Grey Thoughts
Creation and Evolution - The Years Highlights
In last few years have been particularly bad for common descent evolution (CDE) with finding after finding continuing to show how much of a pseudoscience it really is. Many findings also show how billions of years hypotheses are quite untenable.

Dating Disasters

10/1/2005 -> In a major blow to radiometric dating, a study is finally done on one of the foundational assumptions of the method, that of being able to determine the initial ratio of the two isotopes in the rock being measured. Not surprisingly, this assumption has been invalidated, for at least rubidium-strontium. No old agers seem to question their other isotope ratios, EVEN though the agreement amongst isotope ratios is touted as evidence of their accuracy. Think about that for a second. The agreement amongst methods includes the rubidium-strontium method, which has been found to be completely unreliable. If it was completely unreliable, how did it agree with other isotope ratios?

11/5/2005 -> Details of the creation science RATE project results start to come out. Part of the results based on helium diffusion rates indicate the earth is 6000 +- 2000 years old. Old agers immediately assume the work is flawed as it doesn't agree with their billions of years presuppositions but ignore the predictions made by the RATE team that were successful. RATE also finds c-14 in a diamond that was millions of years old, where there should be no c-14 after 50,000 or so years.

15/7/2005, 14/12/2005 -> The required time for mountain building has been reduced from 40 million years to 13 million years (over two thirds!). It seems the slow/uniformitarian assumption of mountain building was wrong and metamorphic rock formation, another millions of years natural process taught as fact had to be revised in a drastic youthful manner from millions of years to just a decade. In related news, Ethiopia is getting it's own ocean, but the process is moving very quickly, with an eight metre fissure that is 60km in length appearing in only 3 weeks. It seems things that may 'look' millions of years old, may in fact be quite young.

28/3/05 -> 70 odd million year old dinosaur bone is found with soft tissue and blood still in existence. Even though such tissue's should only last thousands of years in even the best possible circumstances, no one questions the 70 million year age of the fossil or realises that many possible scientific investigations have been ignored for decades due to assuming that it was pointless to look for such tissues in 'old' fossils.

14/10/2005 -> Dating planets by impact craters has been a staple of planetary science for years. It seems however that a single impact can cause multiple secondary impacts. Scientists toss another dating method onto the scrap heap.

9/12/2005 -> More dating problems arise when human footprints are redated to over 1 million years old. Something must be wrong with their dating methods as human footprints shouldn't date past around 40,000 years (the original date). No old ager questions their dating methods, even though the two methods disagreed by several orders of magnitude.

In a bonus entry from last year, Researchers have essentially falsified CDE by demonstrating in the lab that all mutations, even beneficial ones, conspire to decrease fitness. Evolutionists of course ignore this damning, reproducible evidence, and assume their must be ‘some other evolutionary explanation’

Big Bang Cosmology Crises

22/3/05 -> Dark Matter, that invisible stuff we haven't found, is given credit for the accelerated expansion of the universe. Dark Energy, that other invisible stuff we haven't found, is said to be unnecessary and would have 'prevented the existence of everything we know in our cosmos'. No one questions the idea that 96% of the matter in the universe is unobservable.

28/9/2005, 29/9/2005 -> Big bang takes a few more hard knocks with very old structures being seen at the edge of the universe where we should see very young structures (according to big bang anyways). Big bangers continue to assume they know what they are talking about.

: I forgot to mention a couple of other Big Bang Blunders. A paper came out that basically falsified cosmic inflation, which was an ad hoc explanation attempting to explain the observed evenness of the cosmic background radiation. Another paper has claimed that the isotropic principle (Part of the cosmological principle), a fundamental assumption of Big Bang theory is a very shaky assumption due to scientific observations. Of course, big bang scientists continue to work on the basis of these two assumptions.

Common Descent Evolution Calamities

10/6/2005, 24/11/2004, 28/11/2005. 9/12/2005 -> The hallowed phylogenic tree of life takes a beating, with papers highlighting how branch placement is an artifact of method and assumption, not observation. Another thing shaking the evolutionary tree was new data showing that the basic tree building assumption of something being less complex being older is unfounded. Add to that other findings much of the complexity of life was there early on, phylogenic tools have been shown to be mathematically flawed and that the scaly reptile portion had to be turned upsidedown due to new findings, you have to wonder just how anyone can use phylogenic trees with a straight face. Not suprisingly, evolutionists went on presupposing that evolution was true and continued to add in ad hoc explanations to prop up their pseudoscience.

6/5/2005 -> A new dinosaur species was found. Artists immediately added on feathers due to assumptions, not observation. Based on this dinosaur, nobody questioned the necessity for convergent evolution to be invoked in explaining how dinosaurs changed from carnivore to herbivore multiple times.

18/5/2005 -> Evolutionists decide that stegosaurus plates or any other feature they can't explain, can be the result of species or mate recognition. Evolutionists now have one more just-so story to pad out their pseudoscience.
27/6/2005 -> 1 of the 2 dinosaur groups evolutionary story was built on fossil teeth. Yet a new study has shown fossil teeth are not reliable indicators for this dinosaur groups evolutionary age. Evolutionists continue to push other stories based on similarly untestable evidence.

13/5/2005 -> Professor Phillip Skell states that practical biology does not rely on CDE in the slightest. Evolutionists continue to use the 'nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution' line and whine that Intelligent Design or Creation Science will stop science.

27/7/2005 -> Sean Carroll, a biologist writing in PLos Biology, tells us that everything we thought was true about evolutionary processes was wrong and so biologists have to start over. Evolution continues to be taught as unquestionable fact to students worldwide.

1/9/2005 -> The chimp genome is fully sequenced and it seems that the difference to human DNA is more like 4%, meaning that there are 120 MILLION differences that have gotten to our respective genomes over only 4 million years. Evolutionists ignore the difficult question of how 30 mutations a year can become fixed into a primate population and yet still proclaim this as evidence that we had a common ancestor with the chimps.

11/10/2005 -> Evolutionary scientist Dr Alan Feduccia, continue to through water on the feathered dinosaur crowd, releasing a report showing there is no real evidence to support their existence. Other evolutionists who disagree with Dr Feduccia, continue to want their own dino-bird theories taught as fact.

14/10/2005 -> Another new fossil found is making evolutionists create another instance of the ad hoc explanation of convergent evolution. This time that feathered flight having evolved multiple times. The pseudo-scientific load of CDE increases without evolutionists batting an eye-lid.

8/9/2005 -> The evolutionary concept of Junk DNA has also been taking a horrible beating, with finding after finding slowly showing function for supposed junk highlighting how the evolutionary thinking has slowed scientific progress by ingoring vital areas of inquiry.

Other upsets

25/5/2005 -> A survey reveals 60% of doctors agree Intelligent Design is correct. Evolutionists of course, continue to pretend that anyone who disagrees with CDE is stupid or ignorant.

6/8/2005 -> The Privileged Planet DVD becomes well known, making a host of cosmological ID arguments available to the general public. Evolutionists try to censure the Smithsonian for daring to show the film.

10/6/2005, 31/8/2005 -> A new paper in Nature highlights that at least 1/3 of scientists engage in practices that are quite dodgy, from violating rules for research on people to fudging results. Another study tells us that at least 50% of scientific papers are wrong. Evolutionists continue to expect people to unquestioningly trust their authority though.

12/8/2005 -> Intelligent design (ID) continues to be in the public eye, as another ID DVD, unlocking the mystery of life, is widely distributed, US President Bush endorses teaching the controversy and states review science standards.

9/1/2005 -> A US poll reveals that over two thirds of Americans think that creation science should be taught alongside evolution. Evolutionists weep and gnash their teeth at their failure to properly indoctrinate the population.

All in all, a great year for Creation Science.
Great post Alan -

Truth be told, the scientific evidence for neither the general theory of evolution, or a biblical creationist stance, is totally compelling. Clearly only one view, or a reconciled combination (often impossible as generally the two views are mutually exclusive, unsatisfactory to either camp), represents reality (as they contradict each other), but I do believe that the more we search, the clearer the truth will become.

One cannot properly search, however, whilst either camp supresses the views of the other. As such, I commend your open reporting of findings that challenge the commonly (and often unquestioningly) accepted 'scientific' view of naturalistic evolution.
This is a concept I've been on for many years now. The key I found i n understanding the Genesis account lies in a few thoughts I'll try to shorten.
God introduced this fundamental division of time on the first “day” of the period during which diffused light evidently penetrated early atmosphere causing the moisture-covered earth to experience its first day and night as it rotated on its axis through the light of the sun. “God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Ge 1:4, 5) Here the word “Day” refers to the daylight hours in contrast with the nighttime. However, the record thereafter goes on to use the word “day” to refer to other units of time of varying length. In both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures, the word “day” (Heb., yohm; Gr., he·me´ra) is used in a literal and in a figurative or even symbolic sense. [A Religious Encyclopaedia] (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.
The term “day(s)” is also used with reference to a time period contemporaneous with a particular person, as for example, “the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot.”—Lu 17:26-30; Isa 1:1.
Other cases where the word “day” is used in a flexible or figurative sense are: “the day of God’s creating Adam” (Ge 5:1), “the day of Jehovah” (Zep 1:7), the “day of fury” (Zep 1:15), “the day of salvation” (2Co 6:2), “the day of judgment” (2Pe 3:7), “the great day of God the Almighty” (Re 16:14), and others.

This flexible use of the word “day” to express units of time of varying length is clearly evident in the Genesis account of creation. Therein is set forth a week of six creative days followed by a seventh day of rest. The week assigned for observance by the Jews under the Law covenant given them by God was a miniature copy of that creative week. (Ex 20:8-11) In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning” a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was AT LEAST thousands of years in length if not millions or billions.
The point being that those "days" were periods of measure with a beginning and an end in which a certain work was accomplished.
Also the Genesis account only attests to the PREPERATION of the Earth for habitation not it's creation or that of the universe.
The account is also presented as it would appear to a man with a limited understanding of science standing on the earth watching creation unfold.
One other little point I forgot to mention is that the entire period of the six time units or creative “days” dedicated to the preparation of planet Earth is summed up in one all-embracing “day” at Genesis 2:4: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the DAY that God made earth and heaven.”
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger Weblog Commenting and Trackback by