INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 618
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#581 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » August 12th, 2017, 1:07 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Pahu wrote:
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Pahu, the dispute here is not about the distinction between open and closed systems or closed and isolated systems. However important these distinctions may be, the dispute is about a particular assertion:
Any increase in order and complexity that may occur, therefore, could only be local and temporary; but evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time.


Can you explain what it means? If so, can you explain what evidence supports it?


The evidence is found in observing what really happens. Everything is running down if left to itself, in conformity to the second law. Nothing is seen to be going up.


Well, you haven't dealt with the connection between order and complexity and 2LT. We may return to that later.


But let us leave that aside for the moment and concentrate on the assertion that evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time.

What do you understand by order? And what has it to do with thermodynamics?

How does ( the theory of) evolution require a general increase in order? Is ToE incompatible with local and temporary increase in order ( whatever that may be) ?

Is ToE incompatible with the notion that life will eventually die out when the geological time of our planet is over?

Give reasons for your answers.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#582 Postby Pahu » August 12th, 2017, 3:01 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Pahu, the dispute here is not about the distinction between open and closed systems or closed and isolated systems. However important these distinctions may be, the dispute is about a particular assertion:


Can you explain what it means? If so, can you explain what evidence supports it?


The evidence is found in observing what really happens. Everything is running down if left to itself, in conformity to the second law. Nothing is seen to be going up.


Well, you haven't dealt with the connection between order and complexity and 2LT. We may return to that later.


But let us leave that aside for the moment and concentrate on the assertion that evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time.

What do you understand by order? And what has it to do with thermodynamics?

How does ( the theory of) evolution require a general increase in order? Is ToE incompatible with local and temporary increase in order ( whatever that may be) ?

Is ToE incompatible with the notion that life will eventually die out when the geological time of our planet is over?

Give reasons for your answers.


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy


The study of biological processes and phenomena indicates that significant evolutionary developments are not observable in the modern world. Similarly the great gaps in the fossil record make it extremely doubtful that any genuine evolution, as distinct from small changes within the kinds, ever took place in the past.

There is one consideration, however, which goes well beyond the implications of the above difficulties. Not only is there no evidence that evolution ever has taken place, but there is also firm evidence that evolution never could take place. The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.

The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within.

"Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in") and trope (meaning "turning"). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.

That the principles of evolution and entropy are both believed to be universal principles and yet are mutually contradictory is seen from the following authoritative definitions:

"There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation—the law of increasing entropy." 1
As far as evolution is concerned, the classic definition of Sir Julian Huxley is as follows:

"Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution—a single process of self-transformation."2
Thus, in one instance, "all observed systems ... go from order to disorder," and in the other, "the whole of reality ... gives rise to an increasingly high level of organization in its products." It seems obvious that either evolution or entropy has been vastly over-rated or else that something is wrong with the English language.

The entropy principle, however, is nothing less than the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is as universal and certain a law as exists in science. First, however, before discussing the Second Law, we should define the First Law and, for that matter, thermodynamics itself.

Thermodynamics is a compound of two Greek words, therme ("heat") and dunamis ("power"). It is the science that speaks of the power or energy contained in heat, and its conversion to other forms of energy. The term "energy" is itself derived from the Greek word energeia ("working"), and is normally defined as "the capacity to do work." In modern scientific terminology, "energy" and "work" are considered equivalent, each measured as the product of a force times the distance through which it acts (foot-pounds, in the English system of dimensions). Something which has "energy" has the "capacity to do work" ... that is, the capacity to exert a force through a distance."

The concept of "power" is closely related to that of "energy" except that the time factor must also be taken into account. Power is the work done, or the energy expended to do the work, per unit of time measured in foot-pounds per second.

The First Law of Thermodynamics

Since all processes are fundamentally energy conversion processes, and since everything that happens in the physical universe is a "process" of some kind, it is obvious why the Two Laws of Thermodynamics are recognized as the most universal and fundamental of all scientific laws. Everything that exists in the universe is some form of energy, and everything that happens is some form of energy conversion. Thus the Laws which govern energy and energy conversion are of paramount importance in understanding the world in which we live.

Isaac Asimov defines the First Law as follows:

"To express all this, we can say: ‘Energy can be transferred from one place to another, or transformed from one form to another, but it can be neither created nor destroyed.’ Or we can put it another way: ‘The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant.’ When the total quantity of something does not change, we say that it is conserved. The two statements given above, then, are two ways of expressing ‘the law of conservation of energy.’ This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make."3
Asimov makes a very interesting point when he says concerning this Law: "No one knows why energy is conserved."4 He should have said, of course, that science cannot tell us why energy is neither created nor destroyed. The Bible, however, does give us this information.

The reason why no energy can now be created is because only God can create energy and because God has "rested from all His work which He created and made" (Genesis 2:3). The reason why energy cannot now be destroyed is because He is now "upholding all things by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3). "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it" (Ecclesiastes 3:14).

The Second Law in Classical Thermodynamics

The First Law is itself a strong witness against evolution, since it implies a basic condition of stability in the universe. The fundamental structure of the cosmos is one of conservation, not innovation. However, this fact in itself is not impressive to the evolutionist, as he merely assumes that the process of evolution takes place within the framework of energy conservation, never stopping to wonder where all the energy came from in the first place nor how it came to pass that the total energy was constant from then on.

It is the Second law, however, that wipes out the theory of evolution. There is a universal process of change, and it is a directional change, but it is not an upward change.

In so-called classical thermodynamics, the Second Law, like the First, is formulated in terms of energy.

"It is in the transformation process that Nature appears to exact a penalty and this is where the second principle makes its appearance. For every naturally occurring transformation of energy is accompanied, somewhere, by a loss in the availability of energy for the future performance of work."5
In this case, entropy can be expressed mathematically in terms of the total irreversible flow of heat. It expresses quantitatively the amount of energy in an energy conversion process which becomes unavailable for further work. In order for work to be done, the available energy has to "flow" from a higher level to a lower level. When it reaches the lower level, the energy is still in existence, but no longer capable of doing work. Heat will naturally flow from a hot body to a cold body, but not from a cold body to a hot body.

For this reason, no process can be 100% efficient, with all of the available energy converted into work. Some must be deployed to overcome friction and will be degraded to non-recoverable heat energy, which will finally be radiated into space and dispersed. For the same reason a self-contained perpetual motion machine is an impossibility.

Since, as we have noted, everything in the physical universe is energy in some form and, since in every process some energy becomes unavailable, it is obvious that ultimately all energy in the universe will be unavailable energy, if present processes go on long enough. When that happens, presumably all the various forms of energy in the universe will have been gradually converted through a multiplicity of processes into uniformly (that is, randomly) dispersed heat energy. Everything will be at the same low temperature. There will be no "differential" of energy levels, therefore no "gradient" of energy to induce its flow. No more work can be done and the universe will reach what the physicists call its ultimate "heat death."

Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

The evolutionist will not accept this conclusion, however. He hypothesizes that either: (1) some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevailed far back in time, or (2) some. natural law canceling out the Second Law prevails far out in space.

When he makes such assumptions, however, he is denying his own theory, which says that all things can be explained in terms of presently observable laws and processes. He is really resorting to creationism, but refuses to acknowledge a Creator.

Entropy and Disorder

A second way of stating the entropy law is in terms of statistical thermodynamics. It is recognized today that not only are all scientific laws empirical but also that they are statistical. A great number of individual molecules, in a gas for example, may behave in such a way that the over-all aspects of that gas produce predictable patterns in the aggregate, even though individual molecules may deviate from the norm. Laws describing such behavior must be formulated statistically, or probabilistically, rather than strictly dynamically. The dynamical laws then can theoretically be deduced as limiting cases of the probabilistic statements.

In this context entropy is a probability function related to the degree of disorder in a system. The more disordered a system may be, the more likely it is.

"All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entropy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system; the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy."6
Note again the universality expressed here—all real processes. Isaac Asimov expresses this concept interestingly as follows:

"Another way of stating the Second Law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the Second Law is all about."7
Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution, which goes from disorder to order?" Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do.

Especially is such a question vital, when we are thinking of evolution as a growth process on the grand scale from atom to Adam and from particle to people. This represents an absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.

Footnotes

1 . R. B. Lindsay: "Physics—To What Extent Is It Deterministic?" American Scientist, Vol. 56, Summer 1968, p. 100.
2. Julian Huxley: "Evolution and Genetics" in What is Man? (Ed. by J. R. Newman, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1955), p.278.
3. Isaac Asimov: "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June, 1970, p. 6.
4. Ibid.
5. R. B. Lindsay: "Entropy Consumption and Values in Physical Science," American Scientist, Vol. 47, September, 1959, p. 378.
6. Harold Blum: "Perspectives in Evolution," American Scientist, October, 1955, p. 595.
7. Isaac Asimov: op cit, p.10.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#583 Postby Pahu » August 16th, 2017, 2:44 pm

Fossil Gaps 13



d. “The insect fossil record has many gaps.” “Insects: Insect Fossil Record,” Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).

e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:

“As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.” Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.

“How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.” Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library
(New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.

“Origin of the vertebrates is obscure—there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.” Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.

f. “... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.”   Taylor, p. 60.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 618
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#584 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » August 18th, 2017, 11:29 am

Pahu wrote:The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:



More housework to do, I see...

https://ncse.com/cej/2/2/creationist-mi ... use-second

https://ncse.com/cej/2/2/biological-evo ... second-law
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#585 Postby Pahu » August 24th, 2017, 3:41 pm

Fossil Gaps 14



g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition” occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.


[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]

It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg.  [See Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.]

h. “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.” Thomas S. Kemp, [i]Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#586 Postby Pahu » August 30th, 2017, 8:19 pm

Fossil Gaps 15



i. “The [evolutionary] [i]origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.” W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds,” [i]Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.

Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.

A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds,” Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267–1270.] In that report, “Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.” [Ann Gibbons, “Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood,” [i]Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]

Bird and theropod “hands” differ. Theropods have “fingers” I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger” and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds.” [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand,” [i]Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “... this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] [i]orthodoxy.” [Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?” [i]Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Last edited by Alan H on August 30th, 2017, 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: You're not a fast learner, are you, Pahu?
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 618
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#587 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » September 2nd, 2017, 12:57 am

Pahu wrote: “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.” [/color]Thomas S. Kemp, [i]Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]




Given upon 2LT, Pahu? Prudent of you.

Now, let's have a look at your recent offering.

As you may ( but probably don't) know, the context of the quotation from Thomas S Kemp is available on subscription but not readily available otherwise. As before, I am unwilling to dig out the evidence that you or your charlatan master Brown should have provided in the first place.
What can be readily ascertained without subscription is this:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tskemp/books.htm

And this:
1982. T.S. Kemp Mammal-like reptiles and the origin of mammals.
Academic Press: London. Pp xiv+363 View cover
The only comprehensive account of the pre-mammalian synapsid fossil record, and what it reveals about the radiation of the dominant amniote group prior to the dinosaurs, and the process of the origin of mammals from their basal amniote ancestry. Being by far the most complete fossil record for the transition to a major new taxon, the synapsids also illustrate the general nature of mega-evolutionary change.


And this:
2005. T.S. Kemp The origin and evolution of mammals.
Oxford University Press: Oxford Pp x+331 View cover
The first half of the book is a complete update of the story of the mammal-like reptiles and the origin of mammals since my 1982 review. The second half continues the story of the radiation of mammals through the Mesozoic and Tertiary. The patterns of evolution as inferred from the fossil evidence is related to functional interpretation and the prevailing palaeoecological and biogeographic background. It is the first book to cover the molecular systematics of the mammalian interordinal relationships, and discusses the radical impact this has had on the interpretation of the fossil record.


Kemp seems to think that he has been contributing to evolutionary theory rather than refuting it. Does that not give you pause for thought?

I cannot force Brown to abandon quote-mining.Nor can I make you see what is wrong with it. What I can do, however, is warn the more impressionable lurkers against the intellectually and morally disgraceful nonsense you seek to spread.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#588 Postby Pahu » September 2nd, 2017, 4:33 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:
Pahu wrote: “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.” Thomas S. Kemp, [i]Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]




Given upon 2LT, Pahu? Prudent of you.

Now, let's have a look at your recent offering.

As you may ( but probably don't) know, the context of the quotation from Thomas S Kemp is available on subscription but not readily available otherwise. As before, I am unwilling to dig out the evidence that you or your charlatan master Brown should have provided in the first place.
What can be readily ascertained without subscription is this:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tskemp/books.htm

And this:
1982. T.S. Kemp Mammal-like reptiles and the origin of mammals.
Academic Press: London. Pp xiv+363 View cover
The only comprehensive account of the pre-mammalian synapsid fossil record, and what it reveals about the radiation of the dominant amniote group prior to the dinosaurs, and the process of the origin of mammals from their basal amniote ancestry. Being by far the most complete fossil record for the transition to a major new taxon, the synapsids also illustrate the general nature of mega-evolutionary change.


And this:
2005. T.S. Kemp The origin and evolution of mammals.
Oxford University Press: Oxford Pp x+331 View cover
The first half of the book is a complete update of the story of the mammal-like reptiles and the origin of mammals since my 1982 review. The second half continues the story of the radiation of mammals through the Mesozoic and Tertiary. The patterns of evolution as inferred from the fossil evidence is related to functional interpretation and the prevailing palaeoecological and biogeographic background. It is the first book to cover the molecular systematics of the mammalian interordinal relationships, and discusses the radical impact this has had on the interpretation of the fossil record.


Kemp seems to think that he has been contributing to evolutionary theory rather than refuting it. Does that not give you pause for thought?

I cannot force Brown to abandon quote-mining.Nor can I make you see what is wrong with it. What I can do, however, is warn the more impressionable lurkers against the intellectually and morally disgraceful nonsense you seek to spread.


Most of the scientists Brown quotes believe in evolution but reveal problems with the hypothesis. Kemp seems to be contradicting himself.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 618
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#589 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » September 3rd, 2017, 9:47 pm

Pahu wrote:Most of the scientists Brown quotes believe in evolution but reveal problems with the hypothesis. Kemp seems to be contradicting himself.



You tried the same idea in # 539, asserting that Gould had contradicted himself, when in fact he was correcting misrepresentation. Your idea didn't work then, and it won't work now.
It is your assertion ( and Brown's ) that what Kemp said amounts to a serious criticism of evolutionary theory, and it is up to you to provide the evidence that this is so. What is required at the outset is proper citation.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#590 Postby Pahu » September 4th, 2017, 6:21 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:
Pahu wrote:Most of the scientists Brown quotes believe in evolution but reveal problems with the hypothesis. Kemp seems to be contradicting himself.



You tried the same idea in # 539, asserting that Gould had contradicted himself, when in fact he was correcting misrepresentation. Your idea didn't work then, and it won't work now.
It is your assertion ( and Brown's ) that what Kemp said amounts to a serious criticism of evolutionary theory, and it is up to you to provide the evidence that this is so. What is required at the outset is proper citation.


Just read the two statements. It looks like a contradiction to me. By the way, the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:


Pluto's Craterless Plains Look Young


Image

Earlier this year, New Horizons flew past dwarf planet Pluto and its sister Charon, rapidly capturing data. That information continues to trickle in, revealing a surprisingly smooth heart-shaped plain called "Tombaugh Regio." The countless craters expected from billions of years' worth of impacts are nowhere to be found.

Tombaugh Regio is centered just north of Pluto's equator and contains a western lobe called "Sputnik Planum." After thorough data scouring, researchers found zero craters on Sputnik Planum.

The most obvious way to "smooth" this plain is for recent geologic activity to erase impact craters. But this clearly implies a recent and sizable output of energy from Pluto's interior. That's quite a trick for an object so far from the sun and isolated from outside gravitational pulls that might contribute to that energy. Pluto is so small and far removed from its moment of creation— supposedly over four billion years ago—that its internal heat should have vanished long ago.

"It's a huge finding that small planets can be active on a massive scale, billions of years after their creation," said Alan Stern, principal investigator behind the New Horizons spacecraft on November 9 at the American Astronomical Society's Division of Planetary Sciences meeting in National Harbor, Maryland.1

NASA released a video of New Horizons flight over the vast flatness of Sputnik Planum.2 New images and information also reveal two crater-topped mountains that appear to be ice volcanos rising several miles above Pluto's surface. Pluto's fault ridges and other signs of youth all show "seemingly young surfaces" that run "against many expectations" according to a presentation abstract from the Division of Planetary Sciences meeting in Maryland.3 All this jives with what the Institute for Creation Research suggested just before New Horizons was set to collect data from Pluto and Charon—that it would uncover more evidence of a young-looking solar system.4

Space.com wrote,

Scientists had expected that heat to be lost if Pluto was an old object. But New Horizons revealed an active surface on an old planet, and internal heating is the best current guess for what's driving that activity—even if scientists don't quite know how that heat has lasted over 4 billion years.1

Perhaps the heat has not lasted "over 4 billion years." This inferred heat presents no challenge to the idea that Pluto is young—part of a recent creation. But Stern said, "We can't appeal to a young Pluto-Charon system to explain energy sources." One wonders why not since the evidence points that direction. Does a young Pluto sound too biblical?

References

1. Redd, N. T. Part of Pluto's Heart Was 'Born Yesterday.' Space.com. Posted on space.com November 11, 2015, accessed November 11, 2015.
2. Art Meets Science in New Pluto Aerial Tour. Stuart Robbins, a research scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, stitched New Horizons spacecraft images of Pluto's surface together to craft this flyover animation.
3. Trowbridge, A. J., H. J. Melosh, and A. M. Freed. Vigorous Convection Underlies Pluto's Surface Activity. Presented at the November 2015 47th Annual Meeting, American Astronomical Society, Division of Planetary Sciences, #102.01. The abstract's opening line reads: "Against many expectations, New Horizons' images of the surface of Pluto and Charon show seemingly young surfaces." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015DPS...
.4710201T
4. Hebert, J. New Horizons, Pluto, and the Age of the Solar System. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org July 14, 2015, accessed November 17, 2015.

http://www.icr.org/article/9022/256/
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 618
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#591 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » September 4th, 2017, 8:21 pm

Pahu wrote:Just read the two statements. It looks like a contradiction to me.


Well, of course it does, bless you! If you want to understand it, you have to read the context that has been excised. You haven't done that, because you haven't seen the text, have you? Certainly, you haven't yet provided a link.

As for Gould's case... well, I don't blame you for refusing to linger on that. Having the same tooth pulled twice must be painful. For the benefit of the lurkers, let me remind you that I twice had to give a link to the text from which you steadfastly averted your gaze. To no avail, the contextomy being obvious.

Creationist quote-mining has been going on for years. Nothing they attribute to scientists can be taken at face value unless it is supported by proper citation.

By the way, the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:


Gish Stampede?
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#592 Postby Pahu » September 6th, 2017, 3:38 pm

Fossil Gaps 16



Theropod “arms” (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.

“... most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx [the supposed first bird].” Hinchliffe, p. 597.

See “What Was Archaeopteryx?” [here].


Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.

j. [i] “When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural. ... It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known ...” William Charles Osman Hill, [i]Primates
(New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25–26.

“The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record.” A. J. Kelso, [i]Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.

“Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”   Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” [i]Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.

k. “At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids.” Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, [i]Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Last edited by Alan H on September 6th, 2017, 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Hum di ho...
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#593 Postby Pahu » September 21st, 2017, 4:19 pm

Fossil Gaps 17



In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).

l. “It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.” Nilsson, p. 1212.

[i] “... experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting.” Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History), “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” [i]Adventures in Earth History,
editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644–645.

“A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known.” Bolton Davidheiser, [i]Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 302.

On pages 303–309, Davidheiser, a Ph.D. zoologist and creationist, lists 75 other forms of life whose ancestry is unknown.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#594 Postby Pahu » September 27th, 2017, 6:44 pm

The Cambrian Explosion 1



The “evolutionary tree” has no trunk. In what evolutionists call the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified (a), and dispersed—worldwide (b).

a. “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” Darwin, [i]The Origin of Species, p. 348.

“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.”  Ibid., p. 344.

[i] “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p. 350.

[i] “The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”  Ibid., p. 351.

[i] “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time...The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” [i]Discover, October
1989, p. 65.

“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] [i]already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” [ Richard Dawkins, [i]The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 229.

Richard Monastersky, “Mysteries of the Orient,” Discover, April 1993, pp. 38–48.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Last edited by Alan H on September 27th, 2017, 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Ho ho ho.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#595 Postby Pahu » October 4th, 2017, 2:25 pm

The Cambrian Explosion 2


“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.” Daniel I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” [i]Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7.

“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” [i]Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.

“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.” T. Neville George (Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow), “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” [i]Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5.

b. Strange Cambrian fossils, thought to exist only in the Burgess Shale of western Canada, have been discovered in southern China.  See:

L. Ramsköld and Hou Xianguang, “New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans,” Nature, Vol. 351, 16 May 1991, pp. 225–228.

Jun-yuan Chen et al., “Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators,” Science, Vol. 264, 27 May 1994, pp. 1304–1308.

Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in widely separated locations stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

VINDICATOR
Posts: 286
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#596 Postby VINDICATOR » October 6th, 2017, 9:59 am

Dear Pahu,
According to the Bible, the whole universe was created just 6000 years ago. Please tell us where did all those fossils come from? :puzzled:

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#597 Postby Pahu » October 6th, 2017, 4:31 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
According to the Bible, the whole universe was created just 6000 years ago. Please tell us where did all those fossils come from? :puzzled:


The pre-flood world was different from the post-flood world. Before the Flood most of the wold was covered with land and vegetation and animal life was more numerous and varied. The Flood killed all air breathing animal life which was rapidly buried and became fossils.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22151
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#598 Postby Alan H » October 6th, 2017, 4:54 pm

Pahu wrote:
VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
According to the Bible, the whole universe was created just 6000 years ago. Please tell us where did all those fossils come from? :puzzled:


The pre-flood world was different from the post-flood world. Before the Flood most of the wold was covered with land and vegetation and animal life was more numerous and varied. The Flood killed all air breathing animal life which was rapidly buried and became fossils.

:hilarity:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 618
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#599 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » October 7th, 2017, 12:52 am

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
According to the Bible, the whole universe was created just 6000 years ago. Please tell us where did all those fossils come from? :puzzled:


The pre-flood world was different from the post-flood world. Before the Flood most of the wold was covered with land and vegetation and animal life was more numerous and varied. The Flood killed all air breathing animal life which was rapidly buried and became fossils.

:hilarity:


Well, as your man Schiller observed: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Perhaps God had better pray to Himself for protection from His most devout champions.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

VINDICATOR
Posts: 286
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#600 Postby VINDICATOR » October 9th, 2017, 2:47 pm

Dear Pahu,
The Great Flood was only about 4000 years ago. Are you saying that all those fossils were created less than 4000 years ago? Do you know how long it takes to make a fossil?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 321
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#601 Postby Pahu » October 9th, 2017, 4:02 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
The Great Flood was only about 4000 years ago. Are you saying that all those fossils were created less than 4000 years ago? Do you know how long it takes to make a fossil?


Actually the Flood was about 4300 BC. That would be about 6300 years ago. Burial took place rapidly. The fossils developed within a few years after burial. Here is more information:

Image


Experiment: Fast-Formed Fossils


Do fossils require millions of years to form? Hardly! Even secular geologists now recognize that rocks form very quickly. The key is the right chemical conditions, not time. See for yourself with a simple experiment.

Everyone knows that the fossils we find all over the world took millions of years to form—scientists proved that years ago, right?

Actually, even secular geologists recognize that fossils form rapidly. If they didn’t, the organism would decay so quickly there would be almost nothing left to fossilize!

Scientists constantly test ways to understand and replicate the process of forming fossils. Taphonomists (those who study how to make fossils) have demonstrated the astonishing speed of fossilization. Some fossils can be generated in days, or even hours!1

Fossils can form in a wide variety of ways. Some common methods include:

The body can leave an impression or mold showing its outer shape in the surrounding sand or mud. This can include footprints and the inside and outside of shells. With the right ingredients and conditions, the mold can harden quickly, like cement.
Petrification takes place when minerals replace the original material of the plant or animal. These petrified fossils must form quickly, before the body parts have time to decay. Petrified wood is a classic example.
Permineralization, or encased fossilization, occurs when dissolved minerals fill the pores and empty spaces in the plant or animal but don’t replace any of the original material. The chemicals then turn into crystals, keeping the organism safe and preserved. While it is possible for many different chemicals to do this, quartz is the most common. Most dinosaur bones are permineralized.
Fossils can form under all kinds of conditions all over the world. While water and dissolved minerals are usually needed to form the three types of fossils above, many processes—coalification, compression, freezing, desiccation (drying out), to name a few—do not require either.

Though there are numerous ways to make fossils, fossilization is somewhat rare today. Why is that?

God created the world to efficiently recycle organic matter. When something dies, scavengers, fungi (like mushrooms), and/or bacteria normally consume it. This process of decomposition leaves nothing behind to fossilize.

However, massive catastrophes like Noah’s Flood would produce the conditions necessary to quickly bury and protect creatures so that they can fossilize. It appears that God wanted to leave abundant evidence of His past judgment of mankind’s sin.

While scientists are still trying to sort out the complex details about fossilization, one fact is undisputed—it can be amazingly fast.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/ho ... d-fossils/
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest