Page 1 of 491 1231151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 4908

Thread: Evolution: The Grand Deception

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    8,163
    Thanks
    1,196
    Thanked 1,000 Times in 861 Posts

    Default Evolution: The Grand Deception

    This thread is for presenting and discussing scientific evidence that supports a young earth Biblical creation while contradicting the deep time evolutionary model. I'll begin the thread by borrowing a couple of interesting posts from other threads. From the In The Beginning thread...

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Did you know that the nickel content of the oceans indicate a young earth?

    The current background level of nickel in sea water is 0.228-0.693 PPB.
    http://www.euro.who.int/__data/asset...6_10Nickel.pdf

    The rate at which nickel is entering the ocean can be determined from fresh water studies, which indicate that dissolved nickel in "pure" waters ranges from 1-3 PPB.
    http://www.pjoes.com/pdf/8.4/201-208.pdf. (1999)

    The volume of water in the ocean is estimated to be 321 million cubic miles and the yearly river run off at 11,300 cubic miles.
    http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

    So the age of the oceans can be estimated by determining how much nickel flows into the ocean every year via rivers and then calculating how many years it would take to build ocean nickel to the current levels.

    To maintain healthy oceans, the UK has set an upper environmental quality limit for nickel concentration of 30 PPB. This limit would be reached with the current nickel input in just 850,000 years.

    Of of course nickel is also removed from the ocean water and this must be calculated in as well. This is done primarily by accumulating in nodules on the ocean floor.

    Given this his info we can draw the following conclusions:

    River flow into oceans: 47,080 km3 per year
    Ni conc. in rivers: 1 ug/liter (microgram/liter)
    Ni carried into oceans: 47,080 metric tons per year
    Ocean volume: 1,338 million km3
    Ni conc. in oceans: 0.228 ug/liter
    Ni in ocean: 305 million metric tons
    Time to accumulate Ni in oceans at current unindustrialized rates of inflow: 6,480 years
    Nodules on ocean floor: 500 billion metric tons
    Ni in nodules: 1.25% - 6.25 billion metric tons
    Time to accumulate Ni in nodules at current unindustrialized rates of inflow: 133,000 years
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    8,163
    Thanks
    1,196
    Thanked 1,000 Times in 861 Posts

    Default

    And from the Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman thread...

    Quote Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
    We live in a culture which believes that life evolved over millions of years. This belief is so pervasive that even some Christians accept it and believe the the creation account in Genesis cannot be literally true. There is evidence that supports the Bible's account but it is generally over looked or explained away. Here is a site that presents some of that evidence:

    http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

    Each day they publish a new article on this subject, with links to the site from which they got their information. If you read this site daily you will not only acquire information that refutes the prevailing belief but you will learn of other good sites that support the Biblical viewpoint. Here is a link to one of the articles they have published:

    http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2016...ind-about.html
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mikeboll64 For This Useful Post:

    mdjonah (09-05-2016), puddleglum (06-20-2016)

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    20,876
    Thanks
    559
    Thanked 1,340 Times in 1,173 Posts

    Default

    Mike, I already dealt with the rather idiotic Nickel argument of Shelby's. And Puddlegum seems to have been a post and run member that has nothing and knows it.

    Perhaps if you learned what evidence is you could post some evidence against evolution.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    8,163
    Thanks
    1,196
    Thanked 1,000 Times in 861 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    And from the Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman thread...
    Hello puddleglum,

    I once listened to an interview of Cowboy Bob Sorensen by Michael Boehm of Youth Apologetics Training. You can find that interview here if you're interested. It was about the fallacies encountered when debating evolutionists on forums, and how to overcome them.

    You might also enjoy CrEv and Evolution News & Views. The scientists from these sites scour the peer reviewed scientific papers for new discoveries pertaining to the evolution/creation debate, and explain them in laymen's terms - complete with links to the original papers and articles.

    There are new articles daily.
    Last edited by mikeboll64; 06-18-2016 at 10:06 AM.
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mikeboll64 For This Useful Post:

    mdjonah (09-05-2016), Trinity1 (10-12-2016)

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    8,163
    Thanks
    1,196
    Thanked 1,000 Times in 861 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subduction Zone View Post
    Mike, I already dealt with the rather idiotic Nickel argument of Shelby's.
    I'll await Shelby's response before commenting.

    Perhaps if you learned what evidence is you could post some evidence against evolution.
    Good. Let's get this out in the open and dealt with. Will you please define "evidence" for us right here and now, so we don't have to keep dealing with your claim that we don't know what evidence is?
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mikeboll64 For This Useful Post:

    puddleglum (06-20-2016), solver (06-18-2016)

  9. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,302
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 672 Times in 577 Posts

    Default

    Sz: Shelby, it looks like life may be the answer. Various organisms concentrate Ni+2 ions thousands of times in their bodies. Since the amount of Ni+2 is still very low these would not be economically important deposits. Also most would be deposited on the sea bottom. And you know where those sediments go, don't you? Here is an article that may help:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20659749
    Remember, when a creationist claims that there are no known means, he really means to say that he knows of no means. Those means still could and probably do exist
    .


    A particular good bacteria for doing this is Brachybacterium, strain Mn32. But what happens when the bacteria dies? Sure, they absorb Ni but then what? They don't fly out of the water never to be seen again, right?

    Consider what is taking place now:

    A small Canadian miner plans to enlist an army of ore-munching bacteria to help it extract base metals from a shale deposit in northern Alberta, embracing a technology that sounds more like science fiction than a promising new mining technique.

    Not only is the process already being used in Finland, its proponents say it could one day revolutionize base metal mining by allowing ore to be pulled out of shale deposits that were once impossible to tap.

    To extract nickel, zinc and other metals from the shale – a sedimentary rock found in shallow deposits – ore is dug up, piled onto a leaching pad and irrigated with the bacterial mix, which Mr. Sabag calls “bugs.” The tiny organisms chew up the rock and expel the metals as waste. The metals are then piped into a refinery and separated.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/ore-eating-bacteria-could-bring-bonanza-to-canadian-miner/article551342/

    They are also looking into using these hungry critters for space mining:

    http://www.mining.com/here-is-why-me...fitable-43509/

  10. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    8,163
    Thanks
    1,196
    Thanked 1,000 Times in 861 Posts

    Default

    Richard Dawkins famously said...

    Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

    I doubt that anybody in any scientific discipline denies the clear and abundant appearance of design in our world - from our precisely tuned universe, sun and planet to the complex specified informational code in the simplest living cell, to the highly orchestrated natural systems by which our planet thrives.

    But what is an evolutionist to do with this knowledge? How can he continue to deny an intelligent designer in light of this massive evidence of design? Well, Professor Richard Watson from the Parmenides Foundation in Munich has solved the problem. As it turns out, evolution itself is apparently our intelligent designer.

    In a December 2015 article entitled Is Evolution More Intelligent Than We Thought, Professor Watson offers his explanation for "such apparently intelligent designs".

    Watson claims that "natural selection is sufficient to produce significant features of intelligent problem-solving".

    He ascribes the intelligent behaviors of learning systems such as the neural networks in our brains to common descent evolution. He says "showing that evolving systems can learn from past experience means that evolution has the potential to anticipate what is needed to adapt to future environments".

    He clearly identifies the problem... "When we look at the amazing, apparently intelligent designs that evolution produces, it takes some imagination to understand how random variation and selection produced them."

    And then "solves" it by concluding... "If evolution can learn from experience, and thus improve its own ability to evolve over time, this can demystify the awesomeness of the designs that evolution produces. Natural selection can accumulate knowledge that enables it to evolve smarter. That's exciting because it explains why biological design appears to be so intelligent."

    Is it just me - or does anybody else here think it is absurd to explain the awesomeness of the intelligent design of biological organisms by implying that the process of evolution itself is an intelligent designer that learns from past experience and anticipates what will be needed in the future?
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to mikeboll64 For This Useful Post:

    solver (06-18-2016)

  12. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    8,163
    Thanks
    1,196
    Thanked 1,000 Times in 861 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Sz: Shelby, it looks like life may be the answer. Various organisms concentrate Ni+2 ions thousands of times in their bodies. Since the amount of Ni+2 is still very low these would not be economically important deposits. Also most would be deposited on the sea bottom. And you know where those sediments go, don't you? Here is an article that may help:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20659749
    Remember, when a creationist claims that there are no known means, he really means to say that he knows of no means. Those means still could and probably do exist
    .


    A particular good bacteria for doing this is Brachybacterium, strain Mn32. But what happens when the bacteria dies? Sure, they absorb Ni but then what? They don't fly out of the water never to be seen again, right?
    As I understand it, we can measure the influx of nickel into the oceans. And we can measure the current rates at which it is removed from the oceans. And based on these rates, even if we started off with zero nickel in the oceans, we would arrive at the current amount in about 6500 - 133,000 years. And the counter argument is an assertion that nickel intake and output is at an equilibrium - with no scientific evidence to support it?

    Is that right? Or am I missing something?
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  13. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,302
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 672 Times in 577 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    As I understand it, we can measure the influx of nickel into the oceans. And we can measure the current rates at which it is removed from the oceans. And based on these rates, even if we started off with zero nickel in the oceans, we would arrive at the current amount in about 6500 - 133,000 years. And the counter argument is an assertion that nickel intake and output is at an equilibrium - with no scientific evidence to support it?
    Is that right? Or am I missing something?

    We we are trying to flush out (pardon the pun) the ways in which it can be removed from the ocean water. There are known ways but the major one was taken into account when doing the math. Also, the initial figures that were used was the lower of the allowed Ni content. It can be, and is higher in industrialized areas.

  14. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,302
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 672 Times in 577 Posts

    Default

    ..evolution has the potential to anticipate what is needed to adapt to future environments.

    When we look at the amazing, apparently intelligent designs..

    ..the awesomeness of the designs..


    What revealing thoughts! Who knew that evolution has forethought? This created world is amazing! God's designs are awesome!

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to ShelbyGT For This Useful Post:

    puddleglum (06-20-2016)

Page 1 of 491 1231151101 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •