http://www.christianforums.com Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. en Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:14:13 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.christianforums.com/style/misc/rss.jpg http://www.christianforums.com http://www.christianforums.com/t7417829/ Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:37:34 GMT I will be giving more direct evidence that 'evolution' has not occured in nature, this time on the biological level. All things were created by God just the way Moses, the prophets, the writers of the New Testament, and particularly Jesus Christ Himself said He did in scripture. The scientific evidence strongly reveals this fact.

One of the areas it is seen most clearly is in the matter of 'living fossils', that is those fossils which are dated in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions of yrs old that have living offspring which reveal very little or no change. The problem for evolutionists in this regard is huge but most of them whom I have presented this evidence discard it deliberately.

First, the oldest known fossil bat, dated at 50 million yrs old by evolutionists (Note: I do not accept the time frame of evolutionists in millions or billions of yrs).



Compared with its almost identical living offspring:



The point: There is no evolution of the bat species. The only changes we see in the fossil record are within the various kinds of bats. There is no visible change of any other organisms INTO bats prior to the 50 million yr old example above and there is not change FROM bats as we know them into any different kind of organism. Such a change is non-existent for there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that change.

2nd point: The evolutionary biologists/geolgists/zoologists CANNOT reveal this kind of change in bats:



If indeed bats evolved from small rodent-like creatures over millions of years then WHERE are the fossils of those changes? There should be hundreds if not thousands of them in existence. But threre are none! There isn't a single bat fossil in existence older than the one you see in this OP. That speaks volumes to honest thinkers who understand how serious this problem is for evolutionists.

Next: alligator fossils and the modern alligators reveal no change.



Not only so but rabbit fossils compared to rabbit skeletons of our time reveal no change despite what is supposed to have been millions of yrs of 'evolution'.






There is no anatomical changes revealed in these comparisons despite the fact that the species are supposed to be millions of yrs apart in age.

I am giving the reader just the beginning of the direct observational evidence against the theory of evolution and that such an interpretation of the facts as we have them is in error. Evolution has never occurred on this planet because it never existed to begin with. ]]> Origins Theology Calypsis4 http://www.christianforums.com/t7417829/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7417205/ Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:10:44 GMT Aside from the biblical reasons, which should be enough for any honest Christian who loves Jesus Christ, I would like to spend some time revealing why evolution theory is wrong right from the outset.

1. Concerning cosmological evolution; the so-called 'big bang' resulting in the vast order we see in our universe/world? Since when does an explosion produce order? Someone give an example of such high levels of order (such as living organisms) being developed by accidental forces.

2. Did natural law create itself? Did the big bang create the natural laws we know? (E=mc^2, F=Gm1Gm2/r^2, T=Fr, W=FD, etc). Nature provides no explanation for the origin of natural law. Unless there is a Creator who set the balance of nature, then there is no explanation available to us.

3. The universe does not reveal phenomena that is consistent with the theory of evolution as far as the amount of time that has been assigned to it.

Example:
Quote: "A strange cartoon graced the cover of Science News last fall (10/08/2005) that serves as a symbol for a whole class of problems for evolutionary astronomers. It showed a star-shaped old man in a stellar maternity ward. With its title, 'Crisis in the Cosmos? Galaxy-formation theory is in peril,' the article exposed a running theme in astronomy: as far back as we look, stars and galaxies appear mature. 'Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men,' Ron Cowen quipped. 'That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos.'

Other recent findings echo this theme of 'mature at birth.' Consider three examples from March of this year:

• The Spitzer Space Telescope found clusters of galaxies a third of the assumed age of the universe.
• UV and infrared surveys found "ubiquitous" galaxies at redshift 6.7, corresponding to 5% the assumed age.
• The Swift satellite detected a gamma-ray burst 12.8 billion years old in the assumed time scale. 'This means, said Nature (3/9/2006, p. 164) 'that not only did stars form in this short period of time after the Big Bang, but also that enough time had elapsed for them to evolve and collapse into black holes.'

More examples could be cited. These findings corroborate a January 8, 2002, NASA press release that was considered astonishing at the time: based on Hubble surveys, 'the grand finale came first' in stellar and galactic evolution. As far back as telescopes look, they see mature creation, not evolution. (From Creation Moments.)

Oh, but it gets far worse for evolutionists than this:

Quote: "
“This year stretched the imaginations of many astronomers and cosmologists. They have discovered amazing features at the outer reaches of the universe. And they cause headaches for those with blind faith in naturalistic origin theories—including a big bang about 14 billion years ago.

"Back in January, a team of astronomers announced the discovery of a massive and distant string of galaxies. By their own dating methods, they were looking at a structure within only 2 billion years of the universe’s inception. This was much too early for such a complex structure to have evolved naturally.

"Later this year, astronomers announced another anomalous discovery. This time, they found individual galaxies at allegedly advanced stages of galactic ‘evolution’ in a part of the sky named the ‘redshift desert’. They used the Gemini North Telescope, with an 8-metre mirror, on the summit of Mauna Kea on the big island of Hawaii. This area of the sky is supposed to be so old and so close to the beginning of everything that it was believed nothing as complex as a galaxy should, or could, exist there.

"Under big bang assumptions, astronomers looking into the redshift desertare seeing the universe as it was 8 to 11 billion years ago, at a time when it was ‘only’ 3 to 6 billion years old. This part of the sky had not previously been widely explored. Astronomers believed it contained objects too faint and dim to study properly. However, recent advances in telescope optics have allowed astronomers to make a systematic study of the redshift desert, the Gemini Deep Deep Survey (GDDS).

"What the GDDS astronomers found was totally unexpected. Where they had expected to see young, small, still-developing galaxies, they found more than 300 fully mature galaxies, just like those seen near our own galaxy, the Milky Way.
Team member Dr Karl Glazebrook from Johns Hopkins University says the find presents a huge challenge because their ‘star-forming youth is in fact long gone.’2 He explained:
‘We expected to find basically zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago, because theoretical models [based on the big bang] predict that massive galaxies form last. Instead we found highly developed galaxies that just shouldn’t have been there, but are.’3
This is a story that is sounding more and more familiar."

Not surpising at all for those of us who believe in a young world/universe. The evolutionist predictions about the age of certain things in our universe have been in error time and time again. I've been seeing this since I was a kid when Isaac Asimov as well as the scientists at NASA predicted that there would be one hundred ft of dust on the moon and it would be dangerous to send astronauts there. Subsequent moon probes proved them wrong.

But rather than make this post longer than really necessary let me give the first of several photos of things that should not exist if evolution were really true. Talk about red shifts, how about this one?


Here is an example of galaxy NGC4319 which appears in close proximity to the Quasar, Markarian 205. We have been told that Quasars are the most distant objects in space, on the very edge of the universe and some 15 billion light yrs away. So the common consensus has been that appearances here are decieving and Markarian 205 is billions of miles further out in space than the much larger appearing NGC4319. But an infra-red photo of the two celestial objects reveals that there is a clear connection between them. That is bad news for evolutionary cosmology.

Quote: "A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.
Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny
the existence of this physical link." Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift

This is just the beginning of my objections to evolutionary theory.

]]> Origins Theology Calypsis4 http://www.christianforums.com/t7417205/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7416962/ Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:57:13 GMT An explanation of how scientists "know" we came from nothing. Your thoughts? (If you're into science it's very interesting to watch, even though he makes a few jabs at religion.)

YouTube - 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 ]]> Origins Theology philadiddle http://www.christianforums.com/t7416962/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7416710/ Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:19:44 GMT First off i do not wish to argue for I do like the theory of evolution (although i disagree with abiogenesis...but thats a different topic) i am just curious about how evolutionists (as myself...though not strongly) believe plants were alive before the sun was created unless we believe the sun... First off i do not wish to argue for I do like the theory of evolution (although i disagree with abiogenesis...but thats a different topic)

i am just curious about how evolutionists (as myself...though not strongly) believe plants were alive before the sun was created

unless we believe the sun was already created just not in full form/fashion
as "lights" were created on Day 1

just a quick question
Thanks for answering ]]> Origins Theology EveryTongueConfess http://www.christianforums.com/t7416710/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7416613/ Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:19:42 GMT I have an ongoing debate with a kid at school about evolution.

He's presenting some pretty good arguments and he's kicking my butt, can anyone help?! ]]> Origins Theology outdoor_engineer http://www.christianforums.com/t7416613/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7415431/ Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:39:13 GMT For anyone who accepts a literal interpretation of the creation account and flood story, are there any places or landmarks mentioned before the flood that could be identified as a currently existing place? For anyone who accepts a literal interpretation of the creation account and flood story, are there any places or landmarks mentioned before the flood that could be identified as a currently existing place? ]]> Origins Theology philadiddle http://www.christianforums.com/t7415431/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7415421/ Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:51:32 GMT Hello, I’m Rosco and I’m new to the Christian Forums. I’ve been a quazi student of the scriptures for several years, but in the last year my wife and I have been drawn to become more focused and serious about developing a stronger relationship with God, fellowship, eschatology and exegesis. ... Hello, I’m Rosco and I’m new to the Christian Forums. I’ve been a quazi student of the scriptures for several years, but in the last year my wife and I have been drawn to become more focused and serious about developing a stronger relationship with God, fellowship, eschatology and exegesis.

Recently we were introduced to the three earth ages perspective of interpreting the story of God’s creation and our role in it. Has anyone here encountered that approach? We’re curious what your thoughts are.

Thanks.

Rosco ]]> Origins Theology Rosco-p-c http://www.christianforums.com/t7415421/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7414230/ Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:07:37 GMT This is the follow up video to Mallon's post about alien intervention (videos are from the same youtube user if you wanna see em.)

YouTube - Intelligent Alien Intervention Institute ]]> Origins Theology philadiddle http://www.christianforums.com/t7414230/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7413833/ Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:35:40 GMT These are two videos on confirmation bias in human psychology. Only the first 3:40 of the second video talks about creationism but it's worth watching because it can be applied to almost any part of any worldview.

YouTube - Pitfalls of Thinking: Confirmation Bias (1/2)

YouTube - Pitfalls of Thinking: Confirmation Bias (2/2) ]]> Origins Theology philadiddle http://www.christianforums.com/t7413833/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7413280/ Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:45:38 GMT Anyone here have any thoughts on Frank Tipler's ideas of Omega Point theory? Anyone read The Physics of Immortality or The Physics of Christianity? He claims he's proven the existence of the Triune God through general relativity and quantum mechanics. If he's a crackpot he's a pretty interesting one. ]]> Origins Theology Chesterton http://www.christianforums.com/t7413280/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7413010/ Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:31:10 GMT It seems to me that TEs advocate a theory of the origin of all of life's forms that makes no appeal to God. In fact, they vehemently oppose any reference to God as a player in the unguided process responsible for all life's common ancestry. They maintain that no respectable scientist would ascribe an intelligent cause to the extremely, extremely ordered composition of DNA. They say that God is neither evident nor necessary in a theory of the origin of life and life's forms.

So, where's the theistic part of TE come in? Regarding the theory of evolution, what's the difference between Theistic Evolution and Atheistic Evolution?

It seems the descriptive theistic is totally unrelated to the object evolution. I understand that TEs say that evolution and their faith are perfectly consistent. But, argue that. Don’t mislead folks with an attractive, but meaningless title. Why not have subforums for Female Evolutionists, Libertarian Evolutionists and German Evolutionists? Why not call it what it is: Evolution. Not Theistic Evolution. ]]> Origins Theology oncelost http://www.christianforums.com/t7413010/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7412247/ Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:34:06 GMT Image: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__Ww5JDaPV3s/SuNt5qbqSdI/AAAAAAAAIfU/a3zaDnjMOkU/s320/IMAGE.jpeg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__Ww5JDaPV3s/SuNt5qbqSdI/AAAAAAAAIfU/a3zaDnjMOkU/s1600-h/IMAGE.jpeg) ]]> Origins Theology Mallon http://www.christianforums.com/t7412247/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7412020/ Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:50:00 GMT The Christian Defense - creationism is nonsense


I count up to 1 or more logical fallacies. Seriously, I would mop the floor with them if I were an atheist. ]]> Origins Theology super animator http://www.christianforums.com/t7412020/ http://www.christianforums.com/t7411895/ Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:09:45 GMT Today is the earth's 6013th birthday, if you're YEC.

LET'S CELEBRATE! :clap::pray::D ]]> Origins Theology Mallon http://www.christianforums.com/t7411895/