Posted on 05/29/2019 8:23:11 AM PDT by fishtank
Toppling Ten Fake Facts That Prop Evolution
BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D.*
TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2019
ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris wrote in 2003, “Practically all the media strongly promote evolution and...the general public has been taught only evolution in public schools and secular colleges all their lives.” Yet, according to yearly polls, about half of Americans still distrust at least some evolutionary ideas. Dr. Morris suggested these people may recognize the evidence that counters big-picture evolution. I’ve found that by asking thought-provoking questions about evolutionary arguments, I can help friends recognize enough weaknesses for them to think more about creation options.
This article will review 10 false statements used to promote the belief that purely natural processes could accomplish what only a supernatural Creator can. Some suggested questions follow each section to help tactfully guide conversations about these origins issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Here’s the first one from the article:
“1. The Universe Began with a Big Bang
Many people talk about the Big Bang as if it’s a scientific fact, but it’s really a speculation. It has never been proven. Some assume that because the universe is apparently still expanding, it must be a leftover effect from an explosive origin. But even if the universe is expanding today, it doesn’t require a Big Bang beginning. God could have created it to expand not from the size of a pear but from a much larger original size.
Even secular textbooks recognize Big Bang difficulties such as the horizon problem and the mature galaxy problem. If the Big Bang were true, the universe should not have such a stunning uniformity or “sameness” throughout its structure and temperature. The Big Bang would also mean that the galaxies farthest from Earth should look like baby galaxies. Instead, they look the same age as those near us.
Questions to consider: Which observable, measurable, and repeatable experiment demonstrates that the Big Bang actually occurred? What about the horizon problem and the mature distant galaxy problem? Where did all the material or energy that originally “banged” come from?”
““1. The Universe Began with a Big Bang”
Nothing to do with evolution.
Can't have one of these threads without a few strawmen.
Sigh. I’m a believing Christian, but these guys really embarrass me, since I actually have a physics background. They are in the “climate change” class.
Yup, there was a big bang. Live with it.
For shame, for shame.
I’m an educated man. Evolution is a scientific fact. Believing in “Creation” is fine but it’s a matter of faith, not science.
When did the differentiation of matter into chemicals occur? Was that advantageous?
If it wasn’t observed and it can’t be repeated, then its dubious aspects vastly outweigh any supposed verification.
It’s all a matter of faith. All of it.
For example (and if you’ll agree to think carefully), you have no proof that everything in front of your eyes is not simply a hallucination.
And then there’s the matter of the faith you have in scientists and textbooks.
You have no concrete evidence that they’re telling the truth.
Excellent article, thanks for posting.
Diamond
Diamond is difficult to combust. The RATE samples apparently required modifications to the normal procedure
[1], presumably higher combustion temperatures and longer combustion times, likely increasing the sample chemistry contamination. The samples were reportedly pitted and may have been subjected to previous analyses and to unknown contamination. Nevertheless, RATE’s five deep-mine diamond samples had radiocarbon levels only slightly above background (0.01 to 0.07 pMC after background subtraction), while the seven alluvial samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 pMC after background subtraction.
Subsequently, the RATE team inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the sample chemistry, and measured much lower radiocarbon values, “between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC,” apparently with no background subtraction [6]. This much lower value for unprocessed diamond provides strong evidence that their processed diamond samples had been contaminated, most likely by the modified sample chemistry.
Taylor and Southon have also measured unprocessed diamond, finding a similar range of 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction. They interpret this result as their instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory. Their ion source current varied, unintentionally, over about a factor of two, perhaps due to crystal face orientation or to conductivity differences between samples. “The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields” [4]. This important observation provides evidence about the source of the radiocarbon.
If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantly 12C, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be “intrinsic radiocarbon.”
The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner’s “intrinsic radiocarbon” model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html
...but religion is based on FACT! (huh?)
What amazes me are the small minds must have it one way or another. I have NO DOUBT about evolution ... it is how God makes things work. Only the genius of the God that I worship could figure out such a perfect and unique process.
With regard to the mature distant galaxy problem, this seems to be a mixed bag. There apparently are distant galaxies which appear to be mature, and that is a problem. On the other hand, quasars appear to be very young galaxies and are only found at great distances. Why do all quasars (very young galaxies) appear to be at extreme distances (as the Big Bang Theory would predict)? Yet mature galaxies also seem to be found at great distances. It is, indeed, a puzzle.
micro evolution + leap of faith = Darwinism
The usual specious stuff from the usual fantasy sites.
Just here to let casual observers know that Creationists are a vocal minority.
Many conservatives understand TTOE and certainly enough not to conflate it with abiogenesis.
You’re not alone.
Myself, I am certain that the universe was created by and ordered by God. It simply isn’t rational to believe that the entire universe, the laws that govern it, and billions of years of life on earth are but random accidents.
It’s akin to saying that a 747 could be built completely at random and with no involvement from a designer.
And like the 747 the universe was not simply created 100% finished in the blink of an eye. It took time. It took a designer to oversee the progress of what was unfolding.
But however we came about it is the domain of very small minds to presume to dictate to God how He must have created an entire universe.
They must enjoy the feeling of superiority they obtain by putting the Lord of All into that teensy-tiny box of theirs.
I’m an educated man. Evolution is not a scientific fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.