Darwin was Wrong

Tonight and tomorrow we will be attending a conference at Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa entitled Darwin was Wrong. A variety of scientists will be speaking on proof of creation versus evolution from lower life forms....

The schedule of speakers and a link to watching it live is provided below. It starts tonight at 6pm Pacific: Click here for the link to watch: Watch Live

I was sitting behind a wooden support column off to the left of the speaker as I face him. We chose those seats because we felt it would be less crowded.....flu season ya know.... I could see the speakers but I couldn't see the musicians. They were actually good seats because on each of those supports was a flat screen monitor so that I could also easily see what the speakers had on their laptop.

Yes, we plan to be there again tomorrow morning. That's at 8:30am Pacific time for anyone else who want to watch the live broadcast. The presentations by various scientists in their field runs from 8:30am to 5:15pm Pacific time. If you click on the pdf link that is shown in the first link I provided in my initial post you can look at the schedule and see what, if anything, interests you.

That first speaker tonight nearly put me to sleep. Smart guy but horrible speaker. The other speakers I thought were better organized.

Starting off tomorrow morning is Marcus Ross, PH.D. in Paleontology followed by another PH.D. in Marine Biology and more PH.Ds follow....

I didn't see the guy doing pottery. That must have been shown only over the Internet. Prior to going into the auditorium we were at the Bible bookstore. I met Maria Lopez, a cop and former co-worker I once supervised at the academy. I hadn't seen her in 5 years.

I haven't watched it yet but I will this morning. We had a pretty active debate going on about this on the other forum and somebody spoiled it for us. I am glad to hear of other scientists who debunk the evolution theory.

Since this is the year of Darwin, this particular lecture series has a theme of debunking Darwin.

It started off showing how his theory enabled a rebellion against believing in God. Communism and Marxism embraced Darwinism and of course those beliefs led to the deaths of millions.

Then each scientist has been taking up something which Darwin opined on and has shown how he was wrong. We all are aware of the lack of transitional fossils of which Darwin said they would be countless. Today a paleontologist will debunk that....

It was a good conference. Now I have three books I need to read through....

The intersting part was that the hosts (Logos Research Associates) included several other creation science or intelligent design grooups in their conference.

Logos Research Assoc.

Creation Ministries Int.

Answers in Genesis

Institute for Creation Research

Discovery Institute

The short answer is yes, I believe the grand canyon was formed rather quickly in geologic terms. Following Noah’s flood there was a lot of plate tectonics going on raising and lowering mountains.

Upstream from Grand Canyon there is evidence of a whole series of former lakes. One theory for the carving of Grand Canyon is that these upstream lakes catastrophically breached various barriers that held them back and carved out the canyon. The Colorado river is merely following the path of least resistance. There are examples all over earth of catastrophic carving of rock by water. Anyone with a boat can tell you how cavitation damages the propeller of a boat. Many free articles on this are available on the links I provided earlier.

Check out this link to how water can quickly erode earth. This occurred in your neck of the woods in Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla: Burlingame Canyon

Simple things evolution doesn't explain.

The Food Chain. Every living thing on this planet is involved in the food chain. Meat eaters had to evolve with others at the same time to satisfy their diet. The same with plant eaters. Coincidence?

The Fossil Record. It amuses me when science finds a fossil and tries to link it to man. The fact is, under their theory, there would be thousands of transitional fossils with each species.

The Planet Earth. The earth itself is very unique. Most planets out there cannot support life because they have erratic behavior. The Earth has a stable temperature, just the right distance from the sun, the moon keeps the earth from wobbling, and the earth is in a relatively quite area in space.

The Eye: Think about it. Why do most animals have eyes? Keep in mind that evolution is something that happened without intelligence. So why would different species develope eyes? How would the species know if something could be seen or not or if their was enough light to see?

Ever heard of dinousaur prints along side of human prints? Look it up on Google. Looks like they may have existed together.

Does evolution science adequatley explain life from lifelessness? How did dead matter spring to life?

Did you know that some of those charts that show the evolution of man and those showing the evolution of horses were faked? And they still use them today in an attempt to prove their theory.

Do you ever watch those shows on TV about the origins of the earth? Watch and listen closely, some things are explained by the words "and then." Example: The earth was formed, barren and hot, and then it began to rain. I laugh when I hear that, they just explained the existance of water with two simple words.

I also believe that the earth is young. It was created by God and he also created the plants and animals that live here. He commanded Noah to build an ark to save the species and the world was transformed. I agree with Mikey, it was more than a flood, the whole earth changed. Just my two cents.

Excellent information Jaytee

The creationist folks of course believe that God created various kinds of animals, e.g., dog kind, cat kind, cattle kind etc. Within each kind of animal His original genome (dna) instructions allowed for a great deal of variation within the kind (species). Thus animals will be able to adapt to their environment, and do so relatively quickly. In other words when God made the "bear" he gave it plenty of information in its genomes so as to be able to adapt (natural selection), thus you have the black bear and the polar bear all of which creationists believe "evolved" from the same animal. But notice, it is still a BEAR. It did NOT evolve into some other creature.... And this is why it is critical to define your terms when speaking with Darwinist evolutionists. Creationists believe in a limited amount of natural selection within a species. Darwin saw the same finches on various Galapagos islands and they had different size beaks because the environment was different on the various islands and their beaks changed per available food. This change is more noticeable in isolated population groups.

Since creation scientists believe that God created fully functional forms of life the tree of life flowcharts would not be a single trunk with multiple branches. The creationist tree of life flow chart would have many starting points such as these lines... / / / / / / / / / / / ... with the lines representing individual kinds of animals and off these lines you would see branching as the animals changed slightly either through mutations or adaptations but they would still be the same kind... perhaps a coyote instead of a fox or dog...

One of the scientists who spoke at the seminar has collected hundreds of evolutionary "tree of life" flow charts and showed us about a dozen or so. The flow charts are based upon available fossil records. What is fascinating is that the modern flow charts don't show all animal life branching out from a single tree trunk with numerous branches as you see in the traditional evolutionary flow chart. The flow charts are more like what I described previously with a single trunk starting point and then branching off..... just as a creationist would predict. They don't join up! In other words, the paleontologists flow chart of turtles show the creature starting as a fully developed turtle and then you will have branches coming off the turtle tree of life but all the branches are still clearly turtles, not lizards or some other animal. Their flow charts depict created kinds yet they are blinded by their Darwinist evolutionary assumptions and they are STILL looking for the transitional fossils that will connect all of their separate trees of life......

The Creation Ministries International has an excellent free on-line book "Refuting Evolution" that is a response to the National Academy of Sciences' publication of "Teaching about evolution and the nature of science". This book is an excellent starting point for anyone interested in looking critically at evolution and learning why it doesn't work...
Refuting Evolution

Great post Mikey. I think I understand it. The same reasong has been applied by some to Noah's Ark. Noah didn't have to bring every kind of turtle on the ark because the ones he brought had the genetic code to produce the ones we have today. Makes sense to me.

Other arguments against evolution.

Comets. They have learned that comets lose mass as they travel around the sun. Well that puts a kink in the evolutionary theory. That means that some comets we see today must have been massive when the universe formed billions of years ago. So massive, they would have consumed this solar system. The comets and their size point to a young solar system and universe. One answer the evolutionist came up with was that comets were always the size they are now. When they disappear, others enter the solar system in their place. Since most comets seem to run on a predictable course, these new comets must carry a calendar to keep on schedule.

Moon Dust. Remember the Apollo missions. Remember the pods on the feet of the lunar lander? Those pods were there for one reason. The amount of dust in space is measurable. If the universe is billions of years old, enough dust would settle on the moon that would sink the lander so pods were put on it so it could float. Guess what? Only a few inches of dust were found once again indicating a young universe.

Oil. There she blows! The cheer given to a gusher. But guess what? If the earth was millions of years old, we wouldn't have gushers at all. The pressure would have seeped out by now. Another sign of a young earth.

If anyone has kids or grandkids of Bible believing parents, I strongly suggest the parents attend a creation seminar and/or read some creation or ID (intelligent design) books and in addition they should subscribe to Creation Magazine. The magazine is fascinating and will counter evolutionary dogma that kids encounter in school and in college. Lots of young adults have left their faith when engulfed in evolutionary teaching in college.

We frequently read of a evolutionary find of a transitional fossil and it will make the front of newspapers. Then months or years later when the fossil is debunked as being a "missing link" you likely won't read about it, except in creationist publications.

JW: I encourage you to read that on-line book I referred to earlier. I was so impressed with it that I purchased a hard copy.

Right now I am reading a book written by a creationist molecular biologist. Scientists are looking at cells at the molecular level and the more they find the more complex it gets. When I was a kid they used to refer to the "simple cell". Turns out that simple cell is one of the most intricate and complicated things around. It's absolutely mind boggling and scientists studying it who once were atheist evolutionists have come to Christ.

"I will give thanks to you because I have been so amazingly and miraculously made. Your works are miraculous, and my soul is fully aware of this." - Psalm 139:14

A few months ago a show was on TV proclaiming that the missing link was found. Ardi was the name of this missing link. I didn't watch the show because the advertisement for the show started with the lie that Lucy was a missing link. It has already been proven that Lucy was nothing more than an ape but it appears that evolutionist still make the claim. Here is an interesting article about those missing links.

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/ardi-not-missing-link

Excellent article. Thanks for sharing. Many paleontology digs are funded by grants from some benevolent foundation. To keep the money flowing one needs success. Find some old bones and s t r e t c h the truth to make it older than previously found bones or make other claims.....

CMI also responded when they drug out poor old Ardi again.... Ardipithecus...... again....

I don't believe in evolution either but do believe that the earth is a lot older than most creationists do. The debate between evolutionists and creationists about the age of the earth sprang from the constant drumbeat of the evolutionists, they needed more time for their theory to even be plausible so the creationists attacked this theory with evidence. A lot of it such as Jaytee and Mike have presented makes perfect sense.

Last night "Draining the Ocean" was on the National Geographic Channel. They used computer technology to map and then present what the earth would look like without the oceans. The Bahama Island chain is just the tops of mountains that are formed out of coral, millions of tiny crustaceans who lived and died and piled up on top of each other until they formed a land mass. Coral growth is measurable in the length of time that it takes to achieve a particular size and these are mountains.

Good! Some disagreement finally. I enjoy discussing areas where perhaps I'm wrong. It forces me to delve into the subject and prove my point.....or admit I might be wrong.

The formation of stalactites in caves requires small amounts of water, increasing the flow of water will stop the carbonate precipitation rather than increase it (quick-forming stalactites under artificial concrete structures are due to an entirely different chemical process). A 3-meter stalactite would take 30,000 years to form. In addition, the cooling of large underground granite batholiths, as well as the formation of metamorphic rocks, requires much more than 10,000 years.

I personally don't believe that an old earth belief conflicts with Biblical beliefs.

Come on Bullfrog, I'm still working on the coral reefs issue....

As you note, Darwinist evolutionists requires the earth to be billions of years old for any chance for their theory to work. Actually time works against them but that’s another issue.

I had often thought it odd that mankind’s history of civilizations was only a few thousand years old. That did not make sense to me in an evolutionary sense. Humans are VASTLY unique with our culture, languages, music, ability to reason and think abstractly, realization of after life etc. If the earth were billions of years old then certainly the history of mankind would go back at least many millions of years, not a few thousand years just as indicated in the Bible.

I should have come to the realization that the earth can’t be billions of years old based upon my knowledge of Scripture…..but I didn’t. I needed proof…..In spite of apparent Biblical evidence I too used to believe the earth and universe was many billions of years old. After all, the scientists said so and we know the stars that we can see have to be measured in light years. I was a Christian and believed the Bible to be true so during this time in my early years I was a theistic evolutionist. Then when I was in my early 30s that I attended a creation seminar by young earth creationist Ken Ham. I suddenly had a paradigm shift. I heard many examples of proof of a young earth as well as proof that the earth cannot be millions, let alone billions of years old.

Genesis 1:29-30 says that animals and people were both created vegetarian. Thus mankind, Adam & Eve were not killing animals for food, nor were animals feeding on other animals. Genesis 1:31 tells us that our world was perfect (very good) when it was created. Because of Adam’s sin and its consequences, then and only then did death of man & animals enter the world. Romans 5:12 also refers to this. If I as a Christian accepts the evolutionary history of death over millions of years, then when God said that everything He had made was ‘very good’, this would mean that death, suffering, violence, and diseases like cancer were also ‘very good’. So, if millions of years are real, then the fossil record must predate sin. But fossils are the remains of dead creatures—therefore, millions of years entails that death predates sin, which in turn entails that death is not the result of sin which is contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Isaiah’s prophecy in Isaiah 11:6-9 & 65:25 indicates there will be a time in the future with no bloodshed in the animal kingdom. These are the passages about a lion and calf, wolf and lamb, and a vegetarian lion and a non-harmful viper. These passages are a partial restoration to what it was like in Eden.

Now to the coral reef. When I did a search on this subject some scientists said there are examples where they have found that what was thought to be a millions of years old coral reef turned out to be a thick carbonate platform, likely deposited during Noah’s flood. The living reef growing on top was actually a thin layer. In other cases the reef did not grow in place from coral but it was move there by water. I don’t know if this applies to the example you saw on TV but my guess if this reef was examined by a young earth creationist marine biologist he/she would base their reasoning on their creationist view assumptions rather than Darwinian old age views and they would come up with a very different and logical explanation.

Here is a link relating to young earth creationists views on coral reefs:
How long does it take a coral reef to grow?

I've read up on the stalagtite/mite issue in the past but I will have to get back to you....although I do seem to recall reading about stalagtites forming beneath some of our limestone monuments.... In addition, one has to remember the issue on "assumptions". Young earth creationists will assume their was once a great flood and there is lots of evidence other than the Bible to prove this. A catastrophic flood would cause a significant amount of mineral deposits and stalagtite formations that a non-flood long age believer would not take into consideration due to their own "assumptions"...

I'll get back to you on this but first I need to mess with my pond and take care of some honey-doos.....

I believe the Bible, but believe that God didn't see necessary to tell us everything that ever happened or the time that it took. It is more than we can comprehend in a lifetime, that is for sure. If Cain and Abel were the first two sons of Adam and Eve, who was Cain worried about killing him in this verse? I see it as a lot of time passage in order for those other people to have been there. The Bible merely says that Adam and Eve were the first and Cain and Abel were their first sons, it does not say that in the time that passed, he made other people.

Genesis 4:14 (New International Version)

14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

Okay Mike, I can buy the example of one reef being the result of a storm piling up a lot of scattered hunks of reef on top of each other and then a thin layer of new growth living on top of it. But this cannot explain all reefs or their growth to enormous proportions. I have personally dove Columbia Reef in Cozumel and seen these underwater mountains that took millions of years to grow.

I have swam through underwater caves at depths of greater than 100 feet with multiple layers of new growth above them. The caves and passageways are honeycombs of tunnels that are made of tiny coral animals, each skeleton is no larger than 1/8th of an inch wide. And there are billions of them piled up on each other. Columbia Reef is mountains of underwater coral growths that tower to the sky and plunge to the depths.

I have dove to 214 feet on regular air and that is 84 feet deeper than you are supposed to dive without a trimix of gasses. Still, the reef plunged 3,000 feet below me. It took time and a lot of it to grow these small animals on top of each other to this height. The individual animals whose skeletons make up this mountain are tiny and there are billions of them.

Again, this does not shake my faith in God.

I don't know much about coral reefs but maybe this is an answer.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

Jaytee, those who know me know that I dig a little taste of rum every night as I have dug tonight. I will respond to this manana when I'm sober. By the way, did I tell you that we were blessed with two more kittens tonight? God just dropped them on our doorstep as he knew that they could crash here with food, water and love.

What could be cooler than that?

What a world....

Bullfrog.

Bullfrog: Did you go to my or Jaytee's link. They are both the same article (CMI and Answers used to be connected).

Here is a quote (in italics) from the latter part of the article:

On the other hand, a growing reef can trap sediments as they are moved along by currents, thus adding to its thickness. Storms can dramatically add to the thickness of a reef by bringing in coral from other areas.

For example, in 1972, Cyclone Bebe ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours.

Given all the above, it seems reasonable to rely on the actual figures reported from depth-sounding measurements for coral reef growth rates, rather than calculations trying to take all these other factors into account. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes. At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years.

In addition, actual experiments indicate that the rate of coral growth can be nearly doubled by increasing the temperature five degrees Celsius (remember that Eniwetok sits on a now-extinct volcano), or increasing the carbonate content of sea water.

To maintain that Eniwetok Atoll could have formed in the time-span since the Flood recorded in Genesis is not at all inconsistent with real-world evidence.

bullfrog wrote:Jaytee, those who know me know that I dig a little taste of rum every night as I have dug tonight. I will respond to this manana when I'm sober. By the way, did I tell you that we were blessed with two more kittens tonight? God just dropped them on our doorstep as he knew that they could crash here with food, water and love.

What could be cooler than that?

What a world....

Bullfrog.

I think I know you pretty well. That is if you are who I think you are. If you are Moon aka Ditch, then I know you from other boards. If not, then please disregard. And Mickey, I didn't realize I posted the same article.

Okay, back to stalactites/stalagmites... Remember boys and girls that stalactites hold "tite" to the ceiling and stalagmites "mite" reach the ceiling....

Bullfrog: I like you was taught that stalactites and stalagmites took millions of years to form. I visited the Carlsbad Caverns as a kid and recall the ranger saying the same thing...."millions and millions of years"....

However, unlike some formations that are alleged to be millions of years old, such as the Grand Canyon, and have no witnesses to attest as to how they were formed or as to their age, there are witnesses today with photographic evidence showing that stalactites and stalagmites are formed rather quickly.

While researching my response to you I came across an article mentioning the Carlsbad Caves and it caused me to chuckle. The article mentioned a story about Jerry Trout, a cave specialist with the Arizona Forest Service. Trout has been a high-school teacher and a geologist. Jerry Trout writes, “What geologists used to believe was fact, in terms of dating a cave, now is speculation.” Trout is then quoted as saying:
“From 1924 to 1988, there was a visitor’s sign above the entrance to Carlsbad Caverns that said Carlsbad was at least 260 million years old. In 1988 the sign was changed to read 7–10 million years old. Then, for a little while, the sign read that it was 2 million years old. Now the sign is gone.”

Trout says that through photo-monitoring, he has watched a stalactite grow several inches in a matter of days.

In another article written by young earth creationist Dr Emil Silvestru, geologist/karstologist, a world authority on the geology of caves who has published 41 scientific papers:
Caves for all seasons
Silvestru wrote: “Now, let’s consider one of the tallest stalagmites in the world, in the cave Armand (France)—shown above. At 3 mm per year it would have reached its present 38 m in 12,700 years.1 Clearly, this contradicts the ages of hundreds of thousands of years obtained from radiometric dating! But, on the surface, it would appear to be too old for the Flood.
However, as I looked closely at this stalagmite, I realized that its growth must have been even faster in the past, because the water falls over 90 m (300 ft) from the roof to the tip of the stalagmite. This drop, plus the powerful splash at the end, would make it lose CO2 faster. Furthermore, the climate in the area used to be much wetter about a millennium ago, which would have accelerated growth even more.”

The young earth creationist writer in one of the articles noted he has received e-mails from numerous people from around the world saying that cavern tour guides no longer talk about the long age it took to form the stalagtites. Out of curiosity I looked up stalagtites on Wikipedia. True, Wikipedia is not necessarilly to be trusted but none the less it described how stalactites are formed but suprisingly there was no mention as to how long it takes for them to form....

Teepee Fountain

Kathleen's Marvellous Mysteries

Instant stalagmites

Petrified waterwheel

If Cain and Abel were the first two sons of Adam and Eve, who was Cain worried about killing him in this verse?

We know Adam lived to the ripe old age of 970 and he and Eve had other sons and daughter.....probably a LOT of other sons and daughers... The Bible as you note doesn't go into specific detail and doesn't mention other children being born between these two brothers. However, the brothers were men when Abel was killed but we don't know how old they were. In any event, Cain was afraid of his own brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces, who were already born and would be capable of seeking revenge.

One number cruncher estimated that there would have been roughly 35,000 people on earth some 200 years after the creation...

Yes Jaytee, when I first began to post I was very naive and used my club name which is too close to my real identity. I didn't realize how nasty people on the internet can get so I changed it to Moon. Also, a woman was going back and responding to all of my posts even though some of the threads were long dead. I then changed my name to Moon after a friend in the club who was killed.

Well I truly have to say that I have learned a lot here. I took the reef growth at face value and never questioned it nor the time it took for stalactites to grow. Mainly because an old earth did not conflict with the Bible to me, I could accept that the earth and the universe was very old and still have my faith in God.

I'm glad you cleared up the Cain and Abel thing Mike. It would make perfect sense that his own relatives would want revenge. Sin had already entered the world earlier in Genesis so the garden wasn't paradise anymore, it makes sense that people would scatter over time.