Why Evolution Is Wrong

just because some rocks with iron in them got turned upside down doesn't mean that there was a pole switch. and also, which way does the iron go? there's poles on both ends so wouldn't that spread the iron out throughout the rock? oh, and how can you tell which iron was charged positivly and which was charged negativly as the rocks were cooling? and couldn't it be a possibility that the charge of the iron in the rocks could have changed over time (which is possible).

and finally, how can you determine just how old the rocks are when it's proven fact that uranium-lead, potassium-argon, and carbon14-carbon12 dating are all vastly inaccurate? especially seeing as how they've dated living snails to be 27,000 years old. the reliability of these dating techniques is based on assumptions, one of which being that the decay rate of these elements is constant in the environment, which is proven that they are not (if you want I'll give the backing for this). so you see, the last pole switch could have been a thousand years ago for all you know.

EDIT: and also... what are your responses to my other points? does anyone here have enough proof for their religion (i'm talking about evolution by the way) to defend it?

there's a guy with a standing offer. if anyone can give him any legitimate scientific proof for macro evolution, he will give them $10,000 on the spot. he was a former science teacher, and has debated the top evolutionists on this planet. so far no one has been able to give him any real proof. all the "scientific evidence" for evolution is a bunch of crap, and has no backing. all it is is a bunch of circular reasoning (ie, fossils are dated by the rock layers they're in, and the rock layers are dated by the fossils they contain).

 

I do have a good question. How does a pole switch keep the magnetic field from decaying? Just because it changes sides doesn't mean that it's not deteriorating. That first site (haven't gotten to the second one yet) actually does more to prove my point than yours.

Here are a few examples:

"According to generally accepted theory -- the dynamo theory -- interactions between the churning, twisting flow of molten material in the outer core and the magnetic field generate electrical current that, in turn, creates new magnetic energy that sustains the field. 'The typical lifetime of a magnetic field like Earth's,' says Glatzmaier, 'is several tens of thousands of years. The fact that it's existed for billions of years means something must be regenerating it all the time.'"

The part I want to point out is where it says "The typical lifetime of a magnetic field like Earth's is several tens of thousands of years. The fact that it's existed for billions of years means someting must be regenerating it all the time."

Here is where the problem lies. They assume the earth is billions of years old, and in doing this, must assume that there's something maintaining the magnetic field because otherwise we'd all be dead right now and the earth would be barren. They have to fit the facts to their theory instead of making their theory fit the facts. No where on that site was given hard scientific evidence that can explain why the earth's magnetic field has lasted for billions of years. Also, it's been observed that the earth's magnetic field IS decaying, not just simply reversing the polarity. Pole reverses don't make the field stronger.

Next:

"For that matter, why is it that instead of quietly fading away, as magnetic fields do when left to their own devices, Earth's magnetic field is still going strong after billions of years?"

Well, how is the earth different from any other planet? If evolution is true, and all the inner planets were formed by the same process, why is it that our planet has something special that none of the other planets has that causes our magnetic field to keep itself sustained over billions of years?

And by the way, when's anyone going to try to explain to me why evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics? And also, can someone please explain to me how we get full fossils out of a jawbone and some teeth, and call it evidence that people evolved from an ape-like ancestor?

I remember someone mentioning that evolution happened by mutations. Can someone please give me one example of a beneficial genetic mutation? I'd really like to see it, because good genetic mutations have never been observed to happen. The only genetic mutations that have been observed have all hurt the organism, either causing it to die, or to not beable to reproduce and pass that mutation on to its offspring.

Those of you who were quite articulate in the "Why the Bible is wrong" thread sure don't seem to have much to say in defense of your own religion... And yes, evolution is a religion. It takes faith to believe that everything we have here today evolved out of literally nothing. It actually takes more faith to believe that something came out of nothing, then over billions of years went against known scientific laws and evolved in to a more complex, more organized system, and then life came from non-life, and moved its way up to higher forms of complexity (which has NEVER been observed to happen, and is statistically impossible) into what we now call human beings, than to believe simply that God created it. Either way you have to believe in something that's eternal (matter, or God), so don't go with the "who created God?" excuse. Either your matter was eternal, or God was eternal. Either way... something had to have been eternal. Unless you go with the branch of evolution that says matter just appeared one day.

That's all for now. I'd be interested to see some of your responses explaining some of the problems with evolution I've discussed. And don't worry. I have PLEANTY more where all this came from.

 

That's funny. I feel the same way when I present facts of science (not the magnetic field thing, but the thermodynamics thing) and you still try to deny them. I believe you said that life might be the offset to entropy. If it wasn't you I apoligize, but that doesn't mean a thing. If all that was required to offset entropy was additional energy, then entropy would be reversed by the sun (which it isn't, I can go into more detail about this if you'd like). The simple FACT of the matter is that the second law of thermodynamics has NEVER once been observed to have been broken (which evolution would require). You also didn't answer my question about the ape-men, and why there's trees found transcending multiple layers of rocks that are supposedly millions of years old a piece. That would be physically impossible.

Now, getting back to the magnetic field... if even by the theory you accept regarding the earth's magnetic field, the field is caused by electric current which is caused by convection. It is well known fact that the earth is cooling down, and thus it's magnetic field is decaying. Any way you slice it the earth's magnetic field is decaying!

Even the site you gave me to look at said that the field would be gone in several tens of thousands of years, and that because they <big>assume</big> the earth is billions of years old, there must be something keeping it going that we can't find out what it is. So you tell me, based on the fact that even that theory says the magnetic field would decay after tens of thousands of years (not billions), and that they're absolutely NO evidence at all that supports an earth that's billions of years old, tell me, how is it that you still believe the earth is billions of years old?

So actually, if YOU would open YOUR eyes and look at the actual SCIENTIFIC facts, you'd realize that you're evolution-biased just as much as you think I'm creation-biased.

There's also a problem with this seeing as how I was a former evolutionist. I got the facts and based my beliefs on those facts. I didn't take the facts and distort them to fit my beliefs. I came into it being more evolution-sided than creation-sided, but kept an OPEN mind.

 

I've been to that site before... I want to point out a couple things from that site that actually prove my point (that the field IS decaying).

"Nobody knows, yet, by exactly what mechanism specific fluid motions generate the Earth's specific magnetic field, but the presence of turbulent motions in the Earth's fluid outer core can hardly be denied, and physical models do show that the expected velocities will, in general, generate magnetic fields."

It says here that the magnetic field's are created by fluid motions on the inside of the earth, more probably the fluid outer core. Now, as the earth cools (which it has been doing from the start), this motion (convection) will slow down (which it is), and because this motion is slowing down, the magnetic field is gradually decaying.

I also see that the sole purpose of this site is to make note that the earth's magnetic field isn't caused by free flowing electric currents in the core, but rather through fluid motion. In each case, the earth's magnetic field is decaying.

http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html says it this way:

"Roughly speaking, Earth is like a chocolate-covered cherry -- layered, with liquid beneath the surface and a solid inner core. Beneath the planet's relatively thin crust is a thick, solid layer called the mantle. Between the mantle and the inner core is a fluid layer, the outer core. According to generally accepted theory -- the dynamo theory -- interactions between the churning, twisting flow of molten material in the outer core and the magnetic field generate electrical current that, in turn, creates new magnetic energy that sustains the field. "The typical lifetime of a magnetic field like Earth's," says Glatzmaier, "is several tens of thousands of years."

They say that the friction between the outer-core and the mantle generates the electricity, and that "the typical lifetime of a magnetic field like Earth's is several tens of thousands of years." That's LIFETIME not pole switch. So either way you look at it, the earth is not billions of years old.

 

EDIT: if the earth's magnetic field won't begin to decay for another billion years or so due to the earth's cooling... why is it that the website which talks about the theory YOU are defending says tens of thousands of years is the LIFESPAN of the magnetic field?

I was really hoping you would bring up carbon 14 dating. Seeing as how it's dated LIVING snails to be 27,000 years old. It's also had widely varied ages for the same animals (I can, and will give quite a few examples of this, as well as explain why radiometric dating is highly inaccurate later).

So, with the knowledge that these dating techniques are vastly inaccurate to say the least. We can then say that the clay and rocks that are used to show when these pole switches occured, and how strong the magnetic field was at the time, are a lot younger than the carbon 14 tests are coming up with.

I don't have a whole lot of time to get into the details at the moment, but trust me... I will return with quite a lot of information backing up my claim that radiometric dating is severly flawed.

 

this is going to be a looooong post...

"Homo erectus:

A number of fossil men are now grouped under the generic name Homo erectus, including the somewhat notorious Java Man, Peking Man, Heidelberg Man, and Meganthropus. These are believed to have lived about 500,000 years ago, to have walked upright, to have had brains of about 1,000 cc. and to have developed a crude culture involving simple implements and weapons.

The evidence for all this is equivocal, to say the least, Java Man was later repudiated by his discoverer, and the bones of Peking Man disappeared during World War II and are unavailable for examination. Heidelberg Man consisted solely of a large jaw and Maganthropus consisted of two lower jaw bones and four teeth and has been assigned by many to the Australopithecines.

However, other fossils of this general type have apparently been found at various locations around the world. It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet, and a hostile environment.

In 1984, a 12-year old boy of the Homo erectus species, dated at 1.6 million years old, was dug up in Kenya. His body skeleton was virtually indistinguishable from our own, and his skull and mandible looked much like Neanderthal man, except that the cranial capacity was only about 800 cc. This skeleton, identified by Alan Walker and Richard Leaky, is believed to be the most complete skeleton of an early human "ancestor" ever found.

Some may question the true humanness of Homo erectus on the basis of his small brain size (900-1,100 cc). However, that is definitely within the range of brain size of modern man, though on the low end of the scale."

"Neanderthal Man:

The most famous of all the so-called "missing links" is Homo neanderthalensis, pictured for more than a hundred years as a stooped, brutish character with heavy brow ridges and the crudest of habits. Many skeletal remains of these people are available now, however, and there is no longer any doubt that Neanderthal Man was truly human, Homo sapiens, no more different from modern men that the various tribes of modern men are from each other. His brain capacity was certainly human, as Dobzhansky has noted:

'The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapienc was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man. Cranial capacity and brain size are, however, not reliable criteria of 'intelligence' or intellectual abilities of any kind¹."

'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 definately lacking in Vitamin D during the 35,000 years he spent on earth.'²"

"Modern Man:

Leakey and his co-workers found three jaw bones, leg bones and more than 400 man-made stone tools. The specimens were attributed to the genus Homo and were dated at 2.6 million years.

Leaky further described the whole shape of the brain case as remarkably reminiscent of modern man, lacking the havy and protruding eyebrow ridges and thick bones characteristic of Homo erectus.

In the addition to the as yet unnamed skull, the expedition turned up parts of the leg bones of two other individuals. These fossils surprisingly show that man's unique bipedal locomotion was developed at lease 2.5 millions years ago." ³"

"Here is apparently good evidence that modern man -- modern anatomically at least -- was living prior to Neanderthal, prior to Homo erectus, and even prior to Australopithecus! This would place man well back within the Plicene Epoch and, for all practical purposes, completely eliminate his imagined evolutionary ancestry. ⁴
<hr>
[1] Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," Science, Vol. 155 (January 27, 1967), p.410.
[2] "Neanderthals Had Rickets," Science Digest, Vol. 69 (February, 1971), p.35. (This reference is to an article by Francis Ivanhoe in August 8, 1970 issue of Nature.
[3] "Leakey's New Skull Changes our Pedigree and Lengthens our Past," Science News, Vol. 102 (November 18, 1972), p. 324.
[4]Henry M. Morris. Scientific Creationism P. 176

and to go on to the next subject...

Well, you see, there's many features on earth today that could only have been explained by a global flood (i'm not going to go at this Biblically, but scientifically). There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support that the whole world at one time or another was under water.

Now, with the world being submerged with water, the lighter, lesser developed, more hydrodynamic organisms would tend to sink to the bottom a lot faster, while the more complex ones who were less hydrodynamic, and created more drag, took longer to sink, thus the fossils in the rocks would go from less complex to more complex. Now, there's a lot more to it obviously, and I can and will go into more detail in another post. But I want to mention that there is support for a global flood using coal and oil deposits, sedimentary rocks, evaporates, the fossil record, etc. That post will probably be as long or longer than this one, so I won't go into it at the moment.

Moving on to the magnetic field, yet again....

The earth is cooling, has been from the start. With this cooling comes the decaying of the magnetic field (colder interier temperatures means slower movement of the outer-core, which means less electric current, which means weaker magnetic field. There's nothing sustaining the interior temperature of the earth, and thus, nothing to sustain the magnetic field over billions of years. According to the most widly accept theory on the magnetic field of the earth the field should only have lasted tens of thousands of years. Can you not read the sorces I got from LittleWing? His sorces even prove my point!

Now, we'll move on to thermodynamics. Let's go step by step...

Evolution teaches a couple different ideas about how the universe formed. The most popular two are the big bang theory and that matter just appeared out of nothing (sticking with the fundamentals). In either case, this matter was chaotic, and unorganized. Evolution requires this unorganized mass of matter to somehow organize itself into the known universe. This would require entropy to decrease, and for the matter to become more and more organized, and less and less chaotic. The second law of thermodynamics states that anything in a closed enviornment (which, by definition, the universe is), things will break down, entropy will increase (not decrease!), chaos and unorganization will become more and more prevelant, and overall things will break down and wear away. This has always been the case, and there has never once been an observed instance of something breaking the second law of thermodynamics (which evolution would require).

The second law of thermodynamics also applies to living things. From the time we're born we're dying. Genetics degress, mutations are becoming more abundant, things are moving from more order to less order. In order for evolution to have occured in living things, they must have somehow been able to gain DNA structure, gain organization, etc. which is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics.

 

Well, try reading what I said. The sites you gave me said that the LIFESPAN of planets with magnetic fields such as ours are only tens of thousands of years.

And yes, your website said just that.

http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html says the following:

"According to generally accepted theory -- the dynamo theory -- interactions between the churning, twisting flow of molten material in the outer core and the magnetic field generate electrical current that, in turn, creates new magnetic energy that sustains the field. 'The typical lifetime of a magnetic field like Earth's,' says Glatzmaier, 'is several <big>tens of thousands of years</big>.'"

As for my "bits and pieces" of information... I'm going at this slow. I have PLEANTY of information. Just because I don't have the time to type it all out at once doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now, if you want to read a 971841975 word post on why evolution could not have happened, I'll be more than glad to give it, but I highly doubt anyone here wants to spend hours reading that long of a post, so I choose to break it into smaller posts.

EDIT: As for the thing about us only having 10,000 years of history, and them not mentioning dinosaurs, etc... I have evidence that suggests otherwise. I'll post later when I have more time.

 

If you can use half a brain you should be able to recognize that what is being said there is that the movement of the liquid outer-core is what is generating and sustaining our current magnetic field. It doesn't say that it's what had kept it going for billions of years because the second part of the statement says it should only last for several tens of thousands of years. I made the point earlier about the "the fact that the earth is billions of years old" statement. They are ASSUMING the earth is billions of years old, and therefore assuming that there's SOMETHING ELSE keeping it from being totally gone. You should learn how to read. The reason I "took it out of context" as you say is because I already gave my arguments about the previous texts in earlier posts (go back and read them).

By the way... I'd like to see your proof that the world is, in fact, billions of years old. I promise you I can provide a strong argument against any of your so-called proof.

And also, the only field of science that I would have to dismiss to disprove evolution is evolution. Science actually backs up creation more than evolution.

Do you remember that guy I was talking about who will give $10,000 to whoever can give him any hard scientific evidence of evolution (Kent Hoven)? That guy has never lost a debate against the worlds TOP EVOLUTIONISTS. The ones who are the top in their field debate this guy, and he has never once lost. No one has ever been able to give him any scientific evidence whatsoever for macro evolution. The fossil record (your strongest "evidence") actually supports the flood more than evolution.

Is that why he's QUOTED as having said that? I guess now people are just making it up that he said that? Please.

The part of Leakey I want to focus on is this: "Here is apparently good evidence that modern man -- modern anatomically at least -- was living prior to Neanderthal, prior to Homo erectus, and even prior to Australopithecus! This would place man well back within the Plicene Epoch and, for all practical purposes, completely eliminate his imagined evolutionary ancestry." If we evolved from Homo erectus, Neanderthal, and Australopithecus, then why is it that there's evidence of modern man from before any of these were supposed to have existed.

Well, why don't you try giving me some non-evolution biased scientific facts? The only stuff you're going to accept as fact is what supports evolution, even though all the actual proof supports a young earth and creation. If anything dismisses your religion, you won't even consider it. I just want to make it known (again) that I was once an evolutionist.

 

You might want to read the rest of this thread... I'm only going to respond to some of "Readon 1" the last part of your "Reason 3" seeing as how I've talked about the other stuff you've said already.

First off, if you would have read my other posts, you'd see that the point I'm making with that has nothing to do with the galaxies moving apart from eachother. I'm talking about how if the universe were billions (or trillions) of years old, there wouldn't be enough usable energy to sustain such a complex system of galaxies, stars, etc. The universe would basically be a useless, chaotic blob of matter drifting through space with no organization whatsoever. If you know anything about the universe, you know it's just the opposite. It's highly organized, and the galaxies within it are highly organized. Creation teaches it was created perfect, and has been decaying (which follows the second law of thermodynamics). Evolution teaches it started chaotic, and became organized (which directly contradicts the second law of thermodynamics).

I didn't say petrified wood was found next to an animal when it died. I said that entire petrified TREES have been found going through MULTIPLE layers of rock, and that each of these layers of rock supposedly took millions of years to form. And the icing on the cake is that not only have a lot of these trees been found, but some have been found UPSIDE-DOWN! Tell me, how does an upside-down tree stay in that position over millions of years while these rocks are forming? Organic matter decays fairly quickly. It doesn't just sit around for millions and millions of years waiting for rocks to form around it.