Joined: Jan 1970 Gender: Female Posts: 174 Location: USA Karma: 17
Re: Contests « Reply #20 on Mar 24, 2006, 10:27pm »
K kids, here goes! I never said I'm disregarding fact for what I beleive. In fact, the more science tries to prove evolution, the more it's disproven. It's never truly been proven. Many scientists today are actually beginning to realize the faults in it. It's not the Law of Evolution yet. At least they admit to that.
7-10,000 years: Ahem: Reasons for a young earth: 1. Volcanism: Most evolutionists beleive there must have been abundant volcanic activity in times past. If the current rate of lava production of today's approximately 450 active volcanoes were constant for 4.5 billion years, the amount of lava produced would be the equivalent size of the earth. If at the current volcanic activity level the earth could not be that old, it certainly could not be that old if volcanic activty had been even greater.
2. Water formation: water is being formed (either by volcanic activity or other means) and added to the earth at about the rate of 1 cubic mile per year. If the earth were billions of years old, far too much water would have been produced and no dry land would remain.
3. Meteoric dust: today about 14 million tons of dust from outer space fall to the earth each year. Estimates indicate that in about 4 billion years enough meteoric dust would have fallen to cover the face of the earth to a depth of 54 ft. to 100 mi. This dust contains characteristic chemicals (nikel cobalt and other heavy metals) that are relatively rare in the earth's crust. This amount of meteoric dust (or even the evidence of proper chemicals) is not found in near-the-surface sources. Even if swept into the ocean by wind and erosion, these chemicals should show buildups somewhere on the ocean floor. Such abundance of them cannot be found even there.
4. Soil formation: Evolutionists have stated that it takes thousands of years or even millions of years to form. In several areas of the world, actual measurements have accounted for several inches of soil being formed in less than 100 years. This rate of formation indicates the earth is young.
5. Human population statistics: Considering plagues, wars, famines, and other problems affecting population, eight people at the time of Noah's flood would have multiplied to 4 billion people today. This figure is nearly correct. Evolutionists, claiming that man evolved a million years ago, have problems explaining why, using the same mathematical calculations, there is not an astronomical 10 to the 27,000th power number of people on earth.
6. Decay of the earth's magnetic field: The earth's magnetic field is decaying at a certain rate (based on measurements for the past 100 years). At the present rate of decay, if the earth's magnetic field is figured backwards, about 7,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 32 times stronger than it is now, which is the highest limit of possibility. Ten thousand years ago the earth would have been as magnetic as a magnetic star, a condition that is highly improbable.
Want more? I can continue. There's info on scarcity of helium, decay of DNA, and changes in mitochondrial DNA.
Re: Contests « Reply #21 on Mar 24, 2006, 10:33pm »
honey, give me reputable sources. for all i know, you just pulled those out your [edited].
and it'll never be the ''Law" of evolution. That's just common knowledge. We don't have the capabilities to prove without a doubt, yes-- but you don't have any proof of creationism either other than your faith. And that's cool and all, I just don't believe it myself.
Intellegent design-- half the science, twice the creationism!
The hooves of horses! -Oh! witching and sweet Is the music earth steals from the iron-shod feet; No whisper of lover, no trilling of bird, Can stir me as much as hooves of horses Have stirred. ~Will H Ogilvie
Joined: Jan 1970 Gender: Female Posts: 174 Location: USA Karma: 17
Re: Contests « Reply #22 on Mar 24, 2006, 10:49pm »
Moving on: (I've taken courses on this stuff, read the latest books. Want more proof? I can point you to some excellent books, and even put you in contact with some scientists who can explain it better.)
Eohippus: (taken from a Biology book) "Othniel Marsh's 1882 diagram of the supposed evolution of the horse reveals some problems involved in lining up animals in the phylogenetic tree. Although most evolutionists now beleive the diagram to be false, it is a good example of how physical evidece is often used to support a preconceived idea. He suggested that the Hyracotherium or "eohippus", an organism about the size of a terrier dog with four toes on each front foot and three toes on each hind foot, was the ancestor of the horse. Other extinct animals with progressively larger bodies and with foot stuctures like that of the horse were lined up to form an evolutionary 'path'. The evolution seems plausible until one realizes that the progression is speculative artwork, and much info has been ommited. The fossils of the organisms are not found in sequence in the fossil record. In fact, the fossil record gives evidence that these organisms were alive at the same time. Since having the horse and eohippus alive together at an early date defeats the evolutionary purpose of the eohippus, that evidence was ignored. The supposed evolution of the horse is like a series of piers with the connecting bridges missins. In other words, this lineup of organisms, as with all such lineups, is without in-between organisms, called missing links. According to evolutionary theory, these organisms must have existed. Research in the fossil record has not revealed any missing links in horse evolution. Nor does the fossil record show any clear progression between any two different kinds of organisms."
Before you say "yet" I want to remind you that evolutionists have been looking since Darwin's time for the missing links, and none have been found. Darwin himself said, (and I forget the exact quote, but I can find it if you want) "if anyhing can be found which contradicts what my theory, I will admit it is not true." Much has been found.
I suggest an excellent book: The Case for a Creator. It's not "religious" at all, and instead is all about scientific FACT against evolution. It was written by a guy who wanted to prove evolution was true, but the more he studied it, from the icons of evolution (Haeckel's embryos, the tree of life, the archaeopteryx, etc.) to cosmology, to bacterial flagellum motors, he found that evolution could not possible be true. And it can't. There's more evidence against it that ever. It's a great book, well written. I could hardly put it down. If you have anything else you'd like me to answer, I will. I'm a big fan of science. I adore biology. I'm a bit too scientific-minded to beleive something just because it has to be true (actually, that's the only reason evolutionists beleive the earth is billions of years old) so I have studied evolution extensively and found the scientific evidence against it to be overwhelming.
Joined: Jan 1970 Gender: Female Posts: 174 Location: USA Karma: 17
Re: Contests « Reply #24 on Mar 24, 2006, 11:15pm »
I love discussing this stuff. It's mucho fun! I'm too human to beleive much of anything without proof. I don't beleive it blindly AT ALL. I'm a big fan of truth, and I search 'til I find it. Sometimes I don't need proof. There are some things that are obvious. But there are things that are not, and that's why I study. It's too fascinating to resist. I love studying this stuff on molecular levels as well as astronomical ones. As soon as I find some more links, I'll post them. A lot of my resources are personal, (by that I mean people) or books.
Thanks much for the prodding to get back to studying it. I've been working more on anatomy, and I haven't been studying evolution since last semester. I totally respect what you're saying, only I don't beleve in blind faith when it comes to this stuff. I have faith in it, yes, but the proof is what convinces me fully.
The hooves of horses! -Oh! witching and sweet Is the music earth steals from the iron-shod feet; No whisper of lover, no trilling of bird, Can stir me as much as hooves of horses Have stirred. ~Will H Ogilvie
Joined: Jan 1970 Gender: Female Posts: 174 Location: USA Karma: 17
Re: Contests « Reply #26 on Mar 25, 2006, 3:50am »
I agree with the saying, "a gentle answer turns away wrath". It never helps to argue. Basically I meant those who sought an explanation other than Creation back then, and found out about Darwin's theory. OK, we can disagree. But I still encourage you to ask questions. ^^
![[Search This Thread]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://www.2neighis2b.net/msnEh.gif)
![[homepage]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
Logged
![[avatar]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/senren/WingCommandeicon.jpg)
![[aim]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/aim.gif)
It shows maturity. 
Similar yes, but they didn't call it that. ![[avatar]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/avatars/redcreature.gif)
![[msn]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/msn.gif)
![[avatar]](http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e246/TorazTheNomad/TorazheadAvater.png)
![[avatar]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/avatars/iceskatekid.gif)
were we can draw horses with ribbons and stuff. just an idea. 
![[image]](http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t223/Rider_of_Rohan1991/Horse%20Lovers%20Graphics/ella_enchanted_1.jpg)
![[image]](http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t223/Rider_of_Rohan1991/Horse%20Lovers%20Graphics/crazysiggy1.jpg)