Hello,
With some older creationist evidence coming up recently, I thought I would look at CEM (http://www.creationevidence.org/) and some of their articles. I have three in mind, but this is the first (and longest). It is rather long, but each section is pretty short.
Evidence for Creation (10 brief reasons)
(http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html)
Quotes from the article are in blue.
Most people will recognize these are PRATT list items. For new people, the PRATT list stands for Points Refuted A Thousand Times. In other words, most of this Evidence has been disproved many times, often quite a few years ago. Yet for some reason they are still being used.
1. The Fossil Record...
Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today.
Actually the Geological Column came about before the theory of Evolution,
This was Before Darwin's famous Origin of the Species
Even creationist realize the organization of the Fossil record, in the geological column and the problem it posses to flood geology.
[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material.
Of course, there is not a lack of transitional fossils. Just a lack of wanting to listen. Often when a transitional fossil is found, creationist just wave it away, and say, thats not a transitional fossil.
As I posted earlier, even creationist realize that the geological column is organized in a way that supports evolution.
This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame.
Polystrate fossils were never a problem.
Visit the link for more information about how it was solved.
2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field...
Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years.
There are some major flaws in this work.
First, He studied Only the Dipole of the Magnetic field. This is only part of the field, the same data he used, shows that the nondipole component of the magnetic field increased as the dipole component decreased. Invalidating his claim that its Decaying.
Second, He took evidence from the course of 150 years and stretched them out to 10,000 or 20,000 years. This is not correct, as we can see below.
Third,
So, as we can see, a constant dipole decay rate is not even true.
In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star.
Nope, see above. He stretched out bad research way beyond what it could predict.
3. The Global Flood...
The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world.
A nice proof that the global flood did not exists.
First of all, flood myths would be expected as many civilizations started near water ways or seas. A flood of that water way would either be considered life giving (like the egyptians) or catastrophic, especially to a people who didnt realize how big the world really was. Its interesting to note that not all civilizations have flood myths.
Second, if the global flood killed all but 8 people, there should not be all these different flood myths from all these civilizations. They all should have Died. Going along with that, we should find civilizations that just Stopped dead. All civilization in china should have stopped dead, then a completely new culture should have emerged. It didnt.
M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent.
Of course, this ignores all the layering that could not have come from a flood, yet are said to have been created by the flood. hydraulic sorting does not explain the fossil record.
It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.
As long as you ignore all the evidence against it. It would be interesting to note, that geologists accepted that the global flood did not happen, Before Darwin book was ever written.
4. Population Statistics...
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people.
I stole this equation, P(n) = P(1 + r)^n from,
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...rth/specific_arguments/population_growth.html
I used it to do some interesting calculations.
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,
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.
5. Radio Halos...
Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite.
For more information about these Polonium halos I would recommend reading this link its an indepth look at the Halos,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...
Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock
Hammer:
Sandal Print with Trilobite:
Other tracks:
For information on other track claims,
http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/retrack.htm
And I would also recommend the main site at,
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm
Cont...
With some older creationist evidence coming up recently, I thought I would look at CEM (http://www.creationevidence.org/) and some of their articles. I have three in mind, but this is the first (and longest). It is rather long, but each section is pretty short.
Evidence for Creation (10 brief reasons)
(http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html)
Quotes from the article are in blue.
Most people will recognize these are PRATT list items. For new people, the PRATT list stands for Points Refuted A Thousand Times. In other words, most of this Evidence has been disproved many times, often quite a few years ago. Yet for some reason they are still being used.
1. The Fossil Record...
Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today.
Actually the Geological Column came about before the theory of Evolution,
Smiths "tabular view of the main features of the subject" was to develop into the Geologic Column and the Geologic Time Scale of classical geological science. By 1812 it had become a formal Table to serve as an annotated legend - a detailed index to Smiths great map of England, Wales and part of Scotland, then in preparation
http://www.unh.edu/esci/tableexplan.html
http://www.unh.edu/esci/tableexplan.html
This was Before Darwin's famous Origin of the Species
"Scientifically, the major challenge facing Flood geologists is the regularity of the fossil record. If the flood and its aftermath were responsible for the deposition of the fossil record, would not plants and animals be all jumbled together? Sometimes fossils are jumbled together .... Still, the majority of fossils are associated consistently with identifiable systems such as the Cambrian, Ordovician, etc." [G. Parker, The Fossil Record in Christian Perspective, p. 77 in Wonderly, Neglect of Geologic Data, p. 59]
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/geo-col.htm
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/geo-col.htm
Even creationist realize the organization of the Fossil record, in the geological column and the problem it posses to flood geology.
[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material.
Of course, there is not a lack of transitional fossils. Just a lack of wanting to listen. Often when a transitional fossil is found, creationist just wave it away, and say, thats not a transitional fossil.
As I posted earlier, even creationist realize that the geological column is organized in a way that supports evolution.
This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame.
Polystrate fossils were never a problem.
Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few meters tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th century literature refutes their presentations.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th century literature refutes their presentations.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
Visit the link for more information about how it was solved.
2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field...
Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years.
There are some major flaws in this work.
First, He studied Only the Dipole of the Magnetic field. This is only part of the field, the same data he used, shows that the nondipole component of the magnetic field increased as the dipole component decreased. Invalidating his claim that its Decaying.
Second, He took evidence from the course of 150 years and stretched them out to 10,000 or 20,000 years. This is not correct, as we can see below.
Third,
Studies of the magnetic field as recorded in dated rocks and pottery have shown that the dipole moment actually fluctuates over periods of a few thousand years and that decreases in field intensity are eventually followed by increases. For example, the archaeomagnetic data show that the dipole field was about 20% weaker than the present field 6,500 years ago and about 45% stronger than the present field about 3000 years ago (McElhinny and Senanayake, 1982).
(Dalrymple, 1992, p.16)
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html
(Dalrymple, 1992, p.16)
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html
So, as we can see, a constant dipole decay rate is not even true.
In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star.
Nope, see above. He stretched out bad research way beyond what it could predict.
3. The Global Flood...
The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world.
A nice proof that the global flood did not exists.
First of all, flood myths would be expected as many civilizations started near water ways or seas. A flood of that water way would either be considered life giving (like the egyptians) or catastrophic, especially to a people who didnt realize how big the world really was. Its interesting to note that not all civilizations have flood myths.
Second, if the global flood killed all but 8 people, there should not be all these different flood myths from all these civilizations. They all should have Died. Going along with that, we should find civilizations that just Stopped dead. All civilization in china should have stopped dead, then a completely new culture should have emerged. It didnt.
M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent.
Of course, this ignores all the layering that could not have come from a flood, yet are said to have been created by the flood. hydraulic sorting does not explain the fossil record.
It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.
As long as you ignore all the evidence against it. It would be interesting to note, that geologists accepted that the global flood did not happen, Before Darwin book was ever written.
4. Population Statistics...
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people.
I stole this equation, P(n) = P(1 + r)^n from,
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...rth/specific_arguments/population_growth.html
I used it to do some interesting calculations.
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
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.
5. Radio Halos...
Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite.
Summary/Conclusions
Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
For more information about these Polonium halos I would recommend reading this link its an indepth look at the Halos,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...
Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock
Hammer:
As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer's artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact.
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/hammer.htm
For an indepth look, I would recommend visiting the site.http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/hammer.htm
Sandal Print with Trilobite:
The specimen does contain several real trilobites, but the "print" itself is questionable on several accounts.
Upon closer inspection the overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor evidence that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation nor foot movement at its margin. The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs across the entire slab, beyond the boundary of the supposed print. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986).
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/meister.htm
For an indepth look, I would recommend visiting the site.Upon closer inspection the overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor evidence that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation nor foot movement at its margin. The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs across the entire slab, beyond the boundary of the supposed print. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986).
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/meister.htm
Other tracks:
For information on other track claims,
http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/retrack.htm
And I would also recommend the main site at,
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm
Cont...
