Evoloution is Just Bad Science

[Arikay]

Sure, I will expand on your three young earth claims.

Can we actually see the data that produced 25,000 scientists?

 

[Arikay]

I originally said 3, but I ment 4. Here are mainly short answers.
So, your four claims,

•Decay of the magnetic field.
Evidence shows that the field has been weaker than our current field 6500 years ago and stronger than our current one 3000 years ago. The field fluctuates. We are on a down trend right now but that is no reason to assume that it is constant.
The field fluctuates and flips, thus a constant decay model is false, and so are any age readings from it.


•Population statistics
From a more detailed and accurate growth rate claim, I did this the important part is at the bottom.

“P(n) = P(1 + r)^n”
P = starting population (8 after the flood)
r = rate of growth
n = number of years since flood.

If the flood was 4500 years ago, we need a growth rate of 0.455% or 0.00455 to reach almost 6 billion people today,
So the equation would look like this, 8(1+0.00455)^4500=5,958,006,194 or 6 billion.

This produces some interesting results.
•1000 years after the flood, there is a total world population of 749 people.
•2500 years after the flood, there is a total world population of 679,180 people.
•2600 years after the flood, there is a total world population of 1,069,401 people.

Now whats so amazing about that? Well, 2500 years after the flood, is also 2000 years ago. Around the time when Jesus was said to have been born. Thats right, when jesus was born, there was an Entire world population of 679,180. A little over half a million people populated the Entire world, that includes china, The Americas, the Roman Empire, etc.
Whats so special about 2600 years after the flood, well that would be around 100 AD,

“At the zenith of the Roman empire (2nd century A.D.)... ... The population was at least 70 million and may have been in excess of 100 million. The city of Rome itself was home to more than 1 million inhabitants.”
http://www.sentex.net/~ajy/facts/romanemp.html​

So, the entire world population was apparently in Rome and nowhere else.

If any of this sounds a bit funny, that because it is. The worlds growth rate does not stay a constant number. It is thought that the large world growth rate is based on recent technological advances. In the past, many constraints such as food and disease have kept the growth rate very close to 0, if not sometimes in the negative and thus we would not have over grown the world. We are only now able to out grow the world because we can supply ourselves with lots of food, and rid ourselves of many diseases.


•Salt
This is not true. If the sea’s are getting saltier its by such a small amount that its almost immeasurable. There are multiple ways that the salt can leave the ocean. They balance out the intake. One way is reaction with other rocks, another is,

“Plate tectonics explains the last mechanism for a balanced state of ocean saltiness. The outer hard crust of Earth consists actually of a dozen or so distinct, hard plates that drift individually on hot, deformable rock like floating islands on a sea. An unequal distribution of heat within Earth moves the plates much like marshmallows move on simmering cocoa.

When an ocean plate collides with a continental one, the less dense continental plate floats over the ocean one. The ocean floor gets pushed under, in the process, and at least half its mineral-rich, salty sediments end up lost deep within Earth.

So, that's why the seas are salty but don't get any saltier.”​

http://www.wonderquest.com/salty-seas.htm​

Since the salt is being removed at about the same speed as its being put in, this becomes a very bad way to try and judge the maximum date of the oceans.

For more information, see:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html


•Carbon equilibrium.
Production of C-14 varies so it is impossible to tell where the equilibrium point is. Sometimes productions will exceed the decay rate and other times the decay rate will exceed production.

This is a good example of why I would recommend researching these claims more before trusting them. C-14 equilibrium claim was actually refuted before it was made by creationists. It was refuted in 1963. Henry Morris was one of the first to use it in 1974 (where many young earth claims come from) and he got his data from the same 1963 paper that refuted his claim. He just failed to mention that part of the paper. So not only has this been refuted since the 60's, it was a dishonest argument to begin with.
I know there are probably more on your list, I would recommend doing some research before posting them.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I was not there, I don't know exactly how they figured 25,000. But the only way to even come up with a statistic is by use of a poll.

It most certainly is not, there are many ways to come up with a statistic and by far the most common I am afraid to say is to invent it of the top of your head and hope no one checks. Good science, especially social science which deals a lot with the generation of statistics, necessitates you include a bit of information on how you arrived at the statistics, precisely so that people can check you did do what you claim. if you see some one bandy about a statistic with no clue how they arrived at it alarm bells should ring immediately.

Ghost

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

You failed to mention the possibility that they could all be mislead.

Actually that is not a possibility given that you wrote:

I'm only 14 years old and can see that evolution is 1 huge flaw.

And since I explained why that's not a possibility and you ignored it, I'll just repeat it:

Why do you think someone at 14 years of age with zero formal science education (at least at the university level, where it becomes meaningful) and zero hands on experience working as a research biologist or paleontologist "knows" that evolution is completely flawed and yet the vast majority of all scientists who have been actively educated on the topic and/or working in a hands-on fashion in their field longer than you've been alive don't realize this?

 

[raphael_aa]

I wish I was a teenager again and knew everything.

 

[Tomk80]

Biology, Biochemistry, Medical research, Mechanical engineering, Physical chemistry, Genetics, Physics, Mathematical physics, Botany, Meteorology, and zoology. These are the fieldsof several of the scientists, that wrote InSix Days

Which is besides the point. I am asking for the specific 25,000 number and the field of study those people are in. I highly doubt 'in Six Days' was written by 25,000 people.

 

[knuckle50]

From what I have seen, all of the arguments regarding evoloution are old and tired and frankly, Not even good science.

From what I have seen, all of the arguments regarding creationism reject logic and scientific inquiry and knowledge.

The latest scientific information regarding DNA, verses Evoloutionary theory, is that under the constraints of Evoloution, DNA, being Digital Code, invalidates all Evoloutionary theory. Since DNA is Coded information about how matter is to be constructed, it is impossible that DNA could occur naturally.

Do you know what matter is?

All Good Scientists know that Digital Code comes from an intelligent source, not by random selection.

By "Good Scientists", do you mean those who purposely become scientists to attempt to confirm their pre-existing notions of a little man controlling everything, who attempt to confirm their beliefs without even questioning them? People who reject "evoloution" aren't scientists.

Anyway, I have taught this subjest for 20 + years and have over 1,000 hours of lectures on the subject. I look forward to any intelligent interaction with well informed challengers, if you dare!

I am 15 and I am still able to reject all of your arguments on this "subjest"

 

[Wonderfulcross]

Which is besides the point. I am asking for the specific 25,000 number and the field of study those people are in. I highly doubt 'in Six Days' was written by 25,000 people.

Either I am not explaining things properly or you are just unable of coprehension. In Six Days was written by only 50 scientists. The fields of science I listed are those fields for most of the writters of this book and also apply to the 25,000. There are 25,000 scientists around the world that think evolution is impossible and I got this information from several other writtings from scientists that I have read.

Understand???

 

[Wonderfulcross]

[ and yet the vast majority of all scientists who have been actively educated on the topic and/or working in a hands-on fashion in their field longer than you've been alive don't realize this?[/QUOTE]


Well DUH the majority of scientists believe in evolution. Do you think they are exposed to both sides of the argument? Are they taught Creationism as well as evolution? How are they going to know which one is correct if they don't study both?

 

[corvus_corax]

[ and yet the vast majority of all scientists who have been actively educated on the topic and/or working in a hands-on fashion in their field longer than you've been alive don't realize this?

Well DUH the majority of scientists believe in evolution. Do you think they are exposed to both sides of the argument? Are they taught Creationism as well as evolution? How are they going to know which one is correct if they don't study both?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, Creationism has been examined by scientists that believe in Evolutionary theory. They have examined Creationism and found it to be sadly lacking.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

AAAAHAHAH.

Scientists would get exposed to it if there was any sign that it occurred.

There ARE none.

 

[gluadys]

Well DUH the majority of scientists believe in evolution. Do you think they are exposed to both sides of the argument? Are they taught Creationism as well as evolution? How are they going to know which one is correct if they don't study both?

Yes, scientists have been exposed to creationism. You might like to check these books out of your nearest library to see their analysis of creationism.

Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller (btw Miller is a Christian, also a biologist)

The Triumph of Evolution and the Fall of Creationism by Niles Eldredge
(Eldredge is a paleontologist.)

 

[Cirbryn]

There are 25,000 scientists around the world that think evolution is impossible and I got this information from several other writtings from scientists that I have read.

Understand???

So people have been asking you to back up this claim about 25,000 scientists for the past two days and 50 posts, and this is the best you can manage?: "I got this information from several other writtings from scientists that I have read."?

WHAT "writtings"?

 

[Jet Black]

I am new to this forum, but from what I have seen, all of the arguments regarding evoloution are old and tired and frankly, Not even good science.

can you define good science for us then please?

The latest scientific information regarding DNA, verses Evoloutionary theory, is that under the constraints of Evoloution, DNA, being Digital Code, invalidates all Evoloutionary theory. Since DNA is Coded information about how matter is to be constructed, it is impossible that DNA could occur naturally.

This is a rather disturbing exaggeration on your part. Exaggerstion of this type as I hope you are aware is terrible science. You suggest that the impossibility for a "digital code" to emerge naturally invalidates "all Evolutionary theory" well please go on. We know the variaty of potential mutations that can occur to the DNA leading to inheritable variations between generations, and differential reproductive success is so obvious I am suprised it took people until the 1850s to notice it. So what about the "digital" nature of DNA makes inheritable variation and differential reproductive success invalid? I could go on and on, we have countless examples of evolution actually occuring, so I think the assertation is rather premature don't you?

Next step is in your poor use of language, which rears it's ugly head again. You claim that DNA is coded information into how "matter should be constructed" which is of course false, matter is constructed somehow by interactions of fields and so on resulting in the fundamental particles, but for now we can let that slide. What you are sloppily referring to is that Genes code for Proteins. not all DNA codes for proteins. there are a number of sections of DNA that are regulatory sections in various ways. But this is all besides the point. the coding structure of DNA is very evolvable indeed, indeed it is so good at evolving, that one could almost argue that it had been designed to evolve.

your assertation that DNA cannot evolve is both unfounded and weak. please provide backup other than arguments from incredulity, which as I am sure you are aware, make for sloppy science.

All Good Scientists know that Digital Code comes from an intelligent source, not by random selection.

aah right, and I suppose you are defining a good scientist as someone who agrees with you. Refering to evolution and abiogenesis as "random selection" is of course sloppy science.

Anyway, I have taught this subjest for 20 + years and have over 1,000 hours of lectures on the subject. I look forward to any intelligent interaction with well informed challengers, if you dare!

well it would be nice to have an intelligent conversation, however your post was replete with factual errors at a very basic level of understanding of the subject, so if we are to have an intelligent conversation you will need to learn an awful lot. I certainly admit to fearing for the educational standards of the students you taught. what were your 1000 hours of lectures in? carpentry?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Well DUH the majority of scientists believe in evolution. Do you think they are exposed to both sides of the argument? Are they taught Creationism as well as evolution? How are they going to know which one is correct if they don't study both?

You really do not understand how science is done or scientists are trained do you? We are trained and educated to question everything, to look at evidence from all sides and then decide. Science is falsificationist, meaning we actively try to undermine our own theories by figuring out what would demonstrate that those theories are wrong then going out and looking for it. Science is, by its very nature suspicious of its own findings and always seeking to show its ideas are incorrect. therefore, when you have a theory that is supported by most scientists and is over 100 years old you can be certain that it is very, very well evidenced and that there is no fatal flaw in it that we have been able to find.

Remember also that a scientist who can disprove a theory as solid as evolution is going to win a Nobel prize and will be immortalized in the annals of science. So if any of this supposed 25, 000 had good falsifying evidence for evolution they would publish in a peer reviewed journal and they would be made men.

Ghost

 

[Wonderfulcross]

Also, at the time of the short necked ancestors, did it occur to you that maybe their food source was closer to the ground and that they necks slowly became longer as the food source also rose higher? I suppose not since that would have required you to think on your own.[/QUOTE]


First of all, baby giraffes don't feed on plant life once they are born. They are fed milk from their mothers just like humans. So they don't need to be very tall, but just tall enough(at least 6 feet tall) to drink their milk.

I have to admit, this stumped me for a few days, but I came up with the following response.
Lets say that giraffes did have shorter necks when they first evolved. So for that time being everything is going fine, and no trouble happens yet. Evolution for the most part happens for a reason. There are several reasons why giraffes could have evolved taller necks.
1. To see over the tall savannh grass for predators
2. To reach a higher food source(the tops of eucalyptus trees) because there's is diminishing. (just a couple)

So whatever the case was, they needed to evole taller necks. There are a few problems with this. First, DNA carries all the information to create proteins that keep an organism healty and running. It doesn't however contain information to change(or add to) this information. That is why natural selection depends om mutations, to change(add on information) to the genetic code. So right there, unless there is a mutation that not only adds information to DNA(which has never been found), it needs to add information for the production of proteins that will enable the growth of a taller neck. And since DNA can't gain foreign information, it can't obtain this information unless it is there because it was passed down from either of the giraffe's parents. Which leads into the next problem.

Parents pass down half of their genes to their offspring. If none of the giraffes' ancestors had a long neck, where did this gene come from? So evolutionists added the need for a rare positive mutation that adds this information to the DNA. They just need to keep searching for a mutation that adds information to DNA.

Finally, lets say that all of this could happen. There is still the matter of that sponge-like material that lies in-between the giraffe's brain and the artery that transports blood from the heart to the brain. Since there is no advance thinking involved in evolution, there is nothing to realize that it needs this to limit the blood pressure on the brain when it lowers its neck. Naturally, it wouldn't appear so as soon as the giraffes(now with longer necks) bend down to drink, they blow their brains out.

 

[Arikay]

not only adds information to DNA(which has never been found)

One of the types of mutations, an insertion mutation, by its very definition adds information to DNA. The nylon bug is the most common example of new information being added to DNA. Although with giraffe I don't see why new information needs to be added, only a change in the genes that dictate how long a giraffes neck continues to grow.

Naturally, it wouldn't appear so as soon as the giraffes(now with longer necks) bend down to drink, they blow their brains out.

the problem is many people seem to treat this as a black and white issue. Stand on your head, it feels weird, but did your head explode? Get up really fast, you feel dizzy but did you pass out? Now, stick yourself in an environment where reaction time is key. Although the change in blood pressure didn't make your head pop, it may get you killed.

It is often a mistake to think that evolution evolves one piece of an animal, and then another and another. The entire animal evolves at the same time. thus as the neck got longer, the disorientation to the animal became greater, and only those who get their footing and ran before they were eaten survived.

 

[corvus_corax]

Finally, lets say that all of this could happen. There is still the matter of that sponge-like material that lies in-between the giraffe's brain and the artery that transports blood from the heart to the brain. Since there is no advance thinking involved in evolution, there is nothing to realize that it needs this to limit the blood pressure on the brain when it lowers its neck. Naturally, it wouldn't appear so as soon as the giraffes(now with longer necks) bend down to drink, they blow their brains out.

You've got it backwards (or perhaps sideways )
You are correct, there is no advance thinking. However, the mechanisms that allow safe blood flow would have evolved along with the longer neck due to the necessity (not foreplanning) of such to exist with a long neck, not before or after. Those who were born without the needed mechanisms would have most likely died off and thus wouldnt be able to reproduce and pass on their genes.

For some reason though, I feel Im already not making my point

 

[Matthew777]

What makes young earth creationism "good science"?

 

[n0va]

Good job guys you have successfully pointed out the guys typo, you must feel so proud.