense they like and present it as the literal gospel truth.

[total relism]

So you're assuming constant tectonic movement and constant decay of land mass, yet above you question the decay of atoms because of "all the factors that could influence it"? I would think there are way more things that could affect the rate of continental decay and tectonic movement than the rate at which atoms fall apart over thousands of years.

I agree that the assumption of constant rates through history is false weather its erosion rates or radiometric dating, that is the point of my op. Yes factors can change all those rates [as they can any method used to claim billions of years] but as shown in my op even given sort of best possible outcome with slower rates, its still a big problem for old earthers and does not fit their time frame. Unless you suggesting the removal of rain ,wind or any methods of erosion and base that on science. But if that could be done [ never suggested, if anything evolutionist claim a wetter environment in the past] that would help prove my op that uniformitarnism is false.

If you make a lot of these small assumptions, the total sum of your argument is just one big assumption based on your personal feelings. And science, while not entirely clear, hints at non-constant tectonics. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-ssm061014.php

I apologize if the sum of my arguments in the op were based on my own personal feelings. If that is the case I hope you reject my op entirely. Perhaps you could point out where in my op and what arguments are based on what feelings of mine? otherwise it just seems you are basing your response on feelings without having read my op. I hope the point of my op is to show the claim of an old earth is outside of science. I would like to suggest that perhaps the plates have moved even faster than you suggest.

https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catast.../dp/0890518742


You claim to support science. Of course if you are an atheist how do you justify science from your worldview?


If Evolution Were True Would Science be Possible?

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.


But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.

Besides, carbon dating is far from the only thing that hints at the age of our solar system and so on. The moon's surface on our side basically got burnt by hot Earth before there were any "plates" that could have tectonics. What would be your explanation for that?

Just to understand the claim. You are saying the moon was earth as it was a molten liquid rock during its formation correct? If this is the starting claim I would say the earth was never a hot molten mass and the moon did not come out of the earth from some collision as claimed. Maybe you could go into some more detail for me and show just what you think proves an old age of the earth/moon.

[total relism]

“The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”
-H. L. Menck

“The exact opposite of what is generally believed is often the truth”
-Jean De La Bruyere 1645-1696


When evolutionist have near full control of education [through courts and political activity] and media they are than allowed to get away with lying for their religion to indoctrinate youth into their system of beliefs. When evolution cannot be criticized, and when the teacher has the intellectual advantage over the student, they are than able to deceive students into believing “proofs” of evolution. Further when schools teach obedience to their higher authority [teachers/scientist the modern high priests of liberalism] uncritical thinking, but accepting and repeating what is told them to believe, the textbooks and when teachers have an aura of high priest or Pope like infallibility. Thus they can, and do lie, and get away with it. Student should be allowed both sides of an issue and be allowed the right to not be lied to. But the evolutionist wont allow this to happen.


A few of the Lies my Teacher Told me


“All the icons of evolution misrepresent the truth, the evidence does not justify the sweeping claims that are made in their name....they should be dead to any informed, rational observer, but they keep coming anyways. Textbooks still carry them. But textbooks are not the main problem. The main problem is the scientific establishments determination to promote evolution in spite of the evidence.”
-Jonathan Wells Zombie Science More icons of Evolution 2017

"Just about everything I taught them was wrong."
-Charles Alexander Time Magazine Senior Science Editor former Science teacher

“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
-Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205

“I don't believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men.... It's absolute garbage. It's absolutely irrational garbage...The early men are always drawn like apes, right? Because that fits in the theory we have been living with since Darwin...They set up these idols and then they knock them down. It keeps all the old professors happy in the university. It gives them something to do. I don't know if there's any harm in it except they ram it down everybody's throat. Everything they told me as a kid has already been disproved by the same type of "experts" who made them up in the first place.”
-John Lennon book by journalist David Sheff, All We Are Saying: The Last Major Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono (St. Martin's Griffin,


Vestigial Structures

"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities."
—Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (1990), p. 268

Amazingly, evolutionist often claim vestigial structures are proof of evolution. When I was in 7th grade my teacher said “If there is a God, why did he make useless structures” after showing us the appendix was useless [and it must be true its in a science textbook and my teacher would not lie to me] And she said religion is ok, it just does not belong in the science classroom. At the time of Darwin evolutionist though there were 180 vestigial structures in the human body alone. Each one has know been found to have a function.

But since we are not in a classroom, lets apply skepticism to the claims. No one would be able to prove a structure has no function, only that we are ignorant of its function. Many people have been mutilated and had organs taken out to their own harm, by doctors who believed in evolution and vestigial structures. And just because we may be able to live without a structure, does not prove we don't need it, or its some evolutionary leftover. You can live without both your arms and legs, but they have a purpose. But lets assume there is a true vestigial structure. That is no proof of evolution, evolution needs to exspalin the origin of these structures not their failures. Does it disprove creation? Not biblical creation that contained the fall and the curse such as.

. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution. ... An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.”
-R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.


"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions."
—*Encyclopedia Britannica Vo1. 8 (1946 ed.), p. 926.


Appendix

“Darwin was wrong the appendix is a whole lot more than a evolutionary remnant”
-Journal of evolutionary biology aug 2009

“long regarded as a vestigial organ with no function in the human body the appendix is one of the sites where immune responses are initiated”
-Roy Hartenstein Glorier encyclopedia 1998

“An intrigel part of the immune system”
-Gabreille Belz professor and immunologist


We were all told in school the appendix is a evolutionary left over with no function in the human body. Well this is just one of the many lies used to indoctrinate kids in evolution. Here is a great short video on the appendix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDZJy4z4o5k

It is known in scientific journals and has been for over a half century the appendix is not a useless left over organ.

“There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure."
—William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), p. 149

The appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs. The appendix generates red blood cells before spleen and bone marrow do. In scientific American march 2012 p22 it reads “ your appendix could save your life” because the appendix operates as a safe house for good bacteria see [ Smith et al comparative anatomy and phylogenic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix journal of evolutionary biology 22 [10] 2009]


“Clostridium difficile is a deadly bacterium frequently encountered in hospitals where patients undergo prolonged treatment with antibiotics. Usually this bacterium does not compete well with the native bacteria of the gut. That’s because many cases of resistance are caused by a ‘scorched-earth’ policy of degrading a receptor the antibiotic needs to latch on to—in this case, enzymes needed to unwind and duplicate DNA. Thus in most cases, ‘super-germs’ are super-wimps (see creation.com/anthrax and creation.com/superbugs).But when patients’ useful native bacteria are depleted, as is the case after several courses of antibiotics, the way is paved for C. difficile to multiply quickly and take over. It is in this period after treatment that patients are in the greatest danger of a recurrence of C. difficile.Now researchers led by Dr James Grendell of Winthrop University-Hospital’s division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition have found that patients without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of the deadly pathogen than patients who still had their appendix. (I.e. 48% of cases vs 11% of cases respectively.) In the last few years, researchers have shown that the appendix serves as a ‘safe house’ for beneficial bacteria in our gut. This allows them to be restored in the event of depletion (e.g. after a severe gut infection such as cholera)
—see creation.com/appendix3.-The appendix may protect you against Clostridium difficile recurrence, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 9:1072–1077, 2012

Appendix removal

“appendix removal also increases a persons susceptibility to leukemia, hodkins disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries”
-Walt brown in the beginning p118

Removal of appendix causes increase risk of heart attack [see medicalpress.com 1 june 2011.]

“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system.”
-N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

“The appendix is useful and in fact promising”
-live scince.com 24 aug 2009


Human coccyx

Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York


“For example, the coccyx and the two ischium bones of the pelvis together form a tripod that helps to bear the weight of the body and provide balance when a person is seated. As a person leans back, more weight is transferred to the coccyx. The coccyx also serves as an anchor for the attachment of numerous tendons, ligaments, and muscles. Some of these muscles form the hammock-like pelvic floor, which supports various internal organs, especially as we stand upright. Several muscles contribute to bowel and bladder function, including the delaying of defecation and urination—not exactly trivial abilities. The coccyx helps to support the spinal cord as well, serving as an anchor for the filum terminale—a fibrous length of tissue that stretches from the top of the coccyx to the lower part of the spinal cord. Beyond this, the coccyx serves an additional purpose in women—helping to accommodate childbirth. In females, the coccyx is less curved compared to males, so it doesn’t point as far forward, thus making room for a baby’s head to pass through the pelvis. It is more flexible as well, because the movements of the coccyx during labor actually help to enlarge the birth canal.
- Keaton Halley Tailbone “serves no purpose”?New York Museum of Natural History misleads the publicby


Evolutionist notion of bad design in human spines has impeded the development of appropriate treatment of injured backs [see p282 the greatest hoax on earth]


“If you think the “tail bone” is useless, fall down the stairs and land on it. (Some of you may have actually done that—unintentionally, I’m sure!) What happens? You can’t stand up; you can’t sit down; you can’t lie down; you can’t roll over. You can hardly move without pain. In one sense, the sacrum and coccyx are among the most important bones in the whole body. They form an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation, but I’ll say no more about that)”
-Dr Gary Paker creation Biologist

“That it's uselessness was a concealment of scientific ignorance, not of poor original design.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017




Whale Pelvis Leg Bones





“These pelvic bones perform an important function in copulation.”
-Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017

Indeed it take more than a little imagination to believe a whale walked around based on those small bones. There is no observation of it. These little bones are said to be evidence for evolution as vestigial structures and evidence whales once walked on land. Yet the"hind legs" are really anchor points that mussel attach to without they cannot reproduce. These bones are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females. Below are two great videos one from a lies in the textbook series and one from a debate on this topic.

“These “hip bones” are not attached to the backbone of any whale, dolphins, or any of the fossils. Claims beyond the realm of human detection are mystical”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Whales and Evolution Joined at the hip


Great video response in a debate on evolution of whale and hind legs here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RprI75NluE0

Lies in textbooks whale hind legs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JudnZJtrj5Q



Embryology- Recapitulation Theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") claiming that an individual organism's biological development, or ontogeny, parallels and summarizes its species' evolutionary development, or phylogeny.





"Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation, facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science."
—*Gavin De Beer, A Century of Darwin (1958).

“Far Beyond anything resembling science...an embarrassment to Darwin himself.”
-R Milner The encyclopedia of evolution 1990

“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

In Jena Germany 1860 Ernst Hankel decided he would make some fake drawings of human embryo to make them look more like supposed human ancestors. He said embryos go through ancestral stages of their evolutionary past. He admitted to them being faked 6 years later and his own university charged him with fraud but it is still taught today as proof of evolution. Doctors in Germany new right away they were fake but this faked evidence alone converted almost all of Germany to evolution. Henkel went around the country showing his drawings and other fake missing links to the public. Many animals that dont share an evolutionary lineage are similar yet those that do are very different such as the DNA. Vertebrates eggs very greatly. He left out various stages during the development that refuted his claims. He was exposed in 1868 by University of Basel comparative anatomist professor L Rutitmyer and again in 1874 by the leading embryologist of his day Wilhelm Hissr of the university of Leipig.

"At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull. They quoted nineteen leading authorities of the day. F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg University, said that it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form. L. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at Basle University, called his distorted drawings a sin against scientific truthfulness deeply compromising to the public credit of a scholar."
—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, p. 112

This is a lie used to support evolution despite being proven wrong over 150 years ago. The only reason it is still in the textbooks is because it supports abortion. Its not a human in there its just a fish or a lizard. According to this story babies have gill slits and a human tail from its evolutionary past. Its not even human at even 7 months, there going through fish stage, than amphibian etc yet over 34% of babies survive after 5 1/2 months. How come if you kill a bald eagle egg you get fined they know thats a bird but they dont know a human is human.

"This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry . . What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t . . These are fakes." —*Michael Richardson, quoted in "An Embryonic Liar," The London Times, August 11, 1997, p. 14

“[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.”
“Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Journal Science http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...1435.1.summary


"The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars."
—*Walter J. Bock, Science, May 1969 Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University

"The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel."— Ashley Mantague, debate held April 12, 1980, at Princeton University, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 119

"Thetheory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today."
—*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down’s Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“Took along time to expose....so seductive did this picture appear.”
-G De Beer Darwin and Embryology 1958

“In his enthusiasm to prove the law, thereby, vindicate evolution, the biogenetic law major propulizers resorted to outright fraud.”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders frauds and forgeries



Human Gill Slits





Still taught in schools today based on his drawings. We never have gill slits they are not gills and they are never used for breathing nor even openings of any kind. They are folds not gill slits, the folds later turn into the to middle ear canal, parathyroids and the thymus gland.

"The pharyngeal arches and clefts [creases] are frequently referred to as bronchial arches and bronchial clefts in analogy with the lower vertebrates, but since the human embryo never has gills called ‘bronchia,’ the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted for this book."
—*Jan Langman, Medical Embryology, 3rd ed. (1975).

“The so-called gill slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills, and the human embryo does not pass through a fish stage or any other evolutionary stage. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the course of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills. (The human embryo is fully supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these “gill slits” are not even slits.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...shy-gill-slits
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...evelopment.asp


Human Tail


“Our “tailbone” is really a functional participant in our physiology, not a relic of history.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017

What is claimed to be a tail later becomes a lower part of the spinal column. the spinal column is full of complicated bones and the length of the spine starts out longer in proportion to the body than in adulthood. Another reason the spine is longer is because the muscles and limbs do not develop until they are stimulated by the spinal nerves, so the spine must grow and mature enough that it can send out the proper signals. The human tail has no bones or muscles.



Peppered moth





“And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.”
-D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67–83, 1975 J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36, 1998The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 January 1999

We have all seen this one shown as a supposed proof of evolution. It is in fact a fraud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GotJEcEdkuI


Classic ‘textbook’ photos of the moths resting on tree trunks were faked, as dead moths were pinned or glued to the tree trunks. The ‘teaching’ film of the moths being eaten by birds was also ‘staged’ and not a true natural situation.

However of what is true is just natural section. The fact is nothing new was created or "evolved" to support evolution

1]Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
2]During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
3]Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths.

The biologist L. Harrison Matthews was prominent enough to be asked to provide the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. He was at the time clearly also quite happy to see the moths, as an example of selection in action

‘The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.’

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out. He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36, 1998


Darwins Finches





The variety of beak sizes observed by Darwin is shown as proof of evolution. However this is simply a sorting of pre-existing genes. Then natural selection could remove information for thin beaks.

“Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant recently released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action For example, during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the population in that direction.”
-P.R. Grant, ‘Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches’, Scientific American, 265(4):60–65, October 1991

“When the drought brought a shortage of easily available small seeds, is it any wonder that the birds with big beaks survived better because they were the only ones to be able to crack big seeds, and so on? for a while selection drove the finch populations towards larger birds, then when the environment changed, it headed them in the opposite direction.”
- Dr Carl weiland MD


“a 2010 study confirmed that Darwin’s finches developed 14 different sorts of beaks using the same developmental pathways and genetic products. Another case that comes to mind is the empirical research on Galapagos finches done by the Grants. They have done some long term, methodical, empirical work. No doubt about that, but ironically it ends up contradicting macro-evolution... Galapagos finches vary within certain parameters, but remain finches. No evolution...
-Grant, B. Rosemary & Grant, Peter R. (1993)Evolution of Darwin's Finches Caused by a Rare Climatic Event. pp. 111-117Proceedings: Royal Society of Biological Sciences, vol. 251, no. 1331 Feb. 22,,
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=096...B%3E2.0.CO;2-T


“This is indeed an example of adaptation and natural selection. But note that it actually removes genes from the populations—on seed-rich islands with few grubs, information for long, slender beaks would likely be lost; while the information for thick, strong beaks would be lost on grub-rich (seed-poor) islands . So this change is in the opposite direction from goo-to-you evolution, which requires new genes with new information.It can hardly be over-emphasized: natural selection is not evolution; indeed, natural selection was discovered by creationists before Darwin”
-Dr Jonathan Sarfati received his B.Sc. (hons) in Chemistry and his Ph.D. (Physical Chemistry) from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.



Miller–Urey experiment and the origin of life






"The origin of life remains one of the humankind's last great unanswered questions, as well as one of the most experimentally challenging research areas. . . .Despite recent progress in the field, a single definitive description of the events leading up to the origin of life on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago remains elusive."
-Stanley L. Miller and H. James Cleaves, "Prebiotic Chemistry on the Primitive Earth" in Isidore Rigoutsos and Gregroy Stephanopoulos, eds., Systems Biology Volume 1: Genomics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 3:


In the experiment notice no Oxygen was used since life cannot arise with Oxygen so they always leave it out of these lab experiments. The bad part though is it cant arise without either because Oxygen makes up the ozone layer and that blocks uvlight radiation etc that would kill anything trying to begin life. This “reducing atmosphere” is pure fantasy and imagination on part of the evolutionist, no were do we find evidence for this early earth in the geological column. no were do we find the chemicals together needed to produce the first cell.
They assumed methane and omnia in the atmosphere methane should be stuck to ancient clays but is not found.Left out oxygen witch has been found in all rock layers.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."
—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."
—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

They took chemicals out after the first strike because if it went through again it would be destroyed. they also did a unrealistic lightning strike.

"[Arrhenius] contends that if actual lightning struck rather than the fairly mild [electrical] discharges used by [Stanley] Miller [in making the first synthetic amino acids], any organics that happened to be present could not have survived."
—*Report in Science News, December 1, 1973, p. 340


this is artificially controlled lab in a made up early earth pure fantasy stuff going on here.


"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment." —*J. -Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.


What they created was 85% tar 13% carboxyic acid both poisonous to life and only 2% amino acids which he quickly took away from the other deadly chemicals because they would destroy them. They only created 2 of the 20 amino acids needed for life. they both bond with the other two deadly chemical's. If it wasent for his controlled lab he would have nothing. Half of the amino acids were left hand half were right hand. for life they need to be all left and the smallest protein needs at least 70-100 that need to be all left handed.


"Pasteur’s demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently. All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? . ."They [today’s scientists] are back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very slowly."
—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639.


"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
—*Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88


"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things."
—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232


" ‘Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].’
—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist."—*Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193.


‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’.
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.


"there is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA>RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code , ribosomes ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP the detailed mechanisms for reading off dna and converting genes into proteins were also in place, in short then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell"
-Lane nick,was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? new scientist 204[2730] 38-42 17 oct 2009

“Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions“The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”
-Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 33


Since the equilibrium concentration of polymers is so low, their thermodynamic tendency is to break down in water, not to be built up. The long ages postulated by evolutionists simply make the problem worse, because there is more time for water’s destructive effects to occur. High temperatures, as many researchers advocate, would accelerate the breakdown. The famous pioneer of evolutionary origin-of-life experiments, Stanley Miller, points out that polymers are ‘too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment’
Miller, S.L. and Lazcano, A., 1995. The origin of life—did it occur at high temperatures? J. Mol. Evol. 41:689–692.
Miller has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days. Levy, M and Miller, S.L., 1998. The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(14):7933–38.


"The origin of life remains one of the great scientific mysteries. The central conundrum is the threshold problem. Only when organic molecules achieve a certain very high level of complexity can they be considered as 'living', in the sense that they encode a huge amount of information in a stable form and not only display the capability of storing the blueprint for replication but also the means to implement that replication. The problem is to understand how this threshold could have been crossed by ordinary physical and chemical processes without the help of some supernatural agency."
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 68:

"It should be stated at the outset that the origin of life remains a deep mystery. There are no lack of theories, of course, but the divergence of opinion among scientists on this topic is probably greater than for any other topic in biology.
"The essential problem in explaining how life arose is that even the simplest living things are stupendously complex. The replicative machinery of life is based on the DNA molecule, which is itself as structurally complicated and intricately arranged as an automobile assembly line. If replication requires such a high threshold of complexity in the first place how can any replicative system have arisen spontaneously?"
-Paul Davies, Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004 [original: Houghton and Mifflin, 1988]), 115:


No, the presence of building materials is one thing, the requirement of the plan to put these building materials in the proper places and get them working together is another thing. That’s why a cell is so beautiful, so intricate. Because of that, even non-Christian scientists marvel at that. Even to get one single functional protein molecule to form by chance is a mathematical absurdity. Sir Fred Hoyle recognized this. He teased his colleagues, told them to put all the raw ingredients in a swimming pool, and see if they get one single molecule needed. Of course no one will take him up, because they know it won’t work.
-Biochemist and head of nuclear medicine at Singapore General Hospital M.B., B.S., Ph.D.(Lond.), FRC Path., MI Biol. (Lond.)


"Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan
-Horgan, J. Pssst! DonHYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"'HYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"t tell the creationists, but scientists donHYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"'HYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"t have a clue how life began. Scientific American Cross-check. Posted on scientificamerican.com February 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2011.


“both the origin of life and the origin of major groups of animals remain unknown”
-alfred g fisher evolution groller multimedia encyclopedia 1998 fossil section




Ancon Sheep





“The Ancon mutation is a loss mutation....this type of mutation does not result in functional information, as Darwinism requires”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, frauds and Forgeries

Given as a textbook exsaple of evolution what was thought to be new information by mutations turned out to be a disease called Achondroplasia. Few of the sheep survived past a few months they could not run or jump and could barley walk and soon went extinct because of the disease.

“It is now recognized that Ancon sheep were not a new breed, but the result of a genetic disease called Achondroplasia....yet it is mentioned in textbooks as evidence for macroevolutinary jumps.”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, frauds and Forgeries



Human Chimp DNA 99% similarity

“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16


One of the constant myths and lies used to support evolution is the claim that chimps and man are 99% identical. This was never the case and only evolutionary bias and misrepresentation of the actual data led to this. Evolutionist would inject their beliefs and bias in how they pieced together the chimp genome as the human genome was used as a template to make them more similar then they actually were. There is in fact no human or chimp genome, they are pieced together

“Even with DNA sequence we have no direct access to the process of evolution so objective reconstitution of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination”
-N Takahata a genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans 1995

They would add sections of the human genome to fill in “gaps” that did not exists in the chimp genome. A study done by evolutionist showed only 70% of the genomes aligned and this does not count other differences.

“When we do this alignment [chimp/human genomes] we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genomes 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimp genome. That is 70%.”
-Richard Bugss chimpanzees reformatorisch Dagblad oct 10 2008

24% of the genome have no alignment and so were not used in comparisons. When evolutionist did a chimp comparison without using human model on the y chromosome, they found a 53% differences in gene content alone. David page led the project and published in the journal nature said the two chromosomes are

“Horrendously different from each other … It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages...Half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence, and 30% of the entire MSY, has no counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010

“we now know that the old “humans and chimps are 99% identical” canard is passé.”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010


But It does not tell the public as convincing a story when they are told the truth, rather the importance is on them believing in evolution and 99% makes a better case. As one of their main focus research projects creationist at the Institute for Creation Research [http://www.icr.org/] are digging into this claim of chimp/human similarities and creationist can offer a more objective analysis of the data since they do not assume evolution. One of the early papers from the project was

Jeff Tompkins ARJ “Genome wide only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to Human under most optimal sequence slice conditions” https://answersingenesis.org/answers...n-chromosomes/

and he concluded

“therefore the total similarity should be below 70%” Plus it is now said that humans can vary by 4.5% yet chimps are claimed to be only 2%.
http://www.icr.org/article/dna-varia...n-chimp-chasm/


Other Similarities with Humans

“the difference in 6 million years of separation of gene content in chimps and humans is more comparable to the difference in gene content of chickens and humans 310 million years ago”
nature 463 [7280]536-539 Hughs etal 2010

Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85%
http://ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human … pgen.shtml

Sea squirt lab rats share 80% of genes with humans bananas share 60% [see march 3 2010 science daily sea squirts offer hope for alztimers sufferers].

Sea sponges share 70% with humans www.abc.net/news 5 aug 2010.

Trichoplax, one of nature's most primitive multicellular organisms, " shares over 80 percent of its genes with humans,"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 172419.htm

It is a fact that 75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/386516.stm

"in 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 10842.html

Man can be closest related to a rattlesnake
p 15 In the beginning walt brown 2008

Does Similarity prove a Common Ancestor?

A designer would use the same elements if he were the creator over all of creation to show one creator rather than multiple creators. All the books in a library are made up of the same 26 letters, this does not prove they all evolved from Morse code. As a baker would use similar ingredients to make a chocolate cake and a vanilla cake, so God made animals using similar designs patters [showing one god] and animals would be as similar as their functions were similar. The honda prelude and the honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts, did they both evolve from a skateboard ? or was the same company making them for similar purposes?

What evolutionist see as evidence of a common ancestor can equally be evidence of a common designer, for example Humans and chimps are as similar as their functions are. If similarity proves common ancestry, than clouds are made up of 100% water, watermelons are 97% water, the missing link is jellyfish 98% water. Evolutionist need to show how lower forms of animals changed into the supposed higher forms of animals, or at the very least, show a working observable mechanism. Similarity shows similarity, not evolution. They simply pick what similarities that seem to fit evolution and make sure they are in the textbooks and the public hears about them. Yet there are so many comparisons that go against evolution and can group animals totally different that somehow do not make it in.

“The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
—*J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.

It was the creationist who prediction that common design would also lead to common genetics, unlike the evolutionist predictions of the time that came true see.

Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionary Predictions Fail the Reality Test
http://www.icr.org/article/major-blu...y-predictions/

Homology

Convergent Evolution or Design-Based Adaptation?
http://www.icr.org/article/convergen...-design-based/


"The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology . . Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene-complex, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down."—
-Randall, quoted in *William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189.

"When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—
*Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.


"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find ‘homologous’ genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."
—*Sir Gavin De Beer, Homology, an Unsolved Problem (1971)



what of the same strucrures said to be from a common ancestor that in fact the bones that are said to be ancestral on human and monkeys are from different genes on the chromosomes how can they be ancestral?
Homoligous structures often come from different genes and some genes produce different structures, thus refuting horology as an argument for evolution. The Molecular evidence also often contradicts the fossil record in many cases.
The Greatest Hoax on Earth Jonthan Safarti p 95


grouping animals based on similarities was done before Darwin
p35 joc 25 [2] 2011

homology problems for evolution design vs common ancestor
p43-45 creation mag 34 [4] 2012

Problems with the evolutionary interpretation of limb design
http://creation.com/limb-design-homology

article/pictures on homology
http://creation.com/homology-made-simple


CONVERGENCE

Evolutionists claim that the information is “conserved.” Conserved is the evolution-speak label tagged to the phenomenon of finding nearly identical traits across many wildly different organisms. Such organisms supposedly “emerged” from unrelated pathways and carried unchanged (i.e., “conserved”) information for the similar trait across evolutionary time—while many other traits were greatly changing. Finding information for similar traits is certainly a factual observation. But believing that they are “conserved” is a declaration based in imagination…and firm convictions that evolution happened. In contrast, if the common trait is found in only a few diverse creatures, evolutionists then imagine “convergent evolution” happened. There is a less mystical, more straightforward explanation that is consistent with what engineers do. It may be that different creatures are designed to retain specific developmental architecture for the common purpose of reutilizing regulatory pathways to recover ancestral states when the situation for them is suitable. Stable mechanisms that can be reactivated when useful are more consistent with intelligent forethought since “Darwinian evolution…is near-sighted and agnostic with regard to goal.”
- Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. Major Evolutionary Blunders: Breaking Dollo's Law

—Then there is convergence. "Convergence" occurs when different creatures have similar organs. For example, the woody plants generally have a growing edge (cambium) between the inner part (xylem) of the plant and its outer part (phloem). But this similarity arises because it is the best way for that general type of plant to grow, so the Designer used this basic pattern for nearly all trees—even though most are totally unlike each other in many other ways. It is foolish to suggest that plants have the intelligence to make the decision themselves as to how they shall be structured, for they have no brains. They do it because they were designed that

Hemo Globin red blood cells is found amongst vertebra's and is scattered among a Variety of animals without backbones and is also found in worms, starfish, clams, insects, bacteria and no definite pattern was found. The
Aortic arch is found in 5 animals that have no evolutionary resemblance. if evolution were true, it is clear that all animals in each of those five basic aortic arch types would have to be closely related to one another. Indeed, the evolutionists loudly proclaim that similarities require evolutionary descent.

"If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins."—
*Thomas Hunt Morgan, "The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species," Scientific Monthly 16

Those animals that share the FIRST type of aortic arch are these: horses, goats, donkeys, zebras, cows, sheep, pigs, and deer.Those animals that share the SECOND type of aortic arch are these: whales, moles, shrews, porpoises, and hedgehogs.Those animals that share the THIRD type of aortic arch are these: skunks, bears, kangaroos, rats, raccoons, dogs, opossums, squirrels, beavers, wombats, mice, porcupines, cats, and weasels.Those animals that share the FOURTH type of aortic arch are these: dugongs, some bats, sea cows, duck-billed platypus, echidna, and human beings.Those animals that share the FIFTH type of aortic arch are these: walruses and African elephants.

[total relism]

Resources- you Have Been Lied to Also

Great Sources Exposing the most Common Lies in Textbooks. We have all been through public school and watched national geographic and thus, we have all been lied to by the powers that be. When I first found out I was lied to I became very angry. But I also asked why would they lie? isen't evolution true? isen't their hundreds of scientific ex samples and proofs of evolution, why the need to lie? This will be addressed in the future.


A great way to expose lies they use to indoctrinate kids is to allow criticism and skepticism [not allowed in schools and wont be done by liberal teachers] to be applied to the textbooks and what they teach. Here are a few great sources of creationist doing just that as they are skeptical and question evolution, something you get in trouble for if you were a government teacher.

Lies in textbooks
Video 4 of Kent Hovind seminar lies in the textbooks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8GgrUposII
http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in...eminar-part-4/
https://www.amazon.com/Textbooks-Cre.../dp/B000JOL1BO

How Textbooks Mislead Dr. Don Batten
https://www.amazon.com/How-Textbooks...+Dr+Don+Batten
http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/...ad-p-1105.html

What the schools are teaching Dr Charles Jackson
https://www.amazon.com/What-Schools-...harles+Jackson

Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries Paperback – December 1, 2017
by Jerry Bergman
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Bl.../dp/1942773595

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution March 27, 2017 by Jonathan Wells
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/19...KIKX0DER&psc=1

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong Paperback – January, 2002by Jonathan Wells
https://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evoluti...4GVXZCTD3EXVRB




Debates


The best way of exposing lies of the evolutionist is in debates. When I speak of debates I dont mean CNN or Fox news debates or any media source. A debate should be between two knowledgeable, qualified opponents usually with a PHD and the debate should have a format and should be about 2 hours with back and fourth responses. Evolutionist are very intolerant of other beliefs. They hate, and can't have open discussion or debate. Evolution sounds great when they are the only side herd. However when creationist do get them to debate they often get destroyed. So much so that now they almost never will debate. In the 70s and 80s creation and evolution debates happened in the hundreds. The creationist embarrassed them so that know places like NCSE http://ncse.com/ tell evolutionist not to debate because they will lose.

" Of course, over the years I have found that many evolutionists refuse to
debate creationists. In the Duane Gish era, they used to debate, but I think
because they couldn't win, they then resorted to refusing to debate and
instead they just personally attack creationists and make all sorts of false
claims about creation and evolution".
-Ken ham president of answers in genesis 2012


Debates played a large part in the uprising of the modern creations science movement. When the leading authorities [therefore previous seen as infallible] on evolution were exposed, the public and scientist in large numbers converted. Debates played a very large part in my conversion.

"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them."
-Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma"

Debates are very good for Christians because they can see there view hold up and they can have evolutionist present their best evidences and have them refuted. The Institute for Creation Research [http://www.icr.org/] has spearheaded the creation debates of the past and today. Famous debater Duane Gish was in over 300 debates around the world and is commonly [even among evolutionist when questioned] seen as having won them all. ICR President John Morris tells of the effects of debates today on christians

“In the vast majority of cases, in fact in nearly 100 percent of them, those who claimed they switched their view that evening, switched from evolution to creation; and nearly all, no matter what their view, felt that the creationists had the better case. Many university professors have become creationists during these debates—not the debaters themselves, but of those in attendance. In fact, several are now affiliated with ICR. One even testifies that his acceptance of Christ as Savior came as an indirect result of a debate. My two recent debates in Moscow, before almost exclusively atheistic audiences, resulted indirectly in numerous conversions and the rapid growth of the local creation society. Furthermore, many, many students—those who have not yet become thoroughly brainwashed...Perhaps the most common result is the strengthening of the faith of Christian students, as they see their faith validated. Furthermore, as they witness advocates of evolution many times openly ridiculing Jesus Christ and the Bible, spewing out vicious hatred for all they love and believe, they are never the same, and are never again tempted to compromise along these lines.I find it interesting to compare the various reactions to the debates. At one of my recent ones, I felt the evolutionary professor, a well-recognized expert, did the very best job of defending evolution and attacking creation I had ever heard, and although there was much to answer, I felt satisfied with the outcome.I later found out that others had different opinions. Some creationists in the crowd declined the opportunity to ask questions from the floor because they didn't want to embarrass the evolutionist any further. The knowledgeable evolutionists present likewise declined to ask any questions.
A professor of a nearby evangelical seminary, who holds to theistic evolution, stormed out of the debate before it was over, claiming that creationists had done a set-up job, having found an incompetent spokesperson for evolution unable to defend the evolution position. A biology professor from a nearby Christian liberal arts college, also an evolutionist, sat quietly through the entire exchange, but disgustedly remarked to friends afterward that the evolutionist had failed to show any weakness in creation thinking, and that she could have done better.

Often after debates viewers are left shocked and asking, why have I not been told this before? This such as in my life, leads them to investigate for themselves, seek all views and dare to question those authority and the infallibility given them. Thus they become creationist. Debates can be found at major creation organizations

https://creation.com/
https://www.creationresearch.org/
https://answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/


Here are a few non media controlled debates free online that give equal time to both sides and both sides are represented by qualified persons online.


Kent Hovind debates 20 free online

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...mLV3nxZ_kWtND-

The Genesis Debate

"The Genesis Debate: Skeptic vs Creationist" is a debate between Dr. Paul Willis and Dr. Carl Wieland over the topic of Creation (more specifically, "Does scientific evidence support a literal Genesis?"). Dr. Paul Willis was the former winner of Australia's "Skeptic of the Year" award, and Dr. Carl Wieland is Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (Australia).
free online
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nIC9kjHhXg&t=56s

Oregon state university debate

kevin Anderson obtained his Ph.D. from Kansas State University in Microbiology. He held an NIH postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Illinois and was Professor of Microbiology at Mississippi State University, where he taught graduate level courses in molecular genetics. He later served as a research microbiologist for the U. S. Department of Agriculture before accepting his current position as Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center in Chino Valley, Arizona. He is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Vs

Andy Karplus is Professor and Chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at OSU, where he has taught since 1998. He holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Washington and was twice an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at the University of Freiburg in Germany. He has received several awards for his research and has authored or co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed articles on protein structure-function relationships.

Clash Over Origins

Creation vs Evolution Dr Mark Farmer (evolution) and Dr Carl Wieland (creation) https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Over-Or.../dp/0949906638
Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate free online
16 part debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT7nGNguZg8HYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT7nGNguZg8&feature=related"&HYPERLINK "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT7nGNguZg8&feature=related"feature=related


free online
http://oregonstate.edu/groups/socrat...ristian-belief


Skeptics vs Creationist a formal debate Read free online
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/skep...eationists.pdf
The Great Dothan Creation/Evolution Debate Dr Robert Carter vs Rick Pierson
https://usstore.creation.com/the-gre...olution-debate


Two Christians debate the age of the earth
Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Danny Faulkner
https://www.amazon.com/Debate-Over-A.../dp/B0052O5RYS


Watch The Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate: Ken Ham And Bill Nye [ a rare time the evolutionist win because Answers in genesis is too worldview directed]
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ye-and-ken-ham


“Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.[246]HYPERLINK

"http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#cite_note-245"[247]

In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”[247] Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”[247] Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists because creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.[248] Also, the atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior concerning his refusal creation scientists. In an article entitled Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate? the Discovery Institute states the following:”
“
Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02...fai000839.html

”
In 1994, the arch-evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott made this confession concerning creation vs. evolution debates:

"During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.
Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of "good"debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science"or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.

[total relism]

Responding to Common "Proofs" of Evolution

While any of the debates above will address these and more, here is the responses to claimed proofs from actual science that evolutionist use.


“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
-Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205



Bacteria Resistance


Often bacteria resistance is claimed to be evolution in action and proof of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who has watched debates knows this if claimed is refuted every time. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is never by a increase in information it is by a loss, the opposite of what is needed by evolution. Below is an example of a textbooks claim it is “direct evidence for evolution”





But we view it critically, we notice this is simply a change in gene frequency in the genetic pool, this is nothing but natural section. All the information and variety in the bacteria population was there before the antibiotics was applied to he population. The surviving bacteria had the resistance already in the population and survived. It would be like killing all the students in a classroom over 6 feet. The survivors are know all less than 6 feet tall. This is a change in population but nothing new was created and it does nothing to exspalin the origin of the bacteria,or people in this analogy. Lets see one other example.



H. pylori normally produces an enzyme that will combine with the antibiotic that causes a reaction to kill the bacteria. Some of the bacteria have a mutation that is a loss of information so that the mutant no longer produces the enzyme that is targeted by the antibiotic so it survives. This mutant strain has reduced genetic information that enables it to survive. This process says nothing to the origin of the gene that creates the enzyme or the origin of the bacteria itself. An analogy would be a hunter in the woods who is caught in a trap who than to save himself cuts off his leg so he can escape. While other bacteria gain their resistance is similar ways, they all involve a loss of information or the resistance was always in the population.

See chart for the various ways bacteria achieve resistance
https://creationresearch.org/bact_resist/

This his whole field of study was started by creationist such as Alexander Fleming, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey it was never seen as evidence of evolution until evolutionist gained political control of education and use it as a claim of evolution. Here is a technical peer reviewed article that gives the known ways of what causes bacteria resistance
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...act_resist.htm


bacteria resistant genes to antibodies were found before the antibodies by 30,000 years to penicillin

"conclusive proof these genes predate medical antibiotics"
-ancient resistance to antibiotics found new scientist 211 [2828] 13 sep 2011


Natural Selection/ Adaptation


“What Darwin really accounted for was not the origin, but the extermination of species.”
-C.S Lewis




“Natural selection must not be equated with evolution, though the two are intimately related.”
-Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986 p8

“Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create “
-Dr. Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist and professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

The above pictures show examples of natural selection and adaptation. On the right it shows a simplified version of the gene pool of the original dog population that has medium fur. The population already contains the genes for long hair and short hair animals. When the genes are combined right, you end up with a population of all long fur or short fur. When the environmental conditions are right [see left picture] the animals best suited survive and now pass on only the traits conditioned for the environment. Thus dogs in colder climates will tend to survive better with long fur genes and will out reproduce short fur dogs over time.

So we see natural selection, adaptation and a change in the gene frequency of the population. This is all observable science. It has nothing to do with upward complexity evolution. Nothing new is created by these processes, no new genetic information that was not already in the parent population. In fact genetic information is lost. Despite claims by evolutionist natural selection does not have God like abilities to create.

“you could substitute the word “god” for “natural selection” in a lot of evolutionary writings, and you'd think you were listening to a theologian”
-Greg Gaffin lectured life sciences and paleontology ucla scientific American p28 nov 2010

“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated...The thinking is we can no longer pretend evolution is just about Darwinian natural selection even if that’s what most biologists say it’s about and textbooks repeat it”.
-Mazur, p. 105)The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

Natural selection selects and cannot create. If you worked in a car factory kept the good cars and through out the bad cars how long would it take to get a plane? It would never happen because the material needed for a plane is not available. Natural selection can select and cause new “species” to evolve but it cannot add information. It can select traits already present in the animal but cant exspalin the origin. Natural selection wasthought of by a creationist over 20 years before Darwin.

http://creation.com/charles-darwins-...ate-brainchild

“Natural selection is common enough in natural populations to have been detected in a wide variety of organisms, and strong selection is not as rare as has been previously assumed; natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency....“But evolution is more than merely a change in trait distributions or allele frequencies; it also includes the origin of the variation....Population geneticists use a different definition of evolution: a change in allele frequencies among generations. This meaning is quite different from the original; it now includes random as well as directional changes, but it does not require the origin of new forms.”
-Dr John Endler PhD Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986

“Natural selection can act only on those biological properties that already exists, it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptations needs.”
-E R Noble GA Nobel GA Schad and AJ Macinnes 1989 Parasitology the Biology of animal Properties


Speciation

Speciation happens but it never involves increase of information it is always a reduction. It is creationist that show evidence of rapid speciation [something evolutionist claims take long periods of time] in support of biblical creation. The Bible says god created animals after their own kind, not species. While it varies it is generally around the family category. The wold, coyote, fox and dog shared a common ancestor from the original dog kind. That is why you can get wolf/poodle mixes.
http://creation.com/is-it-theoretica...th-to-a-poodle

Many animals within the same kind that are separate species can still reproduce. You can mix a zebra/donkey, Linon and Tiger, False killer whale and dolphin etc
http://creation.com/ligers-and-wholphins-what-next

because the separate species came from the same biblical kind of animal.
https://answersingenesis.org/creatio.../baraminology/


sickle cell anemia

“Sickle-cell anaemia is caused by an inherited defect in the instructions which code for the production of haemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment in red blood cells. You will only develop the full-blown, serious disease if both of your parents have the defective gene. If you inherit the defect from only one parent, the healthy gene from the other one will largely enable you to escape the effects of this serious condition.However, this means you are capable of transmitting the defective gene to your offspring, and it also happens that such carriers are less likely to develop malaria, which is often fatal. Being a carrier of sickle-cell disease without suffering it (heterozygosity is the technical term) is far more common in those areas of the world which are high-risk malaria areas, especially Africa.This is good evidence that natural selection plays a part in maintaining a higher frequency of this carrier state. If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease. Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a ‘proof’ of evolution.”
-Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH, is one of Ghana’s top scientists (now living in the UK), and one of the world’s leading experts in sickle-cell anemia. He has lectured all around the world, published numerous papers, treated several thousand sickle-cell patients, and wrote a major 643-page text, The Sickle Cell Disease Patient.


Richard Lenski bacteria experiments

This is similar to typical bacteria resistance or when a insect that has a mutation so it does not have wings on a island, so it lives because the wind dosent blow it off to sea and kill it. It is from a loss of information. They studied 44,000 generations and were able to increase fitness. Yet this was done by a loss of abilities to degrade sugars by the regulatory controls flagelle genes. They are less fit compared to e coli in real environment.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ns-in-bacteria
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6426,229.aspx


Human chromosome 2 fusion event


“The supposed fusion site does not bear the scar of an accidental chromosome crash, rather the site sits in the middle of a functional gene.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017

The section is specific to humans after we supposedly diverged from chimps. It is not evidence for when or our ancestry before that event. The event is a loss of information fusion loses information its a loss of portionsot centomere and telomemers which are needed for regulating other genes. It is not a simple fusion with many nonalignment,gaps, translocations pieces from other chromosomes. There are 150,000 base pairs in human chromosome not found in chips. All humans have some chromosome 2 that supports human descending from common human ancestor. There is disagreement if it is really a fusion between evolutionist and creationists

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6426,229.aspx
http://www.icr.org/article/new-resea...-key-argument/

similar “fusion-sites” are found throw out the human chromosomes with similar features. no exact fusion but very different and the differences are exspalined away by the evolutionist. many things that would not be expected are there and many expected are not see

106–110 The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence
Paper by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins 111–117 The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data
Paper by Jerry Bergman and Jeffrey Tomkins Joc 25 [2] 2011

http://www.icr.org/article/6414/

Combined with the fact that no valid evidence exists for a fossil centromere on human chromosome 2, the evolutionary idea of the chromosome two fusion in humans should be completely abandoned.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...omosome-fusion

New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion http://www.icr.org/article/7833/
More DNA evidence against human chromosome fusion
http://www.icr.org/article/more-dna-...an-chromosome/


nylon degrading bacteria-

Any information before 2007 will likely be inaccurate. These bacteria that can degrade nylon [new ability/function] are found in waste waters near nylon factories. They can digest the byproducts of nylon.
3 enzymes are involved in degrading E1 E2 E3. E1 and E3 alter the nylon so E2 can break it down. E2 breaks down carboxyesterase and they found a point mutation in E2. A change in active site of enzyme to know be able to digest nylon by a reduction of enzyme specificity. Loss of enzyme specificity was due to a harmful mutation. It is biochemically degenerative to the enzyme and requires the already existing enzyme and its specificity, its degeneration is not a mechanism that can account for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ns-in-bacteria
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6426,229.aspx

“All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too. Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required. To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.Regards”
-Jonathan Sarfati He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry


Blind Cave Fish

Losing eyes and sight is a loss of information, the opposite of evolution. However eyes use brain power and energy and that is limited in a dark cave. Why have eyes in the dark? The genes are “turned off” to stop growing eyes. If the fish leaves the cave they “re-enact” these genes and gain eyes back.

Giraffe's Neck

God created an amazing amount of variation within each kind that “natural selection” in a fallen world effects and works on. But the standard story does not seem very logical on how the giraffe got its long neck. Thier was no missing links in the fossil record to support the story. The female giraffe is on avg 3 feet shorter than the male giraffe so if natural selection allowed only the very tallest to survive, how did the females make it? Why also are the other grazing animals found in the same environments that lived along side and with the giraffe yet whose reach was not nearly as high? Also a giraffe could, if it was starving, always bend over to eat grass on the ground like the rest of the grazing animals or of lower branches the other animals were eating off as they do this quit often [for example every time they drink water] giraffes almost always today are observed eating right around shoulder level].

[Husar]

I agree that the assumption of constant rates through history is false weather its erosion rates or radiometric dating, that is the point of my op. Yes factors can change all those rates [as they can any method used to claim billions of years] but as shown in my op even given sort of best possible outcome with slower rates, its still a big problem for old earthers and does not fit their time frame. Unless you suggesting the removal of rain ,wind or any methods of erosion and base that on science. But if that could be done [ never suggested, if anything evolutionist claim a wetter environment in the past] that would help prove my op that uniformitarnism is false.

I apologize if the sum of my arguments in the op were based on my own personal feelings. If that is the case I hope you reject my op entirely. Perhaps you could point out where in my op and what arguments are based on what feelings of mine?

Well, if your arguments are not based on feelings, can you name the factors that affect the rate at which Carbon 14 atoms fall apart?
Also when would they have been strong enough to lead to thousands or millions of years of difference? Your OP contains some examples that lack any sort of detail or explanationa and if you expect me to go hunting for books from the 90s, I'll have to disappoint you indeed. Don't have time for that.

Just to understand the claim. You are saying the moon was earth as it was a molten liquid rock during its formation correct? If this is the starting claim I would say the earth was never a hot molten mass and the moon did not come out of the earth from some collision as claimed. Maybe you could go into some more detail for me and show just what you think proves an old age of the earth/moon.

No, I'm talking about this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...different.html
What would be your explanation?

[Husar]

I don't have time to read all of this, but since you talk about biology, I have a question for you.
If the soul is some kind of ghost-thing that can go to heaven, see things, hear things and remember its life, why or how do brain damage, blindness and other illnesses make it unable to do so here on earth? How exactly is the soul linked to the body? Since all our bodies are different, and different bodies have different effects on the soul, could this affect our ability to see the truth?

[total relism]

Well, if your arguments are not based on feelings, can you name the factors that affect the rate at which Carbon 14 atoms fall apart?
Also when would they have been strong enough to lead to thousands or millions of years of difference? Your OP contains some examples that lack any sort of detail or explanationa and if you expect me to go hunting for books from the 90s, I'll have to disappoint you indeed. Don't have time for that.



No, I'm talking about this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...different.html
What would be your explanation?

I have had a few glasses of wine [Jesus [god] turned water into wine] so we will see how this goes

As i think is clear nothing in my op is based on "feelings" and I think you have shown you have not taken the time to read my op. That is fine it is long. As for carbon dating everything said of radiometric dating applies to carbon dating that also adds a few more assumptions. I would suggest you read that part f my op at least. I know it is long but it has just the examples you look for of how wrong the assumptions are. not just thousands, but millions and billions of times off.



As for the moon this is out of my area for sure, but it is not science but a hypothetical, materialistic, fantasy explanation. notice what it reads


"Both start with the same premise: Not long after the Earth formed more than 4 billion years ago, a Mars-sized planet was on a collision course with it. This object slammed into Earth on a grazing impact, forceful enough to cause immeasurable damage and remelt Earth. A huge amount of material was blasted into space, which coalesced rapidly (and I do mean rapidly; probably in just a few years) to form the Moon. It originally orbited the Earth very close in but over the eons receded from us, and it is now about 380,000 km away. This idea is called—for obvious reasons—the Giant Impact hypothesis.It explains why the Moon has some chemicals similar to Earth—it used to be part of the Earth...The grazing impact skimmed off this lighter stuff, and that’s what formed the Moon"

and later

"During that time, the Earth and Moon would’ve been heavily affected by their tides on each other."

see under Earth-Moon System post 2.


The biblical model does not need to accept these unobserved hypothetical. Again not my area but here are some reasons against the hypothesis.


. “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.”
-Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.


“‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. ‘A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.’”
Science 317:1850, 2007

“You have to understand that first there is speculation, then there is wild speculation, and then there is cosmology.” (-Martin Harris, Stephen Hawking; genius or pretender? in Focus on Science, Weekend Australian, July 4–5, 1992.)



“its hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water... thats a really really difficult knot to untie”
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story id=92383117&ft=1&=1001
24 may 2010

more evidence against giant impact theory
http://www.zmescience.com/science/ge...tion-26032012/

Water On the Moon: It's Been There All Along

The results seem to contradict the predominant lunar formation theory -- that the moon was formed from debris generated during a giant impact between Earth and another planetary body, approximately the size of Mars, according to U-M's Youxue Zhang and his colleagues.

"That is somewhat difficult to explain with the current popular Moon-formation model, in which the Moon formed by collecting the hot ejecta as the result of a super-giant impact of a Martian-size body with the proto-Earth."Under that model, the hot ejecta should have been degassed almost completely, eliminating all water," Zhang said.
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Wat...Along_999.html

Anything of this size hitting the earth would most likely destroy it. And most importantly there is no evidence of such a collision to begin with because such a hit would affect both the orbits of the moon and earth.

And here is why you know this explanation is ad-hoc. The earth has heavy metals in its crust where the moon does not. What mechanism do the evos have that would separate the heavy metals from such a collision to make sure the earth would only have these metals and the moon would not??? Any type of collision even with a molten earth, especially with a molten earth and there would be this mixing of metals, but alas the moon does not have these. a Mars size object hitting the earth in the first place. The earth's orbit around the sun is an ellipse, but it is very near a circular orbit. Why is this important because to have such a collision you would need to account for all the kinetic energy this collision would cause. In other words, the earth being hit by something this large would change the earth's orbit so the earth would not have a near circular orbit around the sun.

The same problem exists with the moon's orbit. It has almost a circular orbit around the earth. In all the computer simulations I have seen for this. Such a large mars size object would not leave the moon in a near circular orbit around the earth either. And one real caveat, many evo astronomers today say that if the earth was struck by an asteroid something as small as 100 miles wide it would destroy the earth. How could the earth withstand such a collision with a mars size object and survive to begin with??? Regarding moon origin by an earth collision, a recent problem is that the moon contains too many water molecules which would have been vaporized away. The model result where two moons form is discussed at
-Gary, Stuart (August 4, 2011). "HYPERLINK "http://news.discovery.com/space/two-moons-earth-110804.html"Earth May Have Had Two MoonsHYPERLINK "http://news.discovery.com/space/two-moons-earth-110804.html"". DiscoveryNews. http://news.discovery.com/space/two-...th-110804.html. Retrieved 2011-08-04. This is from Wikipedia, Giant Impact Hypothesis.
The scientist found that the isotopic abundance in moon rocks was identical to that of the earth. This implies that the moon came only from earth material, and no from an alien planet that collided into the earth. Thus there is no evidence for a mars size mass object hitting earth in a collision.
Moon formation earths titanium twin http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1434.html

Problems for origin of moon
moon rocks are surprisingly wet, new scientist 210 [2815 21 4 june 2011
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../d_deyoung.asp

problems for origin of moon
answers mag july-sep 2012 p 38-39


Also their are Geological explanation for asteroids
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosau...act-chicxulub/

[total relism]

I don't have time to read all of this, but since you talk about biology, I have a question for you.
If the soul is some kind of ghost-thing that can go to heaven, see things, hear things and remember its life, why or how do brain damage, blindness and other illnesses make it unable to do so here on earth? How exactly is the soul linked to the body? Since all our bodies are different, and different bodies have different effects on the soul, could this affect our ability to see the truth?

This is an amazing question sir, I admit i have drank to much to respond tonight. Tomorrow when I am thinking better i shall respond, great question sir. I will say as i understand it, the body, soul and spirit are linked somewhat like the trinity. This question has nothing to do with evolutionist lying, but its just to damn good to pass on. I shall respond tomorrow when my blood alcohol content is less.

[Gilrandir]

The whole thread is based on wrong premises:
1. "Evolutionists caught lying" - Does it mean "ALL evolutionists"? Does it mean "(All) creationists never do"? If you phrase your thread titles like that you might as well have such titles as "Christian priests molest children" or "American film producers harrass women".
2. "Lying" is a category which is gauged against the scale "true vs not true". Whether some things are true can be measured by giving proofs. Since religion isn't about giving proofs, but about having faith, it can be called a lie. E.g. Are there any proofs (documented by independent unbiased witnesses) that Jesus walked water? No? Than this is a lie.

[Gilrandir]

I think it is more saying that uniformitarnism is a false assumption. Nothing could "prove" in the scientific sense the age of the earth if it is thousands or billions going into the observable past leaves the realm of repeatable science.

Oh no. Thousands or millions of years make a great difference. Modern science can be a/some thousand(s) years inaccurate, but not millions of years.

Any attempt to do so takes the summations of uniformtarnism witch contradict themselves if it points to an old earth or young. So maybe it is that we cannot know the age of the earth by any modern in our time scientific methods.

"We" like in "Christians"? Christians shouldn't know anything by scientific methods, they ought to take on faith what religion tells them. And it makes the age of Universe under 10 000 years.

I apologize if the sum of my arguments in the op were based on my own personal feelings.from your worldview?

It is all we need to know about the quality of evidence you provide.

Besides, carbon dating is far from the only thing that hints at the age of our solar system and so on. The moon's surface on our side basically got burnt by hot Earth before there were any "plates" that could have tectonics. What would be your explanation for that?

I may be mistaken, but AFAIK carbon dating is applied only to determine the age of the extinct animals or plants. It isn't used to rocks or planets.

[Fragony]

It's the evolution theory it's just that, unlike religion it doesn't pretends to be be the truth, just very likely. It's a misconception that the evolution theory states that humans descent from apes by the way, they think humans and primates share an ancestor