Creation Theory vs. Evolution Theory
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
a lot of this sounds like "Man can't do this in the lab, therefore it must be impossible for it to happen in nature". so what if man can't reproduce granite? there are lots of things we can't reproduce perfectly. frankly, you need to do more than disprove geology to prove creationism (the points you list here don't even touch evolution). show me some *evidence* that creation happened, and maybe you have an argument. and no, the bible doesn't count. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917 -
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
I don't see how this evidence helps support Creationism. If true, all it shows is that current theories about the earth's formation need to be revised. It could mean that the Earth was an artificial construct, but it doesn't mean that we should jump to that conclusion.
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
I recently had a biology class which seems all we did was watch videos and take tests on evolution. While they force fed us the "evolution" belief I rhink they had decent evidence to support it. One video we watch was on the AIDs virus. The AIDs virus alone proves the evolution theory is the right one. AIDs is impossible to cure because it reproduces at an outragously fast rate. As the host of the virus recieves medical treatment it kills off some of the viri. The remaining viri are immune to the treatment, which can occur because of mutations. So the next generation of viri are immune to it, until they slowly have mutations that undo the first mutation. Maybe the earth was created in under three minutes contrary to the theory, but I feel that as a whole it is strong and it is accurate.
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
Hmmm... In programming words: ok, C# is slower than handmade assembly code. C++ is faster than C#; So, C++ is faster than handmade assembly code. Concussus surgo. When struck I rise.
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
Then may I direct you to Evolution Facts which contains the full text of the book, which I have quoted only a extremely small portion of. I believe that you'll discover that every base has been covered and every scientific fact proven to the best of current scientific ability. It's an interesting read to say the least. It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
-
I recently had a biology class which seems all we did was watch videos and take tests on evolution. While they force fed us the "evolution" belief I rhink they had decent evidence to support it. One video we watch was on the AIDs virus. The AIDs virus alone proves the evolution theory is the right one. AIDs is impossible to cure because it reproduces at an outragously fast rate. As the host of the virus recieves medical treatment it kills off some of the viri. The remaining viri are immune to the treatment, which can occur because of mutations. So the next generation of viri are immune to it, until they slowly have mutations that undo the first mutation. Maybe the earth was created in under three minutes contrary to the theory, but I feel that as a whole it is strong and it is accurate.
I don't understand people some times. Science is a constantly evolving (pardon the expression) thing. We learn new things all the time. "Evolution" is not a set of beliefs about how we got to where we are today. The theory of evolution is a biological theory that has been observed in nature (as described in the previous post). It doesn't mean that we know everything there is to know about evolution. When a currently held scientific idea is contested by new evidence, we go back to the drawing board and redraft our understanding. Just because granite can only form in 3 minutes (if true), does not do anything to disprove other aspects of scientific research. "Evolution" is not a belief, but "Creation" is. (right or wrong) By the way, if you believe in creation, it does not mean that you can't believe in evolution. Perhaps your god simply created a world that can adapt itself to survive (Created it in an instant, but it began to evolve from there on out). DNA mutates, living organisims evolove, it happens... get over it.
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
Like much of creation theory this relies on misinterpretations and misrepresentations of conventional science. Two comprehensive refutations: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
The important thing to remember is that the Bible does NOT say the Earth is 6,000 years old. It is this mistake that makes a lot of Creation Science look plain dumb. Beyond that, I agree that Creation is what happened, and that this stacks up scientifically at least as well as Evolution. The Bible says that the heavens declare that there is a God, i.e. it is totally illogical to think that the world around us just happened. For example, look at your eye. It has several distinct parts which work together to give vision. How is it possible for something to evolve into this state ? Until it functioned, the body has no way of knowing what vision IS, and for an eye to spontaneously mutate in one generate and thus give it's owner a competitive edge is as ludicrous as to suggest that my next child may have wings or breathe fire. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
This belongs in the Soapbox.
-
I don't understand people some times. Science is a constantly evolving (pardon the expression) thing. We learn new things all the time. "Evolution" is not a set of beliefs about how we got to where we are today. The theory of evolution is a biological theory that has been observed in nature (as described in the previous post). It doesn't mean that we know everything there is to know about evolution. When a currently held scientific idea is contested by new evidence, we go back to the drawing board and redraft our understanding. Just because granite can only form in 3 minutes (if true), does not do anything to disprove other aspects of scientific research. "Evolution" is not a belief, but "Creation" is. (right or wrong) By the way, if you believe in creation, it does not mean that you can't believe in evolution. Perhaps your god simply created a world that can adapt itself to survive (Created it in an instant, but it began to evolve from there on out). DNA mutates, living organisims evolove, it happens... get over it.
Ryan Johnston wrote: "Evolution" is not a belief I'm afraid you're wrong, Evolution ( with a big E ) cannot be observed, nor is it backed up by fossil evidence ( that is to say there is no evidence of lots of stages in the path between two distinct species ). It is therefore a belief. Lots of different monkey skulls is not proof of anything as far as I am concerned. Ryan Johnston wrote: living organisims evolove Please provide examples. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
This is a very famous argument made by Creationists. But there's an explanation for this. On a sidenote, it's funny how Creationists accept the concept of half-live of Po while rejecting others. Anyway, on to the business... Yes, it's true that Po does not exist naturally in natur, but only as a shot-lived byproduct of U(238) decay. All this lead to Gentry (who is the father behind this theory) to conclude that this is hard scientific evidence for the fact that the Granite did not have an origin as slowly cooling molten rock over millions of years because if Po decayed in molten rock, it would not leave a halo. Hence it was, according to Gentry, created as a solid cooled rock. Ergo the rocks of the earth was created in less than three minutes! But, don't worry, no God is involved, the explanation is: "First, all of the granite formations in which Gentry found Po halos, all contain the mineral Myrmekite, which is a replacement mineral intergrowth. Also, while the actual granite where the Po halos are found has no evidence of U238, it is always found NEAR concentrations of U238 deposits. (Gentry 1988, p. 36). Thus, Radon is formed in the nearby U238 deposits. As gas, it moves freely through cracks in Gentry's granite rocks, which themselves have no uranium. Radon is inert, and will not chemically combine with the rock as it moves through it. That's why there's no evidence of Radon decay in the rocks. The Radon sneeks throught the rocks, inert, combining with nothing. The Radon decays into Polonium as it flows through the rock. Polonium is not inert, and forms negatively charged ions with the chemical properties of flouride and hydroxyl ions. The Granite, cooled and crystalline, is thus exposed to a constant supply of Polonium atoms which incorporate themselves chemically into the crystalline structure of the rock, and explode, forming the Polonium halos." ;P
-
Ryan Johnston wrote: "Evolution" is not a belief I'm afraid you're wrong, Evolution ( with a big E ) cannot be observed, nor is it backed up by fossil evidence ( that is to say there is no evidence of lots of stages in the path between two distinct species ). It is therefore a belief. Lots of different monkey skulls is not proof of anything as far as I am concerned. Ryan Johnston wrote: living organisims evolove Please provide examples. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: Evolution ( with a big E ) Please explain the signficance of the big E. I don't have any idea what the difference is. Other than the spelling :).
-
Ryan Johnston wrote: "Evolution" is not a belief I'm afraid you're wrong, Evolution ( with a big E ) cannot be observed, nor is it backed up by fossil evidence ( that is to say there is no evidence of lots of stages in the path between two distinct species ). It is therefore a belief. Lots of different monkey skulls is not proof of anything as far as I am concerned. Ryan Johnston wrote: living organisims evolove Please provide examples. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
I'm afraid you're wrong, Evolution ( with a big E ) cannot be observed, nor is it backed up by fossil evidence ( that is to say there is no evidence of lots of stages in the path between two distinct species ). It is therefore a belief. Yes, because everytime evolutionists find an intermediate form, creationists say, "Ah ha! Now there are two gaps!" Evolution is FAR more than fossil evidence. If there were no fossils at all on earth, evolution would still have an enormous amount of evidence supporting it. The genetic evidence alone gives Evolution enough strength to stand on its own. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
Ryan Johnston wrote: "Evolution" is not a belief I'm afraid you're wrong, Evolution ( with a big E ) cannot be observed, nor is it backed up by fossil evidence ( that is to say there is no evidence of lots of stages in the path between two distinct species ). It is therefore a belief. Lots of different monkey skulls is not proof of anything as far as I am concerned. Ryan Johnston wrote: living organisims evolove Please provide examples. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian, I'm going to capitalize on what you just saud with regard to monkey skulls and how they relate to the supposed evolution of Neanderthal man. NEANDERTHALS—(*#3/7 Neanderthal Men*) Evolutionists call the cavemen, "Neanderthals." In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists, and for a number of years all agreed that these were normal human beings. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Many scientists today recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight. In 1886, two similar skulls were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900s, a number of similar specimens were found in southern France. Over a hundred specimens are now in collections. A French paleontologist named *Marcellin Boule said they belonged to ape-like creatures, but he was severely criticized for this even by other evolutionists who said this fossil was just modern man (Homo sapiens), deformed by arthritis. A most excellent, detailed analysis of how rickets and arthritis caused the features, peculiar to Neanderthals, was written by Ivanhoe in a 1970 issue of the scientific journal, Nature. The article is entitled, "Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?" "Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D."—*"Neanderthals had Rickets," in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35. Neanderthal features include a somewhat larger brow ridge (the supra orbital torus), but it is known that arthritis can make this more prominent. Virchow noted that the thighbone (femur) was curved, a condition common to rickets. Lack of Vitamin D causes osteomalacia and rickets, producing a subtle facial change by increasing the size of the eye cavity (orbit), especially vertically. *D.J.M. Wright, in 1973, showed that congenital syphilis could also have caused the kind of bone deformities found in Neanderthal specimens. It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic discipline
-
Christian Graus wrote: Evolution ( with a big E ) Please explain the signficance of the big E. I don't have any idea what the difference is. Other than the spelling :).
I apologise. What I mean is, the difference between a species fundamentally changing, and changes that were already genetically present, as environmental conditions favour them. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
The important thing to remember is that the Bible does NOT say the Earth is 6,000 years old. It is this mistake that makes a lot of Creation Science look plain dumb. Beyond that, I agree that Creation is what happened, and that this stacks up scientifically at least as well as Evolution. The Bible says that the heavens declare that there is a God, i.e. it is totally illogical to think that the world around us just happened. For example, look at your eye. It has several distinct parts which work together to give vision. How is it possible for something to evolve into this state ? Until it functioned, the body has no way of knowing what vision IS, and for an eye to spontaneously mutate in one generate and thus give it's owner a competitive edge is as ludicrous as to suggest that my next child may have wings or breathe fire. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: It has several distinct parts which work together to give vision. How is it possible for something to evolve into this state ? read Jay Steven Gould. it's simple. ask the AIDS virus, or staphlococus, or any of the other dozens of critters man is driving into antibiotic resistance about competitive mutations. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917 -
I'm afraid you're wrong, Evolution ( with a big E ) cannot be observed, nor is it backed up by fossil evidence ( that is to say there is no evidence of lots of stages in the path between two distinct species ). It is therefore a belief. Yes, because everytime evolutionists find an intermediate form, creationists say, "Ah ha! Now there are two gaps!" Evolution is FAR more than fossil evidence. If there were no fossils at all on earth, evolution would still have an enormous amount of evidence supporting it. The genetic evidence alone gives Evolution enough strength to stand on its own. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
Brit wrote: The genetic evidence alone gives Evolution enough strength to stand on its own. You mean the evidence of code reuse on the part of our programmer ? It proves nothing either way as far as I am concerned. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
Christian, I'm going to capitalize on what you just saud with regard to monkey skulls and how they relate to the supposed evolution of Neanderthal man. NEANDERTHALS—(*#3/7 Neanderthal Men*) Evolutionists call the cavemen, "Neanderthals." In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists, and for a number of years all agreed that these were normal human beings. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Many scientists today recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight. In 1886, two similar skulls were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900s, a number of similar specimens were found in southern France. Over a hundred specimens are now in collections. A French paleontologist named *Marcellin Boule said they belonged to ape-like creatures, but he was severely criticized for this even by other evolutionists who said this fossil was just modern man (Homo sapiens), deformed by arthritis. A most excellent, detailed analysis of how rickets and arthritis caused the features, peculiar to Neanderthals, was written by Ivanhoe in a 1970 issue of the scientific journal, Nature. The article is entitled, "Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?" "Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D."—*"Neanderthals had Rickets," in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35. Neanderthal features include a somewhat larger brow ridge (the supra orbital torus), but it is known that arthritis can make this more prominent. Virchow noted that the thighbone (femur) was curved, a condition common to rickets. Lack of Vitamin D causes osteomalacia and rickets, producing a subtle facial change by increasing the size of the eye cavity (orbit), especially vertically. *D.J.M. Wright, in 1973, showed that congenital syphilis could also have caused the kind of bone deformities found in Neanderthal specimens. It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic discipline
ROTFL - Neanderthal man was a bunch of guys with syphilis ? I knew it is known that he coexisted with normal humans, maybe that cave was the quarantine area !! :laugh: :laugh: Given that this is turning into a fullon debate ( my first thought when I saw the subject was 'there goes my work day', and the second was 'there goes my post count' ), I should point out that I am not REALLY suggesting that Neanderthals were only found in one cave, or that the cave was where they locked sick people to die. But I would agree that what we're talking about is natural variation and not whole species of different steps on the path from ape to man. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
Ryan Johnston wrote: "Evolution" is not a belief I'm afraid you're wrong, Evolution ( with a big E ) cannot be observed, nor is it backed up by fossil evidence ( that is to say there is no evidence of lots of stages in the path between two distinct species ). It is therefore a belief. Lots of different monkey skulls is not proof of anything as far as I am concerned. Ryan Johnston wrote: living organisims evolove Please provide examples. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: cannot be observed don't you mean has not? -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917