Science Disproves Evolution

VanIsland · Feb 4, 2015

"a purely natural process cannot create things that are non-natural. Such as the human soul." --> What is "the human soul"? Do dogs have souls? What about Elephants and whales?

Siberian_Khatru · Feb 4, 2015

VanIsland said:

All animals have a soul, save for cats. Definitely not cats.

Sirk · Feb 4, 2015

Siberian_Khatru said:

I don't think my sons lizard has a soul. I figure if it comes when you call it there is a soul of some sort in there.

VanIsland · Feb 4, 2015

All jokes aside - I think this question is worth asking. What is "the human soul" how does it differ from "the animal soul"

The animals I mentioned were (mostly) intentional. Modern Biologists and psychologists have demonstrated that Elephants are highly empathetic beings and demonstrate many traits that indicate grief, happiness, joy, compassion, love, etc. In contrast whales have brains that seem to be 'wired' for emotions - in fact the parts of their brains that help process emotions and encourage the development are social interaction appear to be more complex than the human equivalent.

There appears to be no definition of "soul" that separates the humans from the rest of the animals. Furthermore, it appears to be nothing more than a human invention to describe the feelings, passions and emotions that influence our actions. Is there a soul? Is there a soul that is different from the 'animal soul'? Aside from cats of course - they have no souls

Sirk · Feb 5, 2015

CS Lewis said you don't have a soul, you are a soul. You HAVE a body.

Pahu · Feb 5, 2015

VanIsland said:

Thank you for the information. Evidently you are responding to one post out of 130 and that post agrees with you:

Acquired Characteristics

Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited.[SUP]a[/SUP] For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did.[SUP]b[/SUP]However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal[SUP]c[/SUP] genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery.[SUP]d[/SUP]Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation.[SUP]e[/SUP] Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a . The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b . “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c . In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:
... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley). Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d . “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e . Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 2.�� Acquired Characteristics

Pahu · Feb 5, 2015

VanIsland said:

As C. S. Lewis said we are souls living in physical bodies. In the beginning God created us in His image, which includes mind, spirit and free will. He did not make that distinction with animals and plants, therefor it is reasonable to conclude they do not have souls.

Siberian_Khatru · Feb 5, 2015

VanIsland said:

The Biblical "definition" of a soul, as far as I know, pertains strictly to those of us made in His image (which would exclude animals). Emotions are often seen as an almost metaphysical thing, but there are electrical and chemical reactions going on that present them very much as biological responses. If it's accepted that emotions are biological, then they are really no indication of whether something has a soul or not, as souls are considered metaphysical.

Pahu · Feb 9, 2015

Science Proves God

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.” [From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, therfor He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From Reincarnation in the Bible?]

chiefofdisciples · Feb 9, 2015

God declared unto us His disciples that He created Adam the first man 6019 years ago. 2744 years later came Abraham 42 generations later which is 1260 years, our Lord King Jesus did Himself come n the flesh. Now subtract 6019-2744-1260-year birth year. Your answer will be your age n this year. Or use your age n your answer will be your birth year. No big bang God doesn't lie. Do the math n never forget to ask Him for the truth. Peace n blessings.

Pahu · Feb 11, 2015

Evolving Planets? 2

The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons (d):

a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases—hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the giant planets.
b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, several times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates (e). (Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)
c. Stars like our Sun—even those which evolutionists say are young—do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter (f).
Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations (g). The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve. [See “Have Planets Been Discovered Outside the Solar System?” on page 449.]

Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.

d. “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.

“Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn—the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass—and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.”Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,” Science, Vol. 298, 29 November 2002, p. 1698.

e. This idea has a further difficulty.If, as the solar system began to form, a large, rocky planet quickly formed near Jupiter’s orbit, why didn’t a rocky planet form in the adjacent asteroid belt where we see more than 200,000 rocky bodies (asteroids) today?

f. B. Zuckerman et al., “Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion around Young Stars,” Nature,Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, pp. 494–496.

g.“In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune],cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years,[what evolutionists believe is]the lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’”Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,” Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.

Renu Malhotra, “Chaotic Planet Formation,” Nature, Vol. 402, 9 December 1999, pp. 599–600.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences7.html]

Pahu · Feb 18, 2015

Planetary Rings

Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune (a). [See Figure 24.] Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved (b).

The rings of Saturn, Uranus, and Jupiter are forming today and steadily breaking up. Rings are not composed of debris remaining after planets evolved.Actually, rings do not relate to a planet’s origin. Planetary rings form when material is expelled from a moon or asteroid passing near a giant planet. The material could be expelled by a volcano, a geyser, tidal effects, or the impact of a comet or meteorite (c). Debris that escapes a moon because of its weak gravity and a giant planet’s gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished (or young), they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years (d). Because a planet’s gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.

a. William K. Hartmann, Moons and Planets,3[SUP]rd[/SUP] edition (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993), p. 143.

b. Similar faulty logic claims that, because we see comets, asteroids, and meteoroids, the solar system must have evolved.

c. “Geysers on Enceladus replenish the E ring.”Richard A. Kerr, “At Last, a Supportive Parent for Saturn’s Youngest Ring,” Science, Vol. 309, 9 September 2005, p. 1660.

“Saturn’s moons are bombarded by comets or micro-meteoroids. Those collisions knock off ice particles and send them into orbit around Saturn, forming rings.” Ron Cowen, “Ring Shots,” Science News, Vol. 170, 21 October 2006, p. 263.

This has also been observed for Jupiter’s rings. Jupiter has a few moons large enough to be hit frequently by meteoroids or comets, small enough to have little gravity so the debris can escape the moon, and close enough to Jupiter that tidal effects can spread the moon’s debris into rings. [See Ron Cowen, “Mooning Over the Dust Rings of Jupiter,” Science News,Vol. 154, 12 September 1998, pp. 182–183. See also Gretchen Vogel, “Tiny Moon Source of Jupiter’s Ring,” Science, Vol. 281, 25 September 1998, p. 1951.]

d. “Yet nonstop erosion poses a difficult problem for the very existence of Saturn’s opaque rings—the expected bombardment rate would pulverize the entire system in only 10,000 years! Most of this material is merely redeposited elsewhere in the rings, but even if only a tiny fraction is truly lost (as ionized vapor, for example), it becomes a real trick to maintain the rings since the formation of the solar system[as imagined by evolutionists].” Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Ringed Planets: Still Mysterious—II,”Sky & Telescope,Vol. 69, January 1985, p. 22.

Jeffrey N. Cuzzi, “Saturn: Jewel of the Solar System,” The Planetary Report,July/August 1989, pp. 12–15.

Also, water in Saturn’s rings is rapidly ionized and transported along magnetic lines to certain latitudes on Saturn. The Hubble Space Telescope has detected this water concentration in Saturn’s atmosphere. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Slow Leak Seen in Saturn’s Rings,” Science,Vol. 274, 29 November 1996, p. 1468.]

Richard A. Simpson and Ellis D. Miner, “Uranus: Beneath That Bland Exterior,” The Planetary Report, July/August 1989, pp. 16–18.

“Saturn’s rings (as well as the recently discovered ring system around Uranus) are unstable, therefore recent formations.”S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky, “Comets and the Cosmogony of the Solar System,”Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, editor A. H. Delsemme (Toledo, Ohio: The University of Toledo, 1977), p. 473.
See Endnote 157.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences8.html]

Pahu · Feb 25, 2015

Origin of the Moon

Evolutionary theories for the origin of the Moon are highly speculative and completely inadequate (a). The Moon could not have spun off from Earth, because its orbital plane is too highly inclined.The Moon’s nearly circular orbit is also strong evidence that it was never torn from nor captured by Earth (b). If the Moon formed from particles orbiting Earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the Moon’s orbit; none are (c).

The once popular theory that the Moon formed from debris splashed from Earth by a Mars-size impactor is now largely rejected, because the rocks that astronauts brought back from the moon are too similar to those of Earth. The impactor’s material should have been quite different. (In Part II of this book, you will see why the loose rocks the astronauts brought back from the moon are so similar to Earth’s rocks. Those rocks came from Earth.) Had a Mars-size impact occurred, many small moons should have formed. (d). Also, the impactor’s glancing blow would either be too slight to form our large Moon, or so violent that Earth would end up spinning too fast (e). Besides, part of Earth’s surface and mantle would have melted, but none of the indicators of that melting have been found (f). Small particles splashed from Earth would have completely melted, allowing any water inside them to escape into the vacuum of space. However, Apollo astronauts found on the Moon tiny glass beads that had erupted as molten material from inside the Moon but had dissolved water inside! The total amount of water that was once inside the moon probably equaled that in the Caribbean Sea (g). Finally, a Mars-size impactor would heat up and evaporate much, if not all, of Earth’s surface water. Earth would likely have experienced a runaway greenhouse effect, making earth permanently uninhabitable. [Page 576 explains aspects of this problem.]

These explanations have many other problems. Understanding them caused one expert to joke, “The best explanation [for the Moon] was observational error—the Moon does not exist.” (h) Similar difficulties exist for evolutionary explanations of the other (almost 200) known moons in the solar system.
But the Moon does exist. If it was not pulled or splashed from Earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one hypothesis remains: the Moon was created in its present orbit. [See “Evolving Planets?” on page 31, and “Moon Recession,”“Moon Dust and Debris,”and “Hot Moon” on page 41.]

a. “The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative.” Robert C. Haymes, Introduction to Space Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), p. 209.

On 10 November 1971, Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-winning chemist and lunar scientist, stated “I do not know the origin of the moon, I’m not sure of my own or any other’s models, I’d lay odds against any of the models proposed being correct.” Robert Treash, “Magnetic Remanence in Lunar Rocks,” Pensee,Vol. 2, No. 2, May 1972, p. 22.

“In astronomical terms, therefore, the Moon must be classed as a well-known object, but astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from. This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme.”David W. Hughes, “The Open Question in Selenology,” Nature, Vol. 327, 28 May 1987, p. 291.

b. Paul M. Steidl, The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 77–79.

M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Origin of the Moon,” Science, Vol. 216, 7 May 1982, pp. 606–607.

“If the Moon had separated from the Earth, it would either have broken away completely or returned, but it could not have gone into orbit.” Stacey, p. 38.

c. “The giant impact has major problems. It doesn’t produce the moon as seen.” David Stevenson, as quoted by Daniel Clery, “Impact Theory Gets Whacked,” Science, Vol. 342, 11 October 2013, p. 184.

“The moon rocks, however, showed [oxygen isotope] ratios markedly similar to those of rocks from Earth. ‘The moon and Earth are indistinguishable on the oxygen isotope plot,’ Melosh said. The isotopes of other elements told the same story.” Jay Melosh, as quoted by Daniel Clery, Ibid.

d. “We conclude that an Earth system with multiple moons is the final result unless some particularly severe constraints on initial conditions in the disk are met.”Robin M. Canup and Larry W. Esposito, “Accretion of the Moon from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Icarus, Vol. 119, February 1996, p. 427.

e. “...no reasonable means to rid the Earth/Moon system of this excess angular momentum has yet been proposed.”Shigeru Ida et al., “Lunar Accretion from an Impact-Generated Disk,” Nature,No. 2, Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, p. 357.

f. “A collision big and hot enough to yield the moon’s magma ocean would have melted at least part of Earth’s surface as well. But geologists could not find any evidence that the mantle had ever melted. If it had, they expected to find that iron-loving elements such as nickel, tungsten, and cobalt had been drawn from Earth’s upper layers into its iron core. Instead, the concentration of iron-loving elements, called siderophiles, remains relatively high in Earth’s mantle. And other elements that should have segregated in a liquid mantle were instead commingled.”Karen Wright, “Where Did the Moon Come From?” Discover, Vol. 24, February 2003, pp. 65–66.

g. “This is a problem for the giant impact theory, says[Erik]Hauri. ‘It’s 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,’ he says. ‘That’s a really, really difficult knot to untie.’ ”Nell Greenfieldboyce, quoting Erik Hauri, “Glass Beads from Moon Hint of Watery Past,” Glass Beads From Moon Hint Of Watery Past : NPR, 12 July 2008. [See Endnote 65 on page 317.]

h. Jack J. Lissauer, “It’s Not Easy to Make the Moon,” Nature,Vol. 389, 25 September 1997, pp. 327–328.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences9.html]

Pahu · Mar 4, 2015

Evolution of the Solar System?

Evolutionists claim the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4.6 billion years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun. (To understand why, see “Poynting-Robertson Effect” http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences52.html#wp1260991). Particles should still be falling into the Sun’s upper atmosphere, burning up, and giving off an easily measured, infrared glow. Measurements taken during the solar eclipse of 11 July 1991, showed no such glow (a). So the assumed “millions of years” and this explanation for the solar system’s origin are probably wrong.

Disks of gas and dust sometimes surround stars. That does not mean planets are forming in those disks. Some disks formed from matter suddenly expelled from the star (b). Other disks formed from impact debris or other matter near the star. Early astronomers called the disks planetary nebula, because they mistakenly thought they contained evolving planets.

a. “For decades, astronomers have speculated that debris left over from the formation of the solar system or newly formed from colliding asteroids is continuously falling toward the sun and vaporizing. The infrared signal, if it existed, would be so strong at the altitude of Mauna Kea [Hawaii], above the infrared-absorbing water vapor in the atmosphere, that the light-gathering power of the large infrared telescopes would be overkill....In the case of the infrared search for the dust ring, [Donald N. B.] Hall[Director of the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy]was able to report within days that ‘the data were really superb.’ They don’t tell an entirely welcome story, though. ‘Unfortunately, they don’t seem to show any dust rings at all.’ ”Charles Petit, “A Mountain Cliffhanger of an Eclipse,” Science, Vol. 253, 26 July 1991, pp. 386–387.

“... interplanetary dust is not highly concentrated around the sun. In situ measurements made with impact detectors aboard the two Helios probes, which reached a heliocentric distance of 60 [solar radii], have also shown that the spatial IDP[interplanetary dust particles]density gradually levels off inside ~100 solar radii.
“Our two-dimensional IR[infrared]observations have shown unambiguously that a prominent circumsolar dust ring did not exist at the time of the 11 July 1991 solar eclipse. Consistent with these results, a second recent IR eclipse experiment also found no evidence of surface brightness enhancements.”P. Lamy et al., “No Evidence of a Circumsolar Dust Ring from Infrared Observations of the 1991 Solar Eclipse,” Science, Vol. 257, 4 September 1992, p. 1379.

b. L. F. Miranda et al., “Water-Maser Emission from a Planetary Nebula with a Magnetic Torus,” Nature, Vol. 414, 15 November 2001, pp. 284–286.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences10.html]

Pahu · Mar 11, 2015

Faint Young Sun

If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.5 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25–30% less heat during its first 600 million years than it radiates today (a). (A drop in the Sun’s radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.) Had this happened anytime in the past, let alone for 600 million years, the ice’s mirror like surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun’s radiation into outer space, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If it had, all agree that life could not have evolved.

Evolutionists first tried to solve this “faint young Sun” problem by assuming Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it (b). Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age” (c).

A second approach assumes that Earth’s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases, and at high concentrations methane produces a haze that would have cooled Earth’s surface rather than warming it (d). Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic (e).

A third approach assumes that Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable (f).

Evolutionists have never explained in any of these approaches how such drastic changes could occur in almost perfect step with the slow increase in the Sun’s radiation. Until some evidence supports such “special pleadings,” it does not appear that the Sun evolved (g).

If the Sun, a typical and well-studied star, did not evolve, then why presume other stars did?

a. Gregory S. Jenkins et al., “Precambrian Climate: The Effects of Land Area and Earth’s Rotation Rate,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, 20 May 1993, pp. 8785–8791.

This paper acknowledges that if the Earth rotated almost twice as fast as it does today, this problem would be lessened—but not solved. Still required are a flooded Earth and an atmosphere with 30–300 times more carbon dioxide than today.

b. Let’s assume an old Earth and at least a fifth of the atmospheric carbon dioxide needed to prevent a runaway ice age had been present throughout the Earth’s first 2,750,000,000 years. That carbon dioxide would have combined with weathered rocks to produce large amounts of the mineral siderite (FeCO[SUB]3[/SUB]). Siderite is missing from ancient soils, showing that the concentrations of carbon dioxide needed to prevent a frozen Earth were never present. [See Rob Rye et al., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations before 2.2 Billion Years Ago,” Nature, Vol. 378, 7 December 1995, pp. 603–605.]

“There is no direct evidence to show that carbon dioxide levels were ever a thousand times higher.”Gregory Jenkins, as quoted by Tim Folger, “The Fast Young Earth,” Discover, November 1993, p. 32.

c. William R. Kuhn, “Avoiding a Permanent Ice Age,” Nature,Vol. 359, 17 September 1992, p. 196.

d.“The methane greenhouse effect is limited, however, because organic haze starts to form [chemically]at CH[SUB]4[/SUB]/CO[SUB]2[/SUB] ratios higher than ~0.1, and this creates an anti-greenhouse effect that cools the surface if the haze becomes too thick.”James F. Kasting, “Faint Young Sun Redux,” Nature, Vol. 464, 1 April 2010, p. 688.

e. In 1972, Carl Sagan and George H. Mullen first proposed that the early Earth had lots of heat-trapping methane and ammonia. They had no evidence for early methane and ammonia; they simply were looking for something that might have warmed the Earth, so there would have been no runaway deep freeze and life could have evolved. At the time of Sagan’s death (1996), he was still looking.

f.“Despite all of these proposed warming mechanisms, there are still reasons to think that the faint young Sun problem is not yet solved. Ice albedo feedback has been neglected in all of these one-dimensional climate calculations.”Kasting, p. 688.

g. For a frank admission of these and other “special pleadings,” see Carl Sagan and Christopher Chyba, “The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases,” Science, Vol. 276, 23 May 1997, pp. 1217–1221.

[]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 50.�� Faint Young Sun

Pahu · Mar 11, 2015

VanIsland said:

We don't have souls, we are souls in physical bodies. I doubt that animals have souls since God made us in His image, which includes mind, spirit and free will.

akmetr84 · Mar 12, 2015

I remember seeing a Christian creationist web site a while back that had a lot of articles debunking evolution both by the bible and by science. It was loaded with information and counter articles to the lies that come out. I lost the link. Anyone know what the site was?

Fubario · Mar 12, 2015

Animals are spiritual beings too, they experience will and emotion like us, we are all animals as Scripture says, I think there is a lot more to understand than all that stuff.

Ugly · Mar 12, 2015

Fubario said:

Then why do animals not need salvation for their sins?

And please show the actual scripture that states man are nothing but animals.

Fubario · Mar 13, 2015

For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. Ecc 3:19 ESV

I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. Ecc 3:18 ESV

Animals are not under condemnation for breaking the law of God, as far as I am aware, they are in their instincts perfectly obedient to the way God wants them to be, you don't see animals trying to be humans or wearing clothes or just not being themselves. I say and argue this because they were not the ones to originally break the Law of God or the first commandment to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, instead, animals are bound to the brokenness and effects of the fall, but they remain perfectly obedient to God. It's like this; we consciously have knowledge of sin whereas animals do not, but it is also like this that animals are not made in the image of God. I believe there is a lot more than we just see in Scripture, and these answers will come when we are dead and spending time with God.

Science Disproves Evolution

VanIsland

Guest

Siberian_Khatru

Guest

Sirk

Guest

VanIsland

Guest

Sirk

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Siberian_Khatru

Guest

Senior Member

chiefofdisciples

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Fubario

Guest

Ugly

Guest

Fubario

Guest