Dinosaurs In The Arctic And Climate Change

Home > Dinosaurs In The Arctic And Climate Change

Has anyone else seen the documentary on NOVA, “Arctic Dinosaurs“? I watched it last night on PBS here in Florida on WUSF. Contrary to what some might believe, the show was not about climate change, global warming or man’s influence. It was about the discovery of 8 different species of dinosaur bones found on the North Slope of Alaska, only a stone’s through from the Arctic Ocean. How can that be?

Well, that’s what the scientists wanted to know and with the cooperation of several scientists and the field of specialties they work in, it took years to reach some kind of theories and/or conclusions.

What I found interesting, among tons of information that baffled the brain and soared over my head, was the fact that for centuries science has believed that dinosaurs were cold-blooded creatures, unable to withstand the cold climate of the Arctic.

Fossils examined from the area revealed that some 70 million years ago plant life in this region was similar to that found in some tropical regions. The conclusion of the scientists stated that the climate on the north slope, of which they deemed was considerably closer to the North Pole 70-million years ago, was similar to that of today’s southern end of Alaska, down near Ketchikan.

Can one conclude that there was climate change and even global warming long before man ever step foot on this planet? Perhaps, but science should never be “settled” with little or no interest in further exploration to discover more truths. After all, who would have believed dinosaurs roamed freely on the North Slope of Alaska.

Tom Remington

Greg Farber

My my…every little mountain hick with no formal education around these here parts understands to wash up before eating and keep animals feces out your mouth and off your dinner plate, and don’t be picken it up and tossin it at your friends if its on the school yard play ground. And I thought these city people were super intellectually inclined and naturally smarter than all us rural hick types with a bible and a gun in bitter hands. Don’t play with wolf poop kids ! Its 50 times more toxic than elk turds….scientific fact!
Tom Remington

Greg – I think this comment belongs on another post!
Lee

I did watch the Nova documentary on Alsaka’s dinosaurs. The idea of their being warm blooded has been around for some time. Yes, the climate has fluctuated for millions of years. There is evidence of glaciation in the late Paleozoic, 340 million years ago. The Jurassiac, 70 million years ago, in contrast, was very warm. These times were definitely before man’s evolution on Earth.
The part of the program that I found more perplexing was that the area where the dinosaurs were found was supposedly located farther north 70 million years ago. Even if it was warmer then, a 4-5 month period of darkness would necessitate a migration south or hibernation. They suggested the possibility of a 5000 (?) mile trek. Was this land even connected to Alaska at that time? Was the Brooks Range formed when the more northerly land collided with the Alaska plate? I have not yet found the answer, but I am looking.

Published November 1997. Svend Palm, Denmark:

“For the first many years after their discovery it was generally held that the dinosaurs were reptiles. They were extraordinary large reptiles and in many respects very different from recent reptiles, lizards, crocodiles, and turtles, but still reptiles. Therefore it was never really considered whether they were warm- or cold-blooded: from the beginning of the 1970s the idea emerged that they were not cold-blooded reptiles, but warm-blooded animals, and enthusiastically advocated by the adherents of this new concept the former picture of the dinosaurs was changed from the slow and sluggish, stupid reptiles into active and agile, fast, and quick-minded, almost intelligent animals of their own class, or at least: not (the class of) reptiles.”

About.com: “Today, the majority of scientists subscribe to the warm-blooded dinosaur theory, but that pendulum could swing the other way as more evidence is unearthed. For now, any definite conclusions about dinosaur metabolism will have to await future discoveries.”

What kind of “scientific fact” is Greg ranting about now? The only word that connects with the topic is plate. (tectonics not dinner)
Tom Remington

I think Greg posted his comment on the wrong post!

I wasn’t aware either that the location they found the remains was further north, nearer the north pole than today. I do also recall the brief discussion about a migration south during the winter.

I don’t recall though any of the scientists in this story concluding that the dinosaurs were warm blooded. If I recall they perhaps thought that might be the case but putting 2 and 2 together, seemed to discredit that hypothesis!

In any event, I think it is great when scientists don’t accept things simply because a bunch of other do. Where would we be if they all did that?
Greg Farber

Yep it do. I was lost again.
Lee

Science is inquirey to understand natural phenonomem. Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift nearly 100 years ago, until the 60s it was mentioned in geology texts but generally ridiculed, what was the driving mechanism?. Evidence from deep sea exploration over oceanic ridges furnished clues that supported Wegener’s idea. Plate Tectonics is now the unifying theory of geology, just as evolution is in biology, atomic theory in chemistry, and quantum mechanics in modern physics along with Newton’s laws of motion for classical physics.

They certainly suggested that they were warm blooded.

Transcript from the Nova program on dinosaurs:

NARRATOR: The bones of warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals form differently. Reptile bones grow rapidly when conditions are favorable, but when food is scarce or temperatures drop, growth ceases. That start-stop pattern of development leaves telltale markings in the bone, similar to the rings in tree trunks.

ANUSUYA CHINSAMY-TURAN: These alternating rings of growth that we see in reptiles, they tell us that these animals…their growth is dependent on seasonality.

NARRATOR: Birds and mammals, however, grow differently. They are not as sensitive to seasonal changes. They add new layers of cells more rapidly and continuously. In warm-blooded animals…no growth rings.

Because the Hadrosaur was a dinosaur and because the Poles experienced the most extreme seasonal swings on the planet, Anusuya expected that the bone would show pronounced growth rings. But instead, she had a surprise.

ANUSUYA CHINSAMY-TURAN: I don’t see the growth rings that I would have expected in an animal that would have been affected by seasonal climatic conditions.

NARRATOR: The Hadrosaur bone more closely resembled the bone of a mammal or bird. That suggests that the Hadrosaur did not hibernate or slow down during the winter. It was active all year round.
Tom Remington

That’s right! I’m glad you pointed that out as I had forgotten that part of the show.
http://westinstenv.org Mike D.

Tectonic drift has changed the positions of continents (and island arcs) relative to the poles. However, there is ample evidence of boreal tropical vegetation in Cretaceous and post-Cretaceous eras. Deciduousness is thought to have developed in angiosperms response to long periods of darkness above the Arctic Circle. Much of our temperate flora of today has Arctic origins. See ‘Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic History of North American Vegetation’ by Alan Graham.

The Earth’s climate has almost always been warmer than now. Our current glacial age is thought to have developed when Antarctica drifted over the South Pole and broke off from South America ~2.5 million years ago. A continent on a pole accumulates ice because the circulations of the oceans cannot moderate (warm) the poles. The circumpolar current around Antarctica also diminishes heat flow to the S. Pole. It is conjectured that during the previous cold period, the Permian Epoch of 250 million years ago, the mega-continent Pangaea was parked on the S. Pole.

When there is no continent on a pole, ocean currents keep the entire planet relatively warm. The dinosaurs in the Arctic might not have required warm-blooded-ness, although they might have needed good night vision six months of the year.
George

In the 70′s I had the opportunity to spend a couple of seasons in the Antarctic. When not involved in operations we could spend time with the scientists questioning them about their research. (Some were real geeks and loved to talk)

Some were involved in the theory of continental drift. Spent time scouring the area searching for fossils. Fossils found were then matched up with the same species found in other areas of the planet like South America, South Africa, Australia New Zealand. Using the fossil record to substantiate their Hypothesis on continental drift.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0309_040309_polardinos.html
Tom Remington

And speaking of good night vision, Arctic Dinosaurs show did talk about the theory that certain species of dinosaur did come equipped with night vision goggles (joke here) and because of that was one reason they were able to survive as meat eaters attacking at night.
George

I believe a German scientist Alfred Winger put forward the theory in the early 1900′s.

Wegener’s original idea weas that all continents of the earth were at one time together as one super continent PANGEA.

More recent studies indicate (through the world fossil record) there were two such super continents one in the north called LAURASIA and one in the south called GONDWANALAND.

Personally I have know way of knowing how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before being expelled. Must have been a long time though.
Lee

George, look at the first paragraph in #6 above.
To me the most compelling evidence for this theory is the location of mountain ranges and volcanoes. The Himalayas formed by the Indian subcontinent plowing into Asia, the Andes and Aleutians with their volcanoes caused by the subduction of oceanic plates. The 1960s was an exciting time for this new theory.
Tom, I had forgotten about the night vision.
Mike D. commented that continents moving over the south pole probably caused 2 known ice ages. The north polar ice cap acts rather like a continent; regardless of the cause it’s size has been decreasing at least since satellites have been making images. Is this indicative of an intergalcial warming period to be followed by another glaciation? With less ice reflectivity is reduced, causing more warming of the Arctic Ocean, which in turn causes more ice to melt. Will this initiate another cycle of continental glaciation or will the warming continue? A warmer ocean might cause more snow in northern latitudes resulting in accumulation and the formation glaciers.
Each gram of ice that melts requires about 80 calories of heat. That same amount of heat can raise the temperature of 1 gram of liquid water 80 degrees celsius! A gram of rock or soil would heat up a even more. Once the ice in a lake melts in the spring the water heats up rapidly. In mountain regions where glaciers currently exist, temperatures could increase quickly when the glaciers are gone. Ice is a heat sink.
George

Are all these words to go unanswered?
Is the talker to be vindicated?
Will your idle talk reduce men to silence?
Will no one rebuke you when you mock?
You say to God, “My beliefs are flawless and I am pure in your sight.”
Oh, How I wish that God would speak, that he would open his lips against you and disclose to you the secrets of wisdom.
For true wisdom has two sides.
Know this: God has even forgotten some of your sin.

Makes no difference, I still believe they were there a very long time (to our finite minds.)
Lee

George, nice biblical quotes from Job ll.2 -

I personally do not believe the Adam and Eve garden origin.
Greg Farber

LMAO. What origin then ? Slime via Evolutionionary theory ? Or intelligent design ?
Greg Farber

PALEOMAGNETISM
http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-V3/3evlch26.htm
17 pages of science smashing the theory of Plate Tetonics, continental drift, wandering poles, and over 3000 scientific studies crushing salt water mixed with sand made man by accident or what ever….
Lee

Greg – I figured you would rise to the bait. Is the reason you are here because you miss posted to the wrong place about elk droppings in Colorado?
This has been a civil discussion with a reasonable exchange of ideas. That will probably end shortly.
Intelligent design is just another word for creationism which is not accepted by the larger scientific community. I ask you “Who designed the designer?”.
Evolution is a fact; it has and is occurring right now. The theory of evolution changes as more knowledge is gained – that is what science is about. Darwin’s theory is not the same as the current one but it, as Wegener’s continental drift is to geology, is still the unifying theory for the biological sciences. Gregor Mendel independently studied the mechanism by which Darwin’s selection might occur; Ernst Mayr studied geographic speciation; Steven Jay Gould postulated “punctuated equilibrium”. Ever look into any of these?
Magnetic field reversals revealed the seafloor spreading which supported plate tectonics.
Theories change, facts don’t. As man learns more the theories change to incorporate the new knowledge; if they don’t they are discarded.
Are you setting man aside from the rest of the earth’s biota as special?
So, Greg, of the two choices you offer – I prefer the more realistic slime theory. You go ahead and believe in fables.
Lee

Greg, if you believe the sources you gave in post 16 you are far more ignorant than I thought. But thanks for the site; I can look on occasion and have a good chuckle.
Greg Farber

Acceptance of evolution is not fact but theory, and is faith guided only. Charles Darwins Father, A jesuit priest wrote the Darwin writings, not Charles himself. Darwin upon his death bed confessed it was a hoax, as well as asked Jesus Christ to forgive and accept him into Christs Kingdom. Had the Bible been a FABLE then why was it so important for one entity from Rome to sse to it we have thousands of Bibles all over the earth causing mass confusion, along with the creation of hundreds of religious sects, all false. Why go to so much effort to confuse, wiser men such as your self could take the man written Bible to pieces in a week.

FABLES, how funny, you believe in fables. You believe in the majority rules theory, and their correct mind control nonsense, you have allowed fables to fog your judgement and close your intellectual process. That page listed above, chapter 26 PALEOMAGNETISM is 17 pages, packed with sources and reference materials, as are the other 1000+ pages of that particular encyclopedia. Go have a lot of chuckles.

How many years was evolution on the table prior to DARWIN bright boy ? DARWIN is a proven fraud. If evolution were the truth then government scientists in billion dollar laboratorys would mix some sea water and sand together and create something of it…like a simple spider, or fly..can’t do it can they Lee, and they never could or will.

Evolution is a proven Vatican invention and is a myth, fable, lie, to mislead. You believe government and its paid scientists are gods, well ask your gods to creat something please, other than more bullshit lies, why is government so fearful of an alien intelligence attacking us from space…Ronnie Raiders own words….

This thread other than my honest posting mistake was a civil exchange with humorous unproven theories on your part.

LMAO…Intelligent design rates ignorance and sea water and sand gets credit to do what it never did, never could do, never will do, cause slime to be anything other than slime.

It musta went extinct, (evolution) with the dinos…ha ha ha..Its still happening he says…hahaha, WHERE THEN is it still happening Lee, PROVE IT.

I should take Tom bear hunting, he knows how to set up a good….DEBAIT.
Greg Farber

The Liberal gods are lying again, or should I call them SCUM lords, Socialist Communist Universal Marxists, maybe slime lords ? Gosh, Im so confused…
IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False DATA to push global Warming…IMAGINE THAT !!! OH MY GAWD BIG BROTHER LYING AGAIN !!!!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html
Al Goracle linked Goddard Institute claimed “hottest October on record” after using temperature figures from SEPTEMBER.

And NASA. ha ha ha…Never A Straight Answer. ha ha ha ha ha.
Greg Farber

Oh, golly, Im being to DIRECT for Affable Lee-o-tard.
Greg Farber

Well, also here we have over 3000 scientific proofs de-bunking EVOLUTION, the THEORY that SLIME EVOLVED into living beings magically of course…To bad Houdini isn’t here to show us how Sea Water and SAND creat,,er cough, excuse me, EVOLVE into CREATURES. HAHAHAHAA
http://www.evolution-facts.org/EncyclopediaTOC.htm
Funny how godly liberal man made government dosen’t incluse these scientific lessons in government run public schools, what ever do this scumballs have to fear. Hell, here is another link just for kicks;
htpp://www.globalwarmingglobalgovernance.htm
It amazes me how anyone can sit outside and watch birds, bee’s, flys, insects, my favorite Humming birds, and every thing else around us in Nature, and FALL FOR THIS EVOLUTION BUNK.

I took apart an elk the other day, muscle by muscle in the hinds, all going in different directions doing different things to cause the leg to function as it does, and I thought to myself, this is intelligent mechanical simple design, it did not evolve from sand and water mixing into scum. NO WAY. By accident things of amazing mechanics developed over time via EVOLUTION ? HA, No Way.

I am proud to come from INTELLIGENT DESIGN and I Proudly give credit to the CREATOR where credit is due, after all, thats all he ever asked of us to.
Lee

Greg, one simple question that I want YOU to answer. How did Noah get kangaroos onto the ark?
Greg Farber

Why, the same way he saved the Platypus of course, he walked them onto the Ark and showed them to their stalls.

If Evolution happened one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things, like many variations of dogs might blend in with many variations of cats. The platypus, the duckbilled platypus have organs totally unrelated to their alledged evolutionary ancestors.

Oops, evolution musta designed the Platypus different from ALL THE REST. giggle.

The platypus has fur, is warm blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. it lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening ( for elimination, mating, and birth) and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The Platypus can detect electrical current (AC and DC) as some fish can do, and has a bill somewhat like that of a duck—bird.

It has webbed forefeet like those of an otter and a flat tail like that of a beaver. The male platypus can inject poisenous venom like a pit viper.

Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called MOSAICs, have no logical place on the so-called “evolutionarytree”.

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group. Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions) never coming into existence.

I asked you over 3000+ questions first.

Source: In the begining; Dr. Walt brown. 1995-2008. Center for scientific creation.

Also, no scientist who comes forward with the ELEPHANT in the room called CREATION-INTELLIGENT DESIGN keeps his government grants…All government work..research grants..papers…big college lectures…everything would stop….

To be a Molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times…ONE, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for your self….TWO…It would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution…because then you would be out of a job….

George V Caylor; Molecular Biologist.

Kinda like the insane belief that wolves are not decimating their own food source in Idaho, ELK, And IFG field agents dare not speak of such nonsense as they are under gag orders and would be fired if the did so….

TRUTH IN AMERICA….is a JOKE.
Lee

But Greg, Noah did not build the ark in Australia. Did the roos just hop on over?
Greg Farber

According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendents of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah’s ark prior to the great flood. it has not yet been determined by baramintologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the flood, these kangeroos, bred from Ark passageners, migrated to Austrailia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the super-continent of Pangea broke apart.

Same sources listed earlier.

Why do you insist on being a slime ball.
Lee

This fable is getting better! You mean there were some marsupials in SE Asia, two were loaded into the ark and after the great flood they hopped on over to Austrailia and a few to South America (no land bridges there) and evolved into the diverse array of species now found such as the plant eating kangas and koalas, and the carnivorous tasmanian devils and tigers? All in just a few thousand years! WOW! Talk about punctuated equilibrium.
Some Australian Aborigines thought that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the “Dreamtime”. Sounds just as plausable to me.
How about responding in your own words with out calling in the young earth creation pseudoscientists.
“Young earth creation scientist” is an oxymoron.
In your own words short and simple – how old do YOU think Earth is? Our universe?
Greg Farber

I asked first Lee, you got 1000+ pages with 3000+ encyclopedic scienctific facts versus evolution to read and answer.

It is impossible to beleive if earth is 6,000-10,000 years based on biblical theory, OR 10 billion based on evolutionary theory…it boils down to faith, I believe in intelligent design, YOU choose evolution….both are proven religious faiths….

I have faith that via intelligent design the earth is younger than the majority of over paid stuffed shirt mainstream government “scientists” promoting the “evolutionary theory” claim.

Prove land mass at the time of Noah post flood was not all connected.

Prove 3000 scientific facts incorrect. Go ahead smart boy, our faiths issues are resolved.

3000 facts Lee, ?????????????????????????????? your turn.
Lee

Greg, I only ask one question at a time. You can’t even handle that.
Lee

Greg, your post #28 is not worth responding to.

Oops. I did overburden you with 2 questions: What do YOU BELIEVE is the age of Earth; age of universe?
Greg Farber

Lee, your just lousy at chess. I gave you a few moves here..now play the game or get lost.
George

Yep I’m right here thought you would jump on this quick. Threw that Job quote at you cause I know Goggle or Ask are your buddies.
I had hoped you would have researched the word of God yourself and gleaned some important self truths.

But when you admitted to not buying into Adam and Eve I knew then what I only suspected before. You were already dead in you sin and do not even know it. You do not even acknowledge sin exists (I personally do not believe the Adam and Eve garden origin) or will admit how much of a worthless sinner you really are, just like the rest of humanity, myself included.

Your sin keeps you separated from God and destined to do evil.

The teaching of scripture is that sin is any want of conformity to the character of God, whether it be an act, disposition, or state.

Various sins are defined in the Gospels such as
(Exod. 20:3-17) The ten Commandments. Sin is sin because it is different from what God is and God is eternally holy. Sin is always against God (Ps. 51:4; Luke 15:18), even though it may be directed against human beings.

A person who sins therefore is unlike God and subject to God’s judgment. The doctrine of sin is presented in the Bible.

Personal Sin (Rom.3:23) The form of sin which includes everything in the daily life which is against or fails to conform to the character of God.

The sin nature of man (Rom. 5:19; Eph. 2:3) another aspect of sin as reveled in the Bible. Adam’s own initial sin caused him to fall, and in the fall he became an entirely different being, depraved and degenerate, and only capable of begetting posterity like his fallen self. (Romans 6:10)

But for the True (born again) Christian there is an overcoming power to sin. The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:; Gal. 5:16-17) saves the true believer from total depravity.

The concept of total depravity by sin(Rom.1:18-3:20)
by your will (Rom.1:28) by your conscience(1Tim. 4:2) and your intellect (Rom. 1:28; 2Cor. 4:4) is corrupted and depraved and his heart and understanding are blinded (Eph. 4:18)

Repeated here With permission from the Author!
Lee

George, as usual I do not believe any of this “truth” you are spouting.
Trying to scare me? “But when you admitted to not buying into Adam and Eve I knew then what I only suspected before. You were already dead in you sin and do not even know it. You do not even acknowledge sin exists ”

What is this “not buying into Adam and Eve” is this a corporation offering stock options?
Lee

Between Greg and George this is a tough place to fend of lunatics.
Lee

Interesting gambit, Greg, but you have not answered the two questions. Too much for you to contemplate at one time?
Lee

Greg, you can’t answer two simple questions?
Greg Farber

Lee,
Sorry not to be funny but it was thru DNA in a vial! Ok it was funny.heh heh heh.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-did-animals-spread

“Scientists” have tested soil samples from various coastlines of ech continent, they have found that by reconstructing moving continents together, these soil samples match. Look at tetonic plates on a google map, These ridges suggest how each land mass fitted together.

And where in the bible does it say all species were represented ??? It says ‘KIND’ Therefore, there would be animals from every climate on the continent. Naturally once they disembarked each kind would drift by instinct back to the climate range from which they came. Certain characteristics in mating (as in the human race) would become more distinct. God built it into them. No biggie. Just God Creating a perfect universe that the NWO is destroying.

Thats New World Order Lee, your order of things.

Here are further ANSWERS AGAIN, you just keep proving you do not read NOTHING except your own lies. EVOLUTION is 100% bunkum.

The creation logical theory provides hope for mankind and the earth.

The evolutionary theory offers no hope, no future, just more big brother terrorism, wars, genocides, weather manipulations, bigger lies, more false religious dogma’s, to destroy faith in hope itself, evolution is another faith destroying tool concocted by government/religion to divide humanity, destroy de-jure sovereign status, reduce humans to subject slaves to men who would be gods, bringing their lies to market for their own self greed.

Evolution is a scam.

That enough answers for ya ?
Lee

Greg, again in your own words, what do YOU BELIEVE is the age of Earth; age of universe?
Greg Farber

I once found a smashed frog in the drive way, I packed it in mud from the pond and put it in the freezer…I forgot about it. Once mother found my package eight months later, I decided to take it to my high school science teacher, he was tickled to have it, I told him I found it….he said it was 45,000 years old. Poor man believed in evolution and big foot as well.

I told you what I believe, you just refuse to see it.
Lee

Since you are pushing the young earth creation dreams, you must believe in a young universe – at least that is what I find in the propaganda you suggest to support your view. Thus the stars that we see are young. When you look at the sun you do not see it where it is now but where it was 8 minutes ago. That is the time it takes for the sunlight to reach Earth. The next closest star is 4 light years away. A light year is the distance light travels in one year, about 6 trillion miles. Again we are seeing it where it was 4 years ago. Now if all the stars were “created” at the same time then they must all be very close in order for us to see them. If there are stars out there beyond a distance of say 7000 light years (if Earth is 7000 yrs old) we would see stars blinking on when their light finally gets here. Oh look, another star!
George

It is interesting that the formation of the earth proposed by noted astronomer (astrophysicist) Hugh Ross has the exact same order as the creation account given in Genesis chapter 1 [1].
1. Creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. Transformation of the earthâ€™s atmosphere from opaque to translucent.
3. Formation of a stable water cycle.
4. Establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s).
5. Production of plants on the continent(s).
6. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and stars become visible).
7. Production of small sea animals.
8. Creation of sea mammals.
9. Creation of birds.
10. Making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents).
11. Creation of mankind.

Why Should A Christian Care About the Size of the Universe?

One of the interesting arguments for a great age of the earth is the size of the universe. The argument goes like this:

â€œSince the farthest galaxies are 13 billion light years away,* these galaxies must have existed 13 billion years ago. (That is when the light that now reaches our telescopes must have started on its way.) Since the galaxies were formed 13 billion years ago, the earth must have also evolved billions of years ago.â€

How Astronomers Measure the Distances

To understand where the numbers come from, you need to understand how the size of the universe is measured. We located an excellent (and completely unbiased) source on the Internet that explains how science measures these distances and will include the links for you as the reasoning progresses below.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/universe.shtml

Now, consider that we live in an expanding universe that scientists tell us is the result of an explosion. If the big bang theory is true,* the Earth and all the other heavenly bodies are moving at â€œexplosiveâ€ but unknown velocities. Would you agree that this makes time calculations rather difficult? (Remember, this â€œtimeâ€ is used with the Cepheid Variable Star data to estimate the age of the universe.)

*Many scientists debate this, and modify or contradict the big bang theory. For example, the big bang theory predicts an expansion of the universe that is too rapid to allow for the uniformity of the universe that we observe (stated simply). To compensate for this, Alan Guth, a Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed todayâ€™s well known â€œInflationary Theory.â€

As you can see, one problem leads to another, leaving us with more unanswered questions than we had before. Since time itself varies by huge factors when the observerâ€™s frame of reference changes, how can scientists identify the frame of reference that measures the age of the universe? The truthful answer is they can not.

On the other hand, the Bible has proven itself to be true and accurateâ€”something we briefly demonstrate on our How Do You Know The Bible Is True? page.

Since both the size and the age of our universe are difficult to define, and since the Bible is a document that has proven itself true for over 1,900 years, you may then agree with us that it makes more sense to accept what the Bible says at face value.

(That is, you can trust the Bible when it tells you that you can literally go to heavenâ€”the real bottom line for all of us.) Peace
Greg Farber

If you open a typical science book on astronomy, you will find theories about the origin of the universe and stars stated with great certainty….And you will be bombarded with beautiful photographs..

If you attend a closed door conference such as the Nice Symposium, you will find worried men, desperate theories, scientific facts which condemn those theories, a lack of alternative explanations, an atmosphere of hopeless despair in the face of unproven and unprovable ideas, concerning space stars the sun and time as it relates to man on earth, thus no solutions or scientific experiments able to alleviate the situation.

The truth is, allthough the evolutionists do not want the public to know it, the scientists cannot figure out how galaxies, stars, planets originated. Billions of stars out there and the “experts” do not have the slightest idea of how even one was produced…

Just more propaganda from my ENCYLOPEDIA; Science versus Evolution.

Look, another evolutionary comment #40 above which proved nothing……
Lee

The first 3 people commenting on this thread, other than Greg who started it accidentally, apparently believe that Earth is older than a few thousand years.
Lee

Greg, you didn’t even think about the content of post 40. It has nothing to do with biological evolution. It is about physics.
Greg Farber

Lee. You jumped from evolution to physics…to my posting in the wrong thread…to spell checks and typos. Can you spell chickenshit.

No doubt you can find a spell checkers and typo blog to go whine in.

Physics has nothing to do with evolution, and evolution has nothing to with any thing other than fantasy.
Greg Farber

NO HOMINIDS AT ALL—There are no half-ape ancestors! None have been found. No fossils exist.

The public ought to be warned of these efforts of evolutionary advocates to provide evidence—which is no evidence—in support of their theory.

A skull found in Spain, and promoted as the oldest example of man in Eurasia, was later identified as that of a young Donkey !

I do like banana’s though, and chocolate chip cookies.
Greg Farber

The evolutionist dogmatists theorize that simple life originated from the creation of amino acids, which later combined in chains to form protein, all by random or chance.

A simple protein would consist of a chain of about 100 simple amino acids. But not just any combination of these amino acids will give life. There is only one; all the other combinations will not give life.

The chance of 100 amino acids aligning in exactly the right order is one chance in one followed by 158 zeroes, or one in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,chances.
Lee

Greg, you could use scientific notation to express those impressive large numbers: 10 ^ 158.
Lee

Physics. I have been watching the skies for many years and have yet to see a star blink on as its light arrived at Earth from some place beyond the outer boundry set by young earth creationists.
Lee

Greg “to spell checks and typos. Can you spell chickenshit.

No doubt you can find a spell checkers and typo blog to go whine in.”
I have no idea what you are ranting about here. Deflection from the real issue?
Lee

Physics again. Carbon14 dating has shown the age of many human settlements over the past 50,000 years. That is about the limit for this method of dating since the 1/2 life of C14 is so short – geologically speaking. Other methods are used for rocks of greater ages like millions of years – K-Ar for example. But you will not accept any of this since it does not support your 6,000 year old fable nor do you understand the math and physics.

Nope, no stars flicked on tonight. Did see a meteor.
George

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?

See this page in: Hungarian, Russian, Spanish

People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric[1] dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of yearsâ€”carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.

Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and sufferingâ€”the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? Honestly!).

Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said,

â€œBut from the beginning of the creation God made them male and femaleâ€ (Mark 10:6).

This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questionedâ€”it is a â€œfact.â€ So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly â€œobjective scientistsâ€ in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the â€œageâ€ is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

We should remember God’s admonition to Job, â€œWhere were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?â€ (Job 38:4).

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years.[12] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[13] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few â€œgoodâ€ dates left after the â€œbadâ€ dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.

More Evidence Something is Wrongâ€”
14C in Fossils Supposedly Millions of Years Old

Carbon Dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to measure.

Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn’t. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.

It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in it,[25], or wood supposedly millions of years old still has 14C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view.

Creationists cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific argumentsâ€”evolutionists have had to abandon many â€œproofsâ€ for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admitted:

“Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.”[35]

Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to â€œproveâ€ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.

Creationists ultimately date the earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God, and therefore totally reliable and error-free.

Our God is an Awesome God! Peace
George

Other Radiometric Dating Methods

There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

1.

The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2.

Decay rates have always been constant.
3.

Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

There Are Patterns in the Isotope Data

There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older â€œages.â€ Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
â€œBadâ€ Dates

When a â€œdateâ€ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain â€œbadâ€ dates.[9]

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was â€œtoo old,â€ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[11] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans â€œweren’t around then”). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of â€œgoodâ€ from â€œbadâ€ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

Click on the link in #53 It’s all there.
George

Why The World Hates Jesus

As we head further into end time waters, one of the most amazing things you will see occurring right before your very eyes is how much the world really hates Jesus and everything that He stands for.

http://www.bible-knowledge.com/why-world-hates-jesus.html
Greg Farber

Lee, reply #42 explains why stairing at the stars, which is a very enteresting and fun thing to do I agree, still is diverting the subject of evolution, as Physics has been proven inefficiant in many areas of science.

Carbon dating is a nice invention but once again can not be trusted, OR, the people getting government payola to do carbon dating can not be trusted to tell the truth.

Lee deflects from all issues…by sniveling about a typo, or math he assumes he is the only one that understands or can do it…I doubt lee can actually calculate primes, you know Direct propagation of the prime numbers…probably does not know the oldest problem in mathematics has been solved…

But this is about 3000+ scientific facts which annihilate evolutionary theory—Lee jumped to the stars because Space/the Universe itself full of stars and planets neither proves or disproves Evolution or Creation, only stalemates the subject.

Lee, knows he lives a lie, thats why Lee, diverts/misdirects/DEFLECTS from the issues that do prove him wrong.

3000+ scientific facts crush the evolutionary HOAX, LIE.

Those were my own words dumbass….
Lee

C14 is not used to date items older than about 50,000 years. Coal has C14 but not enough to date it. It is all about 1/2 life. If you repeatedly take 1/2 of something and then another 1/2 of the remainder and repeat the process there is always some left. You may recall that atoms and inorganic molecules are very small; 6 x 10^23 molecules of water in about 1.5 tablespoons. At one of the creation sites I found reference to scientists trying to date petrified wood by C14. There is one reason why this is impossible. Petrified wood does not contain carbon but quartz SiO2. No scientist would even try.

What about those koalas and tasmanian tigers?

“as Physics has been proven inefficiant in many areas of science.” What is this?! Proven inefficiant? Did you prove this? Hogwash. You dispute that light in a vacuum travels at 186,000 miles per second?
Greg Farber

What about the human skull with the gorilla lower jaw bone scam which blew up in Evolutionists face…out right attempts at cheating their theory into reality. evolution, Its a fraud.

We can argue over physics forever. I doubt you have read the suppressed PRINCIPIA METEOROLOGIA–The Physics of SUN EARTH WEATHER..Authored by Physics Major-James M. McCanney.

But then your a Big Brother would never lie to me fool.

Physics works if you know how to do it, use it, understand it. The general populance would never be able to know if they had been told the truth of physics or not.

I’ll go with the scientific community not shoveling slop trough dollars from the public coffers…Integrity is something some people will never understand…
Lee

“Iâ€™ll go with the scientific community” What a laugh.
Lee

The piltdown man was thought by many early scientists to a be a fake and was finally proven as such in 1953. This proof came not from creationists but from evolution scientist.
Greg Farber

Piltdown man was found in 1912, This created a huge fabricated sensation which went on for 40 years tricking innocent people, while the scientific world community payed off sabotuers to truth bowed down to piltdown man as the great key to human evolution.

In 1953 Joseph Weiner and Kenneth Oakley applied a recently developed fluorine test to the bones and found that piltdown man was a grand hoax. The man who found this bone pile was a Jesuit Priest of the 4th vow, he placed the lower of an ape with the human skull, filed the teeth, stained the entire skull and jaw to give it the appearance of an ancient skull. Nice trick, someone wants desperatly for mankind to believe this theory of evolution lie. Evolutionists set up this hoax.

You bet I believe in a scientific community, Nikola Tesla, James M. McCanney, Stan Meyer…and others who refuse to take government bribe money to be on your “TEAM” of liars and deceivers. Lee.
Lee

from Greg “I doubt you have read the suppressed PRINCIPIA METEOROLOGIAâ€“The Physics of SUN EARTH WEATHER..Authored by Physics Major-James M. McCanney.”

From Amazon books: Average Customer Review: No customer reviews yet. Be the first.
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,234,449 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Who is suppressing it? Amazon has it for sale – I see it is a hot item.
You can be the first to write a review!
Lee

Greg Farber Says: “Piltdown man was found in 1912, ….” Actually he wasn’t found he was fabricated and the scientific community exposed the hoax.

Greg: “Physics works if you know how to do it, use it, understand it. The general populance would never be able to know if they had been told the truth of physics or not.” You mean the populace can’t think? Perhaps they should take a few more science classes in school instead of all that easy stuff. What do you mean by the “truth of physics”?
Lee

Shades of Immanuel Velikovsky here with James McCanney . From an on line source: Stephen Jay Gould offers a synopsis of the mainstream response to Velikovsky, writing “Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan â€” although to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong … Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends.”

Stephen Jay Gould; what a loss when he died from cancer a few years ago. His essays in Natural History magazine were always exhilarating and a mental challenge to read.
George

Physicist Hal Puthoff1 has recently suggested that the ability of a spacecraft to modify the properties of space in its immediate vicinity could allow it to travel faster than light. This is because the speed of light is simply a measure of two properties of the medium of space, or the vacuum: permeability and permittivity.

It has been tacitly assumed by some theoreticians that the speed of light might be a measure not only of the electrical properties of space, but the mechanical properties of space as well. It now turns out that this is probably not the case!

A very exciting possibility has now come into the light. It has long been known that gravitational forces apparently act instantaneously over the entire universe. Why this should be so is simply glossed over and ignored in every generation of physics classes and in countless technical papers.

However, during the time interval it takes light to travel from the sun to the earth, the sun and the earth have kept in touch with each other “instantaneously”-or at least very much faster than c! In fact every mass in the universe communicates with all other masses in the universe in a time frame that makes the present speed of light seem like the velocity of molasses on a cold day!

Astronomer Tom Van Flandern has recently detailed all the evidence that shows that gravitational forces, unlike light, operate with no measurable aberration!2

But Van Flandern shows that there are sound reasons for believing that the “speed of gravity” is not infinite. By carefully studying the observable data, Van Flandern now concludes that the speed of gravity is greater than or equal to the present speed of light by a factor of 2 x 1010.

This velocity (6 x 1018 meters per second) turns out to be just below Barry Setterfield’s latest estimate of the speed of light everywhere in the universe on Day Two of creation week! Setterfield arrives at this initial velocity of light on the basis of the maximum observed Hubble constant, which gives an initial value of c that turns out to be 2.54 x 1010 times the present value.3

Since creation week, the diameter of the universe has been constant (a static universe) and the speed of light has dropped precipitously to its present value-following decay curves we can now piece together with some confidence based on (a) measured values of c for the last 300 years, (b) corrections to known radioactive decay dates which go back to approximately 2000 B.C., and (c) the observed quantization of the red shift of light from distant galaxies for the time period from creation to about the time of Abraham.

As the universe aged, the free space permittivity and permeability increased and c decreased – but the velocity of gravity may not be tied to the permittivity and permeability of free space!

If this is the case, the velocity of gravity stayed at the original velocity of c. If we can produce a propulsion system based on gravitational principles rather than electromagnetic or chemical ones, we could travel at absolutely enormous speeds-we could hope to push a space craft anywhere in the universe, very literally at warp speeds beyond what even the Starship Enterprise could produce!

It is never good science to ignore anomalous data or to eliminate a conclusion because of some presupposition. Sir Henry Dale, one-time President of the Royal Society of London, made an important comment in his retirement speech: “Science should not tolerate any lapse of precision, or neglect any anomaly, but give Nature’s answers to the world humbly and with courage.” To do so may not place one in the mainstream of modern science, but at least we will be searching for truth and moving ahead rather than maintaining the scientific status quo.

Barry Setterfield – March 7, 2002

http://www.setterfield.org/research.html

By the way, this discussion solely relates to the physical part of the created universe. For now we must defer discussion about how angels travel and communicate – they are spiritual beings. And we must postpone speculation about what we followers of Jesus the Lord may find ourselves capable of doing when we don our new resurrection bodies (these bodies are, after all, “not of this creation”-but spiritual bodies-see 1 Corinthians 15). Peace
Greg Farber

The Dawson crew found/dug up an old human skull,likely robbed a known grave, then fabricated the hoax, which lasted 40 years, Jesuit Charles Dawson was involved with Father Peirre Teilhard De Chardin the french jesuit priest paleontoligist, biologist, Philosopher, he attempted to push christian theology with theories of evolution. Teilhard De Chardin wrote a paper in 1920 expressing his doubts about Piltdown mans authenticity and said he suspected animal bones were included in the collection. Thus your mistaken, LEE, the Christian evolutionist priest first exposed the hoax. This entire facade was intended to be a hoax from the start as these well educated men new this would eventually be discovered, but the longer the hoax lasted the better for the continued evolutionary fraud, as for 40 years the world thought an actual link to the evolution of humans existed. This hurt evolution eventually, but equally harmed true christianity of other faiths other than Catholicism, which itself is counterfeit christianity.

James M. McCanney has said on his web site not to purchase any books with his name or book titles any where else except from his own web page as he is in legal battles now with theft by plaguerism. McCanneys own words. He also is quoted elsewhere other than his web page, and James claims editing has occurred to further hurt his patented science, which disagrees with NASA and the science “PAYOLA PIGS” at large. You could read mainstreams latest cover-up of truth book called The jesuit and the skull, it should be right up your blind alley.
Greg Farber

If your not going to read McCanneys physics explanations which differ from NASA and others, there is no point in discussing the truth of physics as explained by McCanney. He has written on the subject of physics 30+ years, and has been proven correct on his studies and claims. Eventually those opposing Jim came around to the improvements of physics by Jim, like Tesla, he is a maverick, not a yes man.
Greg Farber

Lee,
Try this 13 pages on for size bright boy…if ya got the stomach for it.
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtml Get a clue who is playin with your mind Mr. Brilliant know it all. Oh, go ahead and laugh, and dis-prove it with evidence instead of your meaningless shoulder shrug sarcasm.
Greg Farber

Cocka-DOOODLE-DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..
Lee

In order for a theory to be scientific there must be a way to prove it WRONG. Einstein said it simply “no number of experiments can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”.
Lee

Several scientists questioned the authenticity of Piltdown right after it was invented. Chardin was not the first. Nor did he prove it to be a hoax. Nor was he a creationist.
Questioning authenticity is not proving it to be so or not so.
Lee

From George: “6 x 1018 meters per second”
6 X 1018 = 6,108 faster than a bullet at possibly 1500 m/s but not near that of light.
You should change those numbers into scientific notation: 6 x 10^18 which is
6,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s
Lee

Dendrochronology has established ages of 10,000 years for oaks in Germany and 8500 years for bristlecone pine.
Lee

What single experiment can you think of that would prove intelligent design false? None because it is not scientific. God can do anyting is always the cop out.
Greg Farber

Chardin was creationist/evolutionist and tried to prove the two were in common so to speak. Was a PRIEST for the Jesuit Order, and WAS reprimanded for his attempts at combination of the two theorys, it is a matter of record with the VATICAN who punished CHARDIN by sending him to China. Read his journals, and others. Several questioned the authenticity, I agree but records show they were not allowed access to the skull.

Einsteins books were ghost written, he is also a proven theif of others works as he worked at the PATENT office for a few years and stole the THEORY OF RELATIVITY, real scientists claimed at the time during luncheons and other meetings with him he was an idiot and never made any sense in discussion. So his words are worthless.
Lee

Greg, I understand why you, with your creationist mind set, place little value on critters that do not directly benefit you. Snails, chubs, wolverines; God can reserect them if he – you so desire in the coming whatever. I, on the otherhand, see a species as the culmination of millions of years of selection. When gone, it will never again live on Earth; what a loss! Man is definitely an arrogant taker and you are a prime example!
Lee

Greg “Einsteins books were ghost written, he is also a proven theif of others works as he worked at the PATENT office for a few years and stole the THEORY OF RELATIVITY, real scientists claimed at the time during luncheons and other meetings with him he was an idiot and never made any sense in discussion.” (I can’t imagine anyone having a discussion with you about these topics that doesn’t think you were an idiot.)

Do you ever give evidence for your blatant remarks? From whom did he steal the “theory of relativity”? Who wre the “real scientists”?

So says Greg the Brilliant. You are so damn ignorant! Go keep your head burried in the sand for a few more decades!
Lee

from post 75: “Chardin was creationist”: give your evidence
Greg Farber

The evidence exists Lee, go find it, your super intelligent and a know all, you never provide links, supporting nothing, I provide links and you bad mouth them,As soon as a link gets badmouthed guess what stupid, NO MORE LINKS to SHARE. I can research I do not need your help, I provided 3000+ scientific facts earlier in this thread, you ignored it, and bad mouthed it. The evidence is a book, and in many writings about Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, A LICENSED JESUIT PRIEST, He cannot get that License being in support of evolution, nor maintain the license thru out his life, UNLESS HE LIED LEE, so if he lied, well then, do we over look that lie and expect we got the truth in other area’s, SAY PILTDOWN MAN. Chardin in my opinion was in on the hoax, YET, he made it appear he was NOT in on the hoax while helping to perpetrate said HOAX, Why do I think so, because having studied the Society of Jesus and the Jesuit Order’s almost 500 year history, and having collected books and writings on this particular subject from the 1500s to DATE, I understand the devious nature of this group very well, having over 100,000 pages of information on them. There is no mistaking the consistant footsteps of the JESUIT Tricksters while in their HOLY WAR against humanity.

Isn’t it funny we have three theories floating around in this world, CREATIONISM BY A SINGLE GOD, which I lean towards. EVOLUTION.(HOAX). AND ALIEN MANIPULATAION.(HOAX). What I find interesting is in all three theories HUMANS were made from the dirt of the earth, one as GENESIS describes. The other by COINCIDENCE OR ACCIDENT, Water and mud, sand dirt, just mixed up on its own, The other by clay and water stirred in a POT by some spaceman. And research lays these theories at the front porch of WHERE ??, the VATICAN.

Chardin had to fight to keep his License as a Jesuit priest, over his theological perspective of CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTIONISM being a part of gods way in making all things, CHARDIN got in trouble with the VATICAN and was punished. He kept his license, who do you think financed HIM ???? Really Lee, you disapoint, I thought perhaps this little debate would be intersting and challenging with you, NOT A COMPLETE F*&%ING KINDERGARDEN BORING CHILDISH BLAME GAME ON YOUR PART.

DO SOME REAL RESEARCH, BUY SOME HARD TO FIND BOOKS, NOT MAINSTREAM, TRY SOME ANTIQUE BOOK SHOPS WHAT SPECIALIZE in books out of print, thats what I DO. If I type in all my antique books collected of the last 600 years ALONE, it would take over a month. The object in debate is to win not help the other Debater what wants to DISCREDIT me, and thats your game Lee, to DISCREDIT, not seek knowledge. You have definitely proven that.

I share to give other avenues of research which can open up your intellectual mind and free it from the locked down stubborn place in which it resides.

COMMENT #76 BY LEE, is an ASUMPTION based on no facts PERIOD, just a stab in the dark, and a lie.

Now, what do you know of SUBSPECIES and their function, did evolution make all dog breeds ? And have you studied the NEPHILIM and their possible interference in the evolution of humankind ? The Bible, mentions these beings. I only ask out of curiosity.

A word of the wise, never assume you understand your enemy debater, you have already shown an under estimation of me, and I warn you I have not shown you much of my knowledge yet, As I said before this is a chess game, and I do not give away my moves….Get on point and stop with the whining of my points, BUT PROVE YOUR CASE…if you can.

CHARDIN WAS CREATIONIST, prove other wise. But you waste time. You might want to mix up some sand,mud,claywater and mold a human from it, do three of them, put one in the yard, one in a blender and mix, and breath life into the third, then share your findings, I hear Liberals are gods.

OH, and that was my own WORDS.
Greg Farber

E=mc2 is not Einsteins discovery.
http://www.serve.com/herrman.ein.htm
Open the PDF and READ it Lee.
This one link…I got plenty more exposing PLAGIARIST EINSTEIN.
Greg Farber

My goof, E=mc2 is not Einsteins Discovery
http://www.serve.com/herrman/ein.htm
Now you can open PDF. (I hope)
Greg Farber

Thats it, Im taking the day off.
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/ein.htm
Third times the charmer we hope.
Lee

Steven Jay Gould also believed that Chardin was in on the piltdown hoax.
Lee

Greg you always ignore the point. In order for a theory to be scientific there must be at least ONE way to prove it wrong. I used a quote from Einstein to illustrate the point. It matters not what he was or did.

Greg says “I provided 3000+ scientific facts earlier in this thread, you ignored it, and bad mouthed it”. It was not ignored and that which follows is primarily the result of following your leads. By the way the Tesla tower led me to an interesting discussion of the Tunguska event in Russia. Interesting read , I have been interested in an explaination of this event for many years. I don’t have a link since that was several days ago but I am sure that if you tie them together you can find it (Tessla Tunguska). Perry is there also.

Another on got me to this site: an interesting article regarding the Grand Canyon by creationist Steven Austin and geologist Wilfred Elders.
I could not get it at the following address;

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/8417_trivializing_creationist_schol_12_30_1899.asp.

I had to use the cached function. I put in “basalt base grand canyon strata lava spilled” and googled it. It is the 6th entry “NCSE resource”. I used “basalt base grand canyon strata lava spilled” because I had been reading one of your creation sources that stated that lava which spilled over the rim and went to the canyon bottom had been dated by scientists as being older than the lava residing under many layers of rock low in the canyon. ONE of THOSE events which if true would prove geologic time and, therefore, evolution false. Not so.

Following are quotes from Elders, the first of which expresses why I did not occupy myself with reading all the literature you have suggested but that I do look at it to get the general drift.

“On the count of not having read all that creationist literature, I plead guilty as charged. However, I believe that I have read sufficient of it to conclude that this corpus of work falls far short of proving AustinÂ´s assertion that NoahÂ´s flood formed all Phanerozoic rocks and that the Grand Canyon formed in the aftermath of that deluge.”

“There is a major irony here in using the work of my friend and mentor “Doc” Bretz in support of biblical literalism. It was in discussions with him that I first became interested in the neocreationist movement, shortly after the publication of Whitcomb and Morris (1964). Although the controversy over his work on the Channeled Scabland was protracted, Bretz regarded it as a good example of the self-correcting nature of mainstream science. Creationists subscribing to the views of the President Emeritus of the ICR (Morris 1970) cannot correct the Genesis story, no matter what scientific evidence is produced. Had “Doc” survived to see the publication of Austin (1994) I am sure that his comments would have been pithy and devastating to the creationistsÂ´ misuse of his work.”

Regarding three basalts in the Grand Canyon located in the strata sequences: I have inserted 1,2,3 to identify these basalts and added the average corresponding dates.

“Austin pays great attention to radioactive dating because it is the Achilles heel of young earth creationists. Although he emphasizes any perceived discrepancies in radiometric ages published by different workers, he provides no satisfactory explanation of his willful misuse of radioactive dating in the Grand Canyon. Although he had earlier admitted that the Rb/Sr isotopic data from the Pleistocene basalts yield a false isochron (Austin 1988), he later used the same approach to publish what he knew to be geologically impossible results (Austin 194: 124-5) and posed the rhetorical question (Austin 1994: 129), “Has any Grand Canyon rock been successfully dated?” 1. Ilg and others (1996) used U/Pb ratios to date the oldest rocks of the Grand Canyon and found that different units had ages ranging from 1750 to 1660 million years. ( about 1.7 billion years) 2.Larson and others (1994) used Rb/Sr data from the Cardenas Basalt to determine an age of 1103 million years. (1.1 bilion years) 3. Dalrymple and Hamblin (1998) measured K/Ar ratios to obtain ages in the range 0.684 to 0.443 million years for the Pleistocene basalts (about 500 thousand years). If Dr Austin has credible data which refute the order in which these rocks were formed, or which even change these numbers significantly, I urge him to publish them in full in a major scientific journal. I would be happy to assist him by reviewing the manuscript.”

This quote from creationists. “However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon’s north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an “age” of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous “age” speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating.”

There certainly does seem to be a problem here:
“Dalrymple and Hamblin (1998) measured K/Ar ratios to obtain ages in the range 0.684 to 0.443 million years for the Pleistocene basalts” vs “Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method giving an “age” of 1.34 billion years.” Who to believe? I figure Greg won’t see this as any problem since Earth is < 10,000 years!!?? Discard any evidence to the contrary.

About Einstein and the STR by a physicist , not quite so heavy into the math that leaves most in the dust, including me, source that you listed:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

Another: Your interview on November 15 about Einstein, Hilbert and relativity suggested Hilbert was guilty of plagiarism, a strong and loaded word.
David Hilbert’s contributions were great and he had no need to steal from anyone, even Einstein.

Relativity did not arise, fresh born, from the mind of Einstein. Even 10 years before 1915, Minkowski and others developed the mathematics of space time geometry, and Einstein was Minkowski’s student.

Quoting the biography “Hilbert” by Constance Reid, Springer-Verlag, 1970, Hilbert was forthright and generous with credit to Einstein: And “stated frequently in lectures that the great idea was Einsteins”, and “Einstein did the work, not the mathematicians.” Hilbert recommended that a major prize in 1916 go to Einstein “for the high mathematical spirit behind all of his achievements.” Doesn’t sound like an idea thief to me. C.F. Kent Quirks and Quarks
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/97-98/feedback9798.htm#hilbert
George

Today I would be hard pressed to find one person in ten who would hold to God’s truth. It was not always that way. I will not stop placing the Glory for all things right where it belongs at the feet of God. If he said it,it will happen!!

Main Entry:
idolÂ·aÂ·try
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural idolÂ·aÂ·tries
Etymology:
Middle English ydolatrie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin idolatria, alteration of Late Latin idololatria, from Greek eidÅlolatreia, from eidÅlon idol + -latreia -latry
Date:
13th century

1 : the worship of a physical object as a god 2 : immoderate attachment or devotion to something

Idolatry

Idolatry is the universal human tendency to value something or someone in a way that hinders the love and trust we owe to God. It is an act of theft from God whereby we use some part of creation in a way that steals from honor due to God.

Idolatry conflicts with our putting God alone first in our lives, in what we love and trust (see Exodus 20:3-5; Deut. 5:7-9; Romans 1:21-23).

In idolatry we put something or someone, usually a gift from God, in a place of value that detracts from the first place owed to God alone, the gift Giver.

The way out of idolatry is always to love and to trust the gift Giver without interference from any gift or any thing other than God. We will then be able to love and to appreciate gifts appropriately, neither giving them too much power nor failing to be thankful for them.

We will then be free indeed, and not in bondage or addiction to anything that cannot fulfill us or give us peace
George

Being Free

In freedom can I turn to You.
In freedom can I leave.
In freedom You have given me
the Life in which I breathe.
So often do I run from You.
So often do I leave.
So spacious is Your heart of grace.
So precious is Your Love.
How wonderful You are to me,
so that I might be free.
Greg Farber

Lee, Nice links, I will read them in the A.M. when Im fresh, I just want to add a short comment, First of all, the idea that speed of light was constant and was independent of the motion of its source was not Einsteins at all, But was proposed by the Scottish Scientist James maxwell in 1878. James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Scientists Lorentz Michelson and Morely reached the conclusion that the velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the observer, thus this piece of the special theory of relativity was known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm This is interesting and has other links attached to it. The red flags always starts waving for me as soon as Jesuits show up in the picture, counterfeit christianity..All this evolution stuff stinks to high heaven of them…What I do beyond reading papers and opinions is I research the people what wrote them, via family tree and associations, what do I find a lot, 4th vow Jesuit Priests and they are trained in deception, they believe they are serving god and it is ok to decieve us, so when I find them in the background or forground of studies, I get real suspicious, AND Charles Darwin and Erasmus Darwin were trained Jesuits, and the other Jesuit trained shit, Albert Dunce Einstein playing his part in this evolution fraud with for instance heliocentricity. And who was Einsteins Master he worshipped, literally kissed the ground the man walked on—Jesuit Master, Fr’ Georges Henri Joseph Edouard Lemaitre, S.J. (Sovereign Jesuit) These people in the picture tell me, not to fall for this bunkum theory. If the Society of jesus and the jesuit order are around expect deceptions. On the rock dating issue, neither side seems to prove their case, where does that leave us ? As for me, still trying to find the truth. I will read your links, and I will trace the authors roots and finances. I will try to find Maxwells book, I have it here, I haven’t got to read it yet, been reading Samual B. Morse’s original book from 1835 the last couple days, fascinating man.
George

REFORMED THEOLOGY Extreme
Greg Farber

I have the book Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist, his own biography put together by Schilpp, another jesuit, The writings by “Einstein” have the stench of jesuitism all over them and wreak of his master Friar Georges Henri Joseph Eduard Lemaitre S.J. Who likely ghost wrote Einsteins journals and so-called private notes. The jesuit master mind never seeks recognition/fame/fortune, they use props and have for half a century.

Another example of this treachury is the book Mein Kampf ghost written for Adolph Hitler–another mindless jesuit robot stooge from history–Father Bernhardt Stempfle is the author of the great socialist Fuhrer’s book. Nazi-Fascism, socialism, marxism, communism, evolutionism, fake christianity, are all traced to the vaticans front Porch, with the footprints of the jesuits all over them. Will I prove it here, NO, because I am not going to type 500 years of historical documents here, documents not of the mainstream, books from those centuries the jesuits wish would go away.

So reading the bibliography of Einstein it is without question this man supported socialist communism theology. Historically this process which starts democratically has a 100% failure rate. Einstein was a jesuit prop.

Who invented communism, socialism, marxism…well the vatican stooges did, via Jesuit Adam Weishavpt, 1778-1811. Marx refined Weishavpts works, where did Marx do his work, He was privately tutored by jesuits in the huge reading room of the british museum while writing the Communist Manifesto based upon the Ten maxims or “Planks” the Order had perfected on its Paraguayan Reductions (1600-1750) and its maryland Reductions (1650-1838). His writings were financed by he societys wealthy, white gentile cartel capitalists, such as John D. Rockefeller, Jr., And J.P. Morgan.

Who swirls around evolution, these crooks do, believe them if you will, I know better. Not only is the evidence alarming, it is irrefutable, thus the lies of known liars still prevail today…unless your willing to go to extreme document collecting, antique book collecting, it is difficult to connect the dots.

Evolution is just another jesuit created false religion.
Lee

James Maxwell proposed the unified theroy of electromagnetic radiation to include light, but still believed an “aether” was needed in order to transmit these waves through space much like there has to a medium for sound waves. Like sound waves, he believed light traveling with constant velocity relative to the aether would appear to travel at different speeds depending on relative motions of the light source and observer. Michelson – Morley performed their experiment to prove the existance of the aether but insted the results showed apparently there was none. Lorentz postulated formalae for time dialatiion and length contraction in order to explain the results from the M-M “failed” experiment. I will disagree with your conclusion that Albert Einstein stole others work. He synthesized discoveries current in his time into a coherent theory.

One of the most fascinating books I have ever read was Charles Darwin’s “Voyage of the Beagle”. The part of greatest interest was his observations of South American geology, including fossils, primarily in Argentina, and evidence of earthquakes in Chile. He had so much time to explore. Today scientists are specialists in a field – he was a generalist who knew flora, fauna, and then current geology. I think that is why Darwin, Einstein, and Wegener were so influential – general knowledge that they unified across disciiplines.

Dinosaurs In The Arctic And Climate Change

Related Posts

Tom Remington

Related Sites

Archives
Categories