The Flickr Reasonrally Image Generatr

Rainy Reason Rally in DC.

Agfa APX400 @ ei640 in Diafine - Canon EOS Elan-7 #slr

(Exposed: 24 Mar 2012, developed: Sep 2020)

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 21/02/2018 This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

Racism - and the diabolical legacy of Darwinism.

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 05/06/2018 This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years. It is a rule that, wherever good fossils are found, the sediment was laid own rapidly.
The existence of fossils in a deposit means rapid sedimentation and rapid strata formation..

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 15/01/2018 This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....
the real fact, as we will show later, is that there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.

Classical Darwinism: Evolution by creeps.
What was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?
Put simply ...
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all living things, which would enable the gradual transformation of a first, self-replicating, living cell, through many years of natural selection, into every living thing, including humans.
However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis, or duplication, of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged, multi-million year timescale.

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale. Natural selection can only select from that which is already there, it cannot create any new information.

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But, because Darwinism had so quickly and widely acquired a status more akin to an ideology than objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science. Thus classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism could not be supported scientifically, and should not even merit the status of a scientific theory, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) would require the creation of new, genetic information.

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been consigned to the dustbin of history,

However, rather than ditch the whole idea as unscientific nonsense, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so important, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which depended on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

That mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.

Enter Neo-Darwinism: Evolution by freaks.

Because the majority of the public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was undoubtedly a crank, all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the ‘theory’ had been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

The true fact that classical Darwinism had always been demonstrably wrong and was fatally flawed from the outset, was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been correct all along, and who were the real champions of science, continued to be ridiculed and vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and the establishment.

The new developments were portrayed simply as an updating of the ‘theory’. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with Darwin’s original idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge ....
A sort of progressive evolution of the whole idea of evolution.

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

So, what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the (ludicrous) idea that random mutations (which are accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the progression from microbes to humans through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

However, there is no evidence for it, and it should be classed as unscientific nonsense, it defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.

It is understandable that people can be confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. It is a disgrace that evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.

Such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is being hoodwinked and lied to. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution, and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations, capable of creating new anatomical structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that the distinguished entomologist, W R Thompson wrote in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... “the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.”

Micro-evolution is just the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes, outside the extent of the existing gene pool, requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, constructive, genetic information. That is essential for ‘macro’ evolution. And that is a massive problem.

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. Therefore, micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. Apart from the idea that both require natural selection, there is no other connection, whatever evolutionists may claim.

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various, dog breeds, for example, are just limited micro-evolution (selection of existing, genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they realise that they have been fed an incredible story.
A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and fully, informed evolutionists know that is an irrefutable fact.

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the incredible idea that everything in the genome of humans, and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) , is purely the result of the accumulation of billions of genetic, copying mistakes..... mutations accrued upon previous mutations, and on - and on - and on.

Although evolutionists don’t like to state it this way, Neo-Darwinism actually proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a long series of cumulative mistakes ... mistakes upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes etc. etc. In other words, the complete genome of every living thing is made up of nothing more than an incredibly long chain of mistakes. That is the mind-boggling truth about the neo-Darwinian, evolution story. For obvious reasons, it is something evolutionists would prefer you not to think about too much.

When we do think about it, we soon realise that what is actually being proposed is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created entirely from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times.
That is ... every body part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, reproductive organs, or something like the process of insect metamorphosis, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool.

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single, living cell into humans by an incredibly, vast accumulation of these imaginary, beneficial mutations.

Conclusion:

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

Want to join the club?

What about the fossil record?

The formation of fossils.

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/

You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Evolution - multi-million year timescale debunked.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39554035561

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.
When no evidence is cited as evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

Piltdown Man (a fake),

Nebraska Man (a pig),

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

Orce man (a donkey),

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

Peking Man (a monkey),

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

Etc. etc.

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

Want to publish a science paper?
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...

Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

Is that 'science'?

Punctuated Equilibrium: Evolution by Jerks.
The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
_____________________________________________
A pig, a horse and a donkey!

The pig ....
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans. Highly imaginative artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc.
Having been 'discovered' 3 years prior to the Scopes Trial, it was resurrected, and given renewed publicity, shortly before the trial - presumably, in order to influence the trial and convince the public of the scientific evidence for evolution.. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

The horse ....
South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... also hailed as ‘scientific’ evidence for human evolution.

The donkey ....
Orce man, loudly proclaimed by evolutionists to be scientific evidence of an early hominid, based on the discovery of a tiny fragment of skullcap. This is now believed to have most likely come from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as it was claimed. A symposium which had been planned to discuss this alleged human 'missing link' had to be embarrassingly cancelled when it was identified as being very similar to a donkey skull.
_________________________________________

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.

Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!

The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.
However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering

"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"

And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

www.trueorigin.org/

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”

To end with a more jocular quote, it has been said that:
"If Classical Darwinism is evolution by creeps and punctuated equilibrium is evolution by jerks, then neo Darwinism is evolution by freaks".

The real theory of everything
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/34295660211

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39554035561/in/dat...

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 05/06/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied.

Some of the wealth of evidence can be observed here: field evidence www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later..
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion of sedimentary deposits in perfectly, still water. Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 21/02/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.

Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not necessarily older than upper strata, they can be the same age, having been created in the same, sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

So, you think you are an atheist?
To be a genuine atheist, one of the things you MUST believe is - that life originated by entirely, natural processes.
The questions below should make you ask yourself whether your belief in atheism is intellectually tenable.

Question 1.
Do you believe that life can self-generate from sterile matter (so-called abiogenesis)?
Yes or No?
If you answer yes, please go to Question 2.
If you answer no, please go to the footnote at bottom of this questionnaire.

Question 2.
Do you believe that matter is inherently predisposed (programmed) to develop life whenever conditions are conducive (suitable)?
Yes or No?
If you answer yes, please go to question 3.
If you answer no, please go back to question 1 and reconsider it.

Question 3.
Can you explain how an inherent predisposition for life originated in matter?
Yes or No?
If you answer yes, please go to question 4.
If you answer no, please go back and reconsider question 1.

Question 4.
Do you believe there is purpose or design in the universe?
Yes or No?
If you answer no, please go to question 5.
If you answer yes, you are certainly not a genuine atheist. You need to have a rethink.

Question 5.
Can you explain how matter can be inherently predisposed to self-generate life, if there is no purpose or design in the universe?
Yes or No?
If you answer no, you are not a genuine atheist. You need to have a rethink.
If you answer yes, please give your explanation in the comments section. But, before doing so, please read "Background to why atheism is definitely wrong about life and purpose in the universe." which is written below the following footnote...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
Footnote:
If your answer to question one is 'no', you are certainly not an atheist. Unlike atheists, you respect and agree with the following scientific laws and principles - so, well done!

The Law of Biogenesis. This well, established law has never been falsified, regardless of numerous attempts to do so. It tells us that life does not self-generate from sterile matter, under any circumstances.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is regarded as one of the premier laws of the universe, it tells us that the universe is subject to entropy. That the universe running down towards an ultimate demise in energy potential and order. The self-generation of life requires an increase in order and complexity which violates the second law. The only way entropy can be temporarily halted or reversed is through an input of GUIDED energy.

Information Theory.
Life requires complex instructional and constructional information (which is encoded in DNA). Information Theory tells us that such information cannot arise of its own accord by purely, natural processes.

The Law of Cause and Effect.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
Whatever produced life (its cause), must be entirely adequate to produce it. That means, the original cause of life should not be inferior to it in any way. The cause of life should be capable of producing every property we observe in living things.
A random, or chance, interaction of energy and matter (or a 'big bang' explosion) cannot produce self-replicating cells, genetic information, or any of the qualities which are uniquely attributed to living things, such as intelligence, consciousness, creativeness, purpose, decision making, ideas and ideals.
____________________________________
Background: ‘Why atheism is definitely wrong about life and purpose in the universe.’ (If you answered 'yes' to question 5, please make sure you read this before commenting).

Is matter inherently predisposed to produce life on Earth, and elsewhere in the universe, whenever conditions permit it?
And if it is, where does that predisposition come from?

Atheists and most evolutionists believe life originated by entirely, natural processes. They believe, and present to the public as a scientific fact, the discredited notion of abiogenesis - which is life arising of its own volition (by natural, chemical processes) from sterile matter. This is similar to the ancient idea of spontaneous generation of life, which was a fairly common belief before it was soundly refuted by scientists such as Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur.

Dedicated observational and experimental scientific research, over many centuries, resulted in the Law of Biogenesis. This law rules out the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis) as impossible, it says that life only comes from existing life. This well, established law has never been falsified, regardless of numerous attempts to do so. It is now universally trusted as the reliable basis of medical and food hygiene, and it is confirmed by other branches of science, such as Information Theory, the Law of Entropy (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the Laws of Probability and Law of Cause and Effect.

So, is it possible that chemistry or physics (the physical interaction of matter and energy) can produce biology?
The properties of biology and life are completely different to those of chemistry and physics. Life embodies, not just natural laws, as in physics and chemistry, but also complex, constructive information - stored and expressed through the DNA code. Biology has its own unique properties, such as self-replication, which chemistry and physics don’t possess.
The behaviour of natural things is entirely dependent on their inherent properties. They cannot behave in ways that exceed the limits dictated by their own properties. That is the essence of natural laws which describe the scope and limits of the behaviour of natural entities according to their intrinsic properties. For natural laws to change, or not be valid, the intrinsic properties of natural entities, on which they are based, would have to change.

It is a major problem for atheists to explain where natural laws came from, or why they exist?
In a PURPOSELESS universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing…. we would expect that the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely, fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, as an effect cannot be greater than its cause, any proposed first, 'natural' cause, of the universe and life, would have to intrinsically embody the entire potential for the creation of natural laws, information, order, life, consciousness, intelligence etc.
What do atheists themselves say about this....
In a debate (available on youtube), the well known atheist, Richard Dawkins, while trying to describe the first cause (as being something coming from nothing), claimed, the something that he believed came from nothing, would have had to be something simple. Amazingly, he ignored the law of cause and effect which tells us the exact opposite, i.e. that first cause could not be simple. It tells us that the first cause of everything HAD TO BE ADEQUATE (sufficient in every respect) to produce the effect. The effect (the complex universe, life and intelligence) certainly isn't simple.
So, Dawkins believes the first cause can be inferior to the effect. Or, put more simply, he believes something which came from nothing can give what it doesn't possess - and he calls that science!
It is not surprising that an audience (with common sense) found his attempt to define ‘nothing’ hilarious.
See here how the world famous, atheist Richard Dawkins foolishly tries to define 'nothing' as 'something' and is shocked at the audience reaction.
youtu.be/b6H9XirkhZY
Dawkins famously wrote a book called ‘The God Delusion’ this video clip reveals his own delusions.

If we consider the atheist belief; that matter is naturally predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), the question arises of where does that predisposition for life come from, and why does such a property exist in a purposeless universe?

The idea that the origin of life is just an inevitable consequence of the right conditions – the right chemistry or interaction of matter and energy - is routinely presented by atheists and evolutionists as a scientific fact. They believe that is how life on Earth originated – and, also that life is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe, for the very same reason.
For this to be true, matter/energy would have to be inherently predisposed for the potential production of life, whenever conditions are conducive and - therefore, some sort of natural law/plan/blueprint for the creation of life would have to be an intrinsic property of matter. A basic principle of science (and common sense) is that an effect can never be greater than that which causes it. In this case the effect - LIFE - could not be greater than that which atheists allege caused it, i.e. the random interaction of matter and raw energy and chemical processes. So, there must be a directive principle existing as an intrinsic property of matter that endows it with the ability to create life.

Thus, atheists are left with an impossible dilemma – if life originates as a natural result of the inherent properties of matter, i.e. a natural predisposition for life, they must explain where that predisposition for life comes from?
It would not be possible for matter to have such a property in a purposeless universe. Therefore, the atheist belief in a natural origin of life, denotes purpose in the universe which atheists deny. This then, is a classic catch 22 situation for atheists.
Atheists cannot have it both ways, if there is no purpose in the universe, matter cannot possibly have an inherent predisposition to produce life.
Thus, the atheist belief in ‘no purpose’ also means there is no possibility of a natural origin of life.
The denial of purpose negates a natural origin of life.

Therefore if atheists insist on claiming a natural origin of life, they are also obliged to admit to the existence of 'purpose' in the universe.

Therefore, either the idea of a purposeless universe is effectively debunked, or the idea of a natural origin of life is debunked - which is it?
Atheists can take their choice?
Either way, atheism is effectively debunked.
To believe in abiogenesis means that atheism is wrong.
To not believe in abiogenesis also means atheism is wrong.
Conclusion: atheism is wrong – period.

Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart said, "The most famous atheist is the one who can say the greatest absurdity with the straightest face."
______________________________________________
The real theory of everything.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/34295660211
Neo Darwinism - completely bonkers.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183
Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...
____________________________________________

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Below is a copy of an actual debate between myself (as Truth in science) and some militant atheists.
Is atheism exposed as bankrupt? Read the debate below, and judge for yourself .....

This debate took place in response to an image ridiculing Christians posted by militant atheist (Silly Deity) on his photostream. Anyone looking at his photostream can see it wholly consists of images insulting and ridiculing religion and religious people.

It commenced with a comment by another militant atheist (Badpenny) supporting the image posted by Silly Deity ...

The image posted by Silly Deity with the original debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/131599163@N05/18212093014
I have copied it all in this post to give it more public exposure, and also in case the original is deleted.

THE DEBATE FOLLOWS:
__________________________________________
Bad penny begins the debate by commenting on an image ridiculing Christians. It insinuates that Christians have no sensible argument, and that the only argument they have is to threaten people with Hell.
____________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
I reckon that neatly sums it up :)
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Wrong! Theists do have a VERY reasonable argument based on logic, natural law and fundamental scientific principles. Unlike atheists, who have no such logical argument,
Atheism revealed as false - why God MUST exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/18927764022
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Sorru #TruthinScience but you've pedalling that same old bollocks for ages now in the hope that the gullible or those with no understanding will buy your sciencey sounding shite as truth
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)

You obviously have no understanding.

Apparently, you have swallowed the ludicrous fable that the universe created itself from nothing, without any cause and for no reason - and you think that is 'science'.

If you disagree with my logical argument (based on natural law and scientific principles) let's see your point by point logical and scientific argument for your non-contingent, autonomous, self-creating, adequate, natural, first cause?

Or is it just the usual bluff, bluster and hot air that I get all the time from atheists? Who are very good at dishing out ridicule and abuse to anyone who refuses to swallow their naturalist ideology, but very poor at logically or scientifically justifying it.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
So basically there has to be a beginning,a prime mover,an initial cause for,well,everything so therefore it follows from the point of view of logic that this first cause is god.

Is that a fair summation of your proof and scientific evidene ???

How do you know this initial cause was god.

Perhaps there was a some event outside of our universe that set our universe into existence.Something non intelligent or sentient that pushed the plunger that ignited the big bang.

I am unable to determine in any realistic way what it was that started the ball rolling in exactly the same way you are unable to.

All you have done here is taken a logical argument and applied it to something that you know fine no one can verify or refute.

Your logical and scientific evidence is mere speculation in the same way all theories of what occured before the big bang are specualtion.Without being able to look back before the beginning to see if there is a cause or anything at all it's all just interesting notions.

If you are touting logic as the proof of your viewpoint then the same logic dictates that something came before god so what was that then ????

Presently cause and effect are deemed to be a universal rule,you're own explanation as I've understood it so far demands this particular order and progression of events but back beyond the big bang,the singularity the laws of physics appear to breakdown so can you definitively show that the time and the law of cause and effect alone remains in tact.

Of course,unless you're privvy to some special knowledge that no one else has ever know or knows today then in all truth you are stumbling around in the dark like everyone else .No ????

Also,you are doing the usual if not this then that juggle that people use all the time.

If there has to be an initial cause then that cause has to be god.

As I've said,yes cause and effect are the fundamental to our universe but until we can say that there is nothing outside or before our universe OR that there is then all bets are off.The laws that dictate here may hold no sway outside our universe and maybe they do but at this point in time we have no way of saying either way.

Obviously you are convinced you can so I'd love to hear how you think you are able beyond applying logic puzzles to that which we can neither see,measure or even state with confidence exists,existed or even possible
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Of course,you do realise logic is just a tool help you think objectively.It's not truth itself just like mathematics is just a language to describe reality not reality itself.
Putting something into a logical argument is just away to apply logic to something,it doesn't make that thing true or suddenly real....you do understand that don't you ???

I could make a logical argument to say that I could become the president of the US but that doesn't mean I will be.
Applying logic to anything at all you can imagine has no effect whatsoever on the real,physical world.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You wrote:
"So basically there has to be a beginning,a prime mover,an initial cause for,well,everything so therefore it follows from the point of view of logic that this first cause is god.
Is that a fair summation of your proof and scientific evidene ???
How do you know this initial cause was god.
Perhaps there was a some event outside of our universe that set our universe into existence.Something non intelligent or sentient that pushed the plunger that ignited the big bang."

The first cause cannot be a natural first cause, that is obvious because all natural events are contingent. There is no such thing as a non-contingent natural entity or event. Science is about looking for causes for every natural thing or occurrence. Every natural effect has to have a cause, and the effect cannot be greater than its cause/s. That is the fundamental principle behind ALL scientific enquiry. If you don't accept that principle you cannot practice science. A first cause has to be uncaused, or it wouldn't be first. If it is the very first cause in a chain of causes and effects it not only has to be uncaused it also has to be adequate to produce everything that follows it. Nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to that which ultimately caused it. So, the first cause has to be capable of creating every property and quality that exists in the universe. Which, of course, includes life, intelligence, information, consciousness etc.
If you think there can be such a thing as an uncaused, natural, first cause which is capable of creating all those attributes, please tell us what it is?

You wrote:
"The laws that dictate here may hold no sway outside our universe and maybe they do but at this point in time we have no way of saying either way"

Laws of nature are based on the properties of natural things, they describe those properties. contingency is a basic property of all natural things. That law is fundamental, it cannot be different elsewhere. If matter/energy was once some sort of non-contingent, autonomous being, why would it change its nature to an inferior one where it is subject to the limitations of causality? To claim that matter/energy is, or once was, an autonomous, non-contingent entity is to imbue it with the attributes of God. It is simply replacing the supernatural, first cause - God, with a natural deity.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Again you are making sweeping assumptions about the conditions previous to our universe and stating as fact that what's a natural law within the universe is both fundamental and natural outwith it or before it.
___________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Until you can categorically state what was before the big bang,that the universe is all there is where nothing exist beyond it.Until you can state what conditions prevailed before our universe began you cannot with certaintity make definitive claims what the first cause consist of because you cannot difinitively state what was natural and fundamental before the start of our universe.You cannot even do more than claim that the big bang was a result of a first cause.How do you know the there aren't entirely different laws that prevail in the time and/or space before/beyond our present universe.

There could be an infinite number of universe that all have different laws prevailing within them.

Until you fully know the nature of our universe,whether it's all there is,the first and only one to exist you cannot say with certainty that laws the govern how ours work our the same laws outwith and therefore all statements pertaining to the conditons before our universe are equally uncertain.

How exactly does the quantum world relate to your ever regressing complexity of causes as much of what is observed there does necessarily conform strictly to your natural laws of cause and effect.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Fundamentally what you are doing is the ultimate example of the god of the gaps.Everything that has happened since the big bang is natural therefore what came before cannot be natural or contingent because that is the natural law ever since.You cannot and don't know what came before so it has to be god because the big bang was the first event.The first event that created the conditions we exist in so.........

Yes it was the beginning of our universe but perhaps there's a continous cycle where the universe begins,has it's life cycle before collapsing in on itself down to an infinite point where it begins all over again so on and so on.

Until it is possible to observe back beyond/before the big bang which it seems likely is impossible you cannot apply the laws that govern here.

You would have to know for sure these fundamental laws were created in the event that created the universe or that they existed before,beyond and outwith the universe all together .Again you cannot make such categorical statements while knowing nothing of what was before it.How can you even be sure time existed before the big bang.

Without time,without entropy and the conservation of energy there may be no order the governs cause and effect.There may even be a god or there may not be,with no knowledge what came before the beginning of our universe you cannot be certain what laws are a product of the universe and what are laws outwith it.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
So you want to indulge in fantasy and still claim it is science.

If you want to evade the Law of Causality, and other natural laws that destroy your naturalist argument, you step outside of science.
Nevertheless, you still pretend to be working within a scientific framework by proposing causes which are actually non-causes.
You seem to think you can glibly dismiss natural laws as irrelevant to the argument, when they are absolutely crucial to any ‘scientific’ argument.

There is NO god of the gaps.
The so-called gaps are created by your own, unscientific fantasies.
The universe was CAUSED - there are no gaps, there is only the question – was the CAUSE natural or supernatural?
If you claim it was ‘natural’ but at the same time you want to claim that natural laws did not apply, you are simply contradicting yourself. You are effectively claiming supernatural abilities for a natural cause, which cannot possibly have supernatural abilities. In other words, you are endowing nature with godlike abilities and attributes, which science tells us nature certainly does not possess.

The god of the gaps argument is stupid. We can only deal in known facts, not a never ending, stream of what if’s or maybes, conjured up by fertile imaginations working overtime.

And all your - ‘what if’s?’ can be easily debunked.
For example - a cyclical universe, is similar to applying the scientifically, discredited idea of perpetual motion on a grand scale to the universe. Firstly, matter/energy is contingent, it always is, and always has been, contingent. It is not, and cannot be, autonomously, self-existent.
Secondly, the universe is running down from a peak of initial, energy potential at its creation. It cannot rewind itself any more than a clock can – there is no such thing as a free lunch, to suggest otherwise is fantastical nonsense, not credible science or logic.

‘What if’s’ or maybes are not logical arguments, they are just a way of evading definitive conclusions which are uncomfortable.
That is the whole basis of the god of the gaps argument, they are just fantasy gaps which can never be filled by anything, because as one gap is filled another can be immediately invented.
Anyone can attempt to destroy any logical conclusions by creating their own ‘gaps’ with endless, bizarre - what if’s and maybes?
Well how about this - What if I don’t actually exist? ‘What if’ you think you are having this discussion with a person, but really, I am just a clever, robotic, word generator in cyberspace? It would mean you are wasting your time, because I can just generate answers and ‘what if’s’ until the cows come home – and ‘what if’ the cows don’t ever come home? – It means all your arguments are just gaps in my – endless stream of - what if’s? And if you manage to fill one gap and answer one of my - what if’s?, I can just keep creating more and more, so your argument is, and always will be, useless. It is just an argument of never-ending gaps.

As for time – time is a physical thing, which theists knew long before Einstein confirmed it.

Theists have always known that where physical things exist, time MUST exist. Put simply, time is the chronology of physical events.
Matter/energy cannot exist in a timeless state. Only non-physical entities can be timeless.
2 + 2 = 4 is both statistical information and a true fact. Information and truth are both non-physical entities which (unlike physical entities) can exist independently of time. They are, in effect, eternal. Time does not in any way affect them. Only the tangible expression of information and truth in physical media can be eroded by time, but not the essence of their existence.
Truth and information exist whether they are made tangible in physical form or not.
If any physical thing or cause existed before the alleged Big Bang, it had to be subject to time.
Which, means - that which existed in a timeless state before the creation event of a physical universe (the first cause) had to be a non-physical entity. There is no other option.

Your claim that we can have no knowledge of anything before the material universe or the alleged Big Bang is completely spurious. Logic and science are tools that help us to make predictions and sensible and reasonable assessments and conclusions. They help us to know what is possible and likely - and especially, in this instance, to know what is IMPOSSIBLE. We do KNOW that a self-created, autonomous, NATURAL, first cause is IMPOSSIBLE. There are no ifs and buts about it, that is what science, logic, reason and common sense tells us.
And that is enough to debunk the atheist belief in an all-powerful, self-creative, non-contingent, Mother Nature.
To dispute that is not only irrational, it is the hallmark of a dogmatic, illogical and unscientific ideology.

As for quantum effects, they may appear random and uncaused, but they are most definitely not. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED physical universe.
So, the idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous.
As for a direct cause of quantum effects, it can be compared to the randomness of a particular number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc. we could predict the number in advance. So just because, in some instances, causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the end result, doesn’t mean there are ever no causes.

You wrote:
"There could be an infinite number of universe that all have different laws prevailing within them."

No there couldn't.
The 'Multiverse' idea is as nonsensical as it sounds, and has been soundly debunked.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/15897203833
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Since the bizarrely named "Truth in science" is so fond of repeating the fallacy that his drivel is based on "the principles of science" let's look at the principles of science shall we?

There are five basic components to the scientific method:

1) From observations of the natural world, determine the nature of the phenomenon that is interesting to you (i.e. ask a question or identify a problem).

2) Develop one or more hypotheses, or educated guesses, to explain this phenomenon. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome.

3) Devise experiments to test the hypotheses. ( All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable.)

4) Analyze the experimental results and determine to what degree do the results fit the predictions of the hypothesis.

5) Further modify and repeat the experiments.

"Truth in science" fails to get beyond step 2.
He is also repeatedly pedalling the notions so succinctly described earlier as "bollocks" otherwise termed logical fallacies.

This is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.

So.........."Truth in science" fails the Principles of Science test and also uses logical fallacies as a means to deceive.

Yep!! Bollocks just about sums it up!
____________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Ah no way my latest reply written last night has gone astray.

It was very much along the lines of your response Silly Diety although I'd hasten to admit not as eloquently put.

Basically,if you live by the sword then you will die by the sword.Or more aptly if TruthinScience is going to continously invoke science to frame his argument in a manner that appears both authoritative and beyond argument then he has to remain within the bounds of science.

As I think I said in an earlier reply science,much like critical thinking,logic and reason,is not a particular set of complex or technological subjects but a tool and a framework for the study and advancement of knowledge that is based on observation,analysis,hypothesis,prediction,experimentation to tthe predictions,divising similarly or more liable explanations...i.e falsification and then ongoing refining ofyour hypothesis even if it is fully accepted and becomes a scientific theory.....as Newton's work on gravity gave way to Einstein centuries later.There are NO sacred cows in science as Newton would attest if he were alive today and the day may come when Einstein is proven to have got relativity completely upside down if the evidence is stong enough to prove it.

Now why doesn't TruthinScience's claims bear any resemblence to science ???

Quite simply he is making definitive statements that he knows and can prove what happened before our universe began.
His arguments about causality and contingent and natural causes sound very compelling at first glance,science certainly does seem to confirm cause and effect and certainly seems at first to support time as a river that only flows one way but the point is that these natural laws as he puts it,these fundamental laws that govern our universe have as he suggests been observed to apply across the entire universe from the moment of the big bang forwards until this second.

But we CANNOT look further back in time than the big bang,our science and laws of physics can alliw us to model and imply what happened millionths of a second after the big band but note AFTER not before.

We have no way of observing back before the big bang and can only see as far as light has travelled since then giving us a horizon beyond which we can not see and therefore cannot make observations of,about,from either.

Therefore the science cannot say anything at all about either what occured,what was there,the potential cause,whethee time and space existwd in any sense we could understand or even if such fundamental laws like causality applied.If everything started with the big bang i.e time and space,then seeing as causality (cause and effect) are contingent on time then is there any reason at all to imagine causality meant anything pre big bang ???

The real answer is,the scientific answer absolutely,is there is simply no way of knowing,there may never be a way of see back before the big bang so the probability is we may never know though every time such statements have been made,that some knowledge is beyond science it's eventually been discovered and understood by science but.......

TruthinScience is clearly taking laws of physics that are well established and seemingly understood amd applying them to an area that isn't.That is a sound logical and reasoned approach but to apply them to something that is so far beyond our knowledge we don't even know if it can ever be observed or how that could happen is completely unscientific......it's what's known as psuedoscience.If it had any true grounding in logic or reason it may be a form of philosophy but it's too ad hock and cobbled together to be that.

At the very best and most generous his claims could be said to amount to an hypothosis but when they are based on a fog of reason like they are that's being too kind.

I know what it is he objects too so strongly and that's other hypothoses by real scientist about possible causes or ways that the universe could have come about without the necessity for a FIRST SUPERNATURAL INTENTION CONTINGENT CAUSE i.e god.Personally,the only one I've really read and have an understanding of is Laurence Kraus and his 'A Universe from Nothing' which I highly recommend anyone to read.

The one thing to note though is as he takes great pains to stress throughout the book it's a hypothosis that COULD explain how a universe can be created from seemingly nothing (although it would appear nothing is the operative word as empty space devoid of matter of any kind still has mass and energy).What TrurhinScience and many,many other theists fail to grasp os he's offering an expanation that remains within the bounds of science yet he freely admits that doesn't mean it's what happened,that there is no way of knowing what happened for all the reasons I've stated.

Shit,who knows there may be something extremely bizarre behind it all like some big,old bearded man who waved his hand and 7 days later
.......lol
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)

As Bertrand Russell so eloquently stated:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

The reliance on logic alone to "prove" something fails because logic is not empiricism (which is fundamental to science). It fails to provide EVIDENCE..........something sorely lacking in "Truth in science's" rants. His presumption that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other is simply an example of false cause. To make such presumptions with no evidence means that his argument falls flat on its face.

So he fails on the scientific principles (miserably) and he fails on logic too.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity
Nice try, but I am afraid it is another gigantic fail. You have simply hoisted yourself on your own petard.

None of the proposed, fantasy, natural, origin scenarios invented by atheists in order to get around natural laws and scientific principles are testable - none are observable - none are subject to experiment and - none are repeatable.
So NONE of them have got anything whatsoever to do with genuine science.

For example, tell us how a ‘singularity’ or a ‘multiverse’ can be tested, observed, or demonstrated by repeated experiment?

The Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws which atheists glibly dismiss, and which definitively rule out a natural, first cause - ARE testable - ARE observable and - ARE subject to repeatable experiment.
We can only deal in FACTS, not atheist myths and fantasy.
The existence and veracity of the law of cause and effect and other natural laws IS A FACT.
The idea that natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method didn’t apply to the origin of the universe or of matter/energy is NOT a fact, it is no better and no more credible than a fairy story or Bertrand Russell’s, flying teapot.

I don’t claim that a supernatural first cause can be proven by science, it can’t, because it is outside the remit of science, which can only deal with natural events and entities.
But the atheist idea of a natural, first cause can also never be proven by science.
However, science CAN DISPROVE a natural, first cause of the universe - and that is exactly what it does.
Science tells us that a natural first cause is impossible. Science can only look for adequate causes, that is the fundamental principle and raison d’etre of the scientific method.
Science cannot look for non-causes – or for inadequate causes – or for non-contingency – or for natural things self-creating themselves from nothing.
Therefore, the claim that atheist naturalism has anything to do with science is completely bogus.
In fact, atheism is anti-science - because it seeks to contradict the verdict of the scientific method and natural law.

If we apply the scientific method to the origin of the universe/matter - science tells us that it had to have an adequate cause, but atheists say no! We can't accept that, science must be wrong, we propose that the universe was causeless.
If that is what atheists want to believe, then fair enough, but they should stop calling it 'science', it is anti-science.

As for Mr Krauss and - his universe from the ‘nothing’ that isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’ - space/time, you would need to be extremely gullible to fall for that load of nonsense.
It is just another desperate, atheist attempt to get around the Law of Cause and Effect.
Presumably he thinks that if he can fool people into believing that something, which is an integral part of the material realm is – no different from nothing (i.e. no thing). Then he can avoid having to explain what caused it?
Nothing (that which doesn’t exist) obviously doesn’t need a cause. However, Mr Krauss’ nothing is a bogus ‘nothing’ … so, unfortunately for him, it certainly does require an adequate cause, just like everything else in the material realm. So the whole exercise is spurious and devious nonsense. One thing is certain, it is not science, it is just fantasy.
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science
Getting a bit desparate eh?

Can't refute the issue that you don't understand the science or scientific principles?

Can't deny that you use logical fallacies?

So you pepper your response with a few more of the latter, ignoring the self-same scientific principles you claim to espouse, while introducing the odd red-herring and conflating theories of the origin of the universe with atheism.

A bit of a messy really.

Desparate too.
_______________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Truth in PsuedoScience I honestly cannot be bothered trying to refute your nonsense anymore I'm losing interest and the will to continue by going over and over it ad infinitum .....of course you,like all theists will claim it as your victory but you don't get it,you refuse to contemplate anyrhing that doesn't fit you particular beliefs and you won't be remotely swayed from your abslotue certainty despite the fact you're making a fool.of your self by firmly clinging to the label scientific....even a high school kid just starting out in basic science could see the gaping fallacy at the heart of your bullshit but you blythely ignore it making you dishonest or you just don't see it making you not exactly the sharpest tool.

Either way m8 I have to respect the law of free speech (the most important and fundamental of laws lol) which afterall allows you to talk whatever pigs swill you like and be judged by it.

Can I just add with science observations,results,evidence are what determines the theory the outcome if you like.You DON'T start with a confirmed conviction and shape the evidence to fit it.
____________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)

Is that the best either of you can do?
In other words, like every other atheist I have encountered, you don't have a credible answer or response.

Of course, you bluff it out and pretend that you have refuted my argument.
But I have shown that it is science and logic that you are trying to refute, not me. And that is why you are doomed to failure.

Atheists masquerade as the champions of science but, all the while, they hate the verdict that science has for their cherished ideology.
The only arguments they ever present to justify belief in their religion of naturalism are based on fantasies which seek to undermine natural laws and basic scientific principles. Such as; a universe self-creating from some sort of bogus 'nothing' or a magical, so-called singularity where no laws apply. They are clearly nothing to do with genuine science, they are just devices to fool people into thinking atheist naturalism is credible.
Atheist naturalism is a completely blind faith, one that has no support from natural law, logic or science.

You obviously can't answer the question I posed: tell us how a ‘singularity’ or a ‘multiverse’ can be tested, observed, or demonstrated by repeated experiment?
I will leave people reading through my arguments and your responses to judge who has won the argument - but they can be sure of one thing that I have demonstrated, that the point presented in the image is completely erroneous. It is not theists, who don't have a reasonable rebuttal of any arguments, but atheists.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
Bob

He's the one making the claims here...........no one else. He can't provide evidence to support those claims so resorts to flim-flam.

As I said earlier................just a bit desparate.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Come on PsuedoScience now you are throwing out scientific method as if you were applying it all along.

A multiverse ???

Have you not read my main arguement over umpteen replys now I have stated that we are unable to observe back before thw big bang and the 'birth' of our universe.That means no observations of god with a match,a multiverse,a continueing cycle of big bangs or any other hypothesis rational or batshit crazy you can possibly suggest.

Do you not get this fundamental basic fact,i cannot prove,observe or test or take a fucking stroll in a multiverse.I thought that point was self evident any more than you can prove,observe or state what came before either.The point is neither of us can say anymore than the other but science which you claim is your master can at best just hypothosise it cannot state fact,prove,observe,test anything pre big bang either so your claims being proven by science are as disingenuos as any claim I decided to state as fact.

Do you not understand that yet.No obsevations,no way to test or experiment,predict etc,etc means science has nothing definitive to say about it as yet nor can it prove what happened.......do you not get this genuinely straight forward premise.

As for singularitys.......observe the centre of almost any galaxy you wish to study.You'll find a super massive black hole or all the predicted effects of one.Isn't a black hole a singularity then ????
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
I know Silly Deity that he's the one making spurious claims but seriously beginning to piss me off.....not because of his pure unshackelled belief that he's cracked it and won't listen but because people may actually believe he's based his claims in sound science
___________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Oh yes and Psuedo you do realise that simply 'defeating' the multiverse or singularity idea in your own mind doesn't mean your claims are true.

I cannot prove of make statements of fact about the origin of the universe but that doesn't mean that you in that case must be right.It's not either or.

Your whole premise of calling something bogus or demanding that everyone else's suggestions must withstand scientific rigour you don't apply to your claim is basically a straw man.As if the best argument against your beliefs is the multiverse hypothesis so if you can show it cannot be proven therefore you win.No it doesn't work that way.

How have you made observations of your first cause god then,how did you measure,quantify his existence and that he was responsible for putting it all into action.Experiments and test ???

Come on,just banging on about natural laws and causality does nothing whatsoever to observe,analyse,test,experiment on god.

Come on,you're the real,true scientist here......explain how first before you can expect anyone to take you seriously
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You wrote:
"Do you not get this fundamental basic fact,i cannot prove,observe or test or take a fucking stroll in a multiverse.I thought that point was self evident any more than you can prove,observe or state what came before either.The point is neither of us can say anymore than the other but science which you claim is your master can at best just hypothosise it cannot state fact,prove,observe,test anything pre big bang either so your claims being proven by science are as disingenuos as any claim I decided to state as fact."

So why do atheists continuously present such unscientific nonsense as a 'multiverse', or the universe from nothing without a cause, as 'science'? It doesn't even make logical or common sense, let alone scientific sense.
It is all sheer, magical fantasy.
If you are going to frame a scientific hypothesis, then you should do so according to the facts we know - and within the framework of natural laws and the principle of causality which lies behind the scientific method.
You should not just dream up any old, imaginative nonsense, which tramples on natural laws and the basic principle of science, and then present it as the latest, greatest, scientific explanation of how the universe originated and/or a so-called 'Theory of Everything' which effectively makes a supernatural, first cause redundant. When, in fact, it is a Theory of absolutely Nothing,
it doesn't even deserve to be called a theory.
And then why have the barefaced cheek to accuse anyone who challenges atheist, naturalist fantasies or questions the scientific credibility of abandoning natural laws and scientific principles with such airy fairy, mythological fables, as indulging in pseudoscience and advocating a "god of the gaps?"

The ONLY motivation atheists have for dismissing and opposing natural laws and scientific principles, concerning origins, is an ideological one. It is nothing whatsoever to do with science or logic. It is ONLY to do with trying to preserve their religious devotion to naturalism. So, stop pretending it is science.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. The fact that atheists deliberately abandon natural laws and scientific principles in ALL of their proposed origin scenarios, just because they are inconvenient to their naturalist ideology, actually makes atheism - anti-science.

Put simply - I respect natural laws and the fundamental principle of the scientific method. And I present a logical argument for the origin of everything, simply on that basis.

Whereas - you reject and hate natural laws and the fundamental principle of the scientific method as far as they relate to origins.
And you live in the vain and contradictory hope that somehow, someday, someone will present a 'scientific' argument for the origin of everything which can ignore or refute natural laws and basic scientific principles. In the meantime, you are quite willing to consider any hair-brained unscientific idea or fantasy that supports your naturalistic beliefs, regardless of whether they violate natural laws, in preference to any logical argument that respects them.
And you refer to my logical argument based on natural laws and scientific principles as the 'god of the gaps'. The 'gaps' are only created by your fantastical belief and wishful thinking that natural laws will someday be shown not to apply.
So who is indulging in pseudoscience? I think the answer to that is obvious.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science

So......................................back to familiar territory yet again with strawman arguments and ad hominem atttacks.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) did NOT present the multiverse as a cause. If you actually bothered to read his response you would have realised that he was saying nothing of the sort.

You plainly DON'T respect the scientific method otherwise you would present evidence to support your claims. You consistently fail to do that.

Your rant simply confirms the caricature in my image. Talk about life imitating art!
___________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
"Life imitating art!" He, he. Love it!!!!
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity

If you had actually bothered to read my comment properly you would know that I didn't accuse him of presenting the multiverse as a ‘cause'.
I asked: "So why do atheists continuously present such unscientific nonsense as a 'multiverse', or the universe from nothing without a cause, as 'science'?"

In fact, the only reason that atheists invent such bizarre, origin scenarios as; a multiverse - or a universe from nothing, is to avoid having to explain a cause.
They think they can hoodwink the public into believing they are credible explanations of how everything could come into existence from nothing, without needing an adequate cause.

The scientific fact that every natural occurrence and entity requires an adequate cause is absolutely fatal to atheist, naturalist beliefs. So, atheists are compelled to waste their lives trying to devise origin scenarios which they think can fool people into believing that everything CAN come from nothing without a cause. Unfortunately for them, every sensible person, who is not indoctrinated with atheist pseudoscience, knows it CAN'T.
The amazing thing is, that you and the other 2 stooges, on here actually fall for such nonsense and think it is credible science.

Atheists even have the cheek to rip off theist arguments to try to silence any opposition. Such as the theist argument that ("to ask what caused God? is an invalid question, because the first cause - by virtue of being first - could have no preceding cause"). Atheists cynically apply a similar concept (in disguise) to their naturalistic fantasies - i.e. "to ask what caused the universe to arise from nothing? is an invalid question. It is like asking what is north of the North Pole?" Which of course anyone with any sense knows it isn't. To ask - what caused any and every natural occurrence or entity? Is not only a valid question, it is also an essential question. A question which true science demands we ask.

The only way atheist, naturalist beliefs can be true, is if natural laws and the basic principle behind the scientific method are not true and valid.
So, there is a straight choice between supporting atheism - OR supporting science and natural law. You can't do both...
Which do you choose?
________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science

Let me translate what you've just stated:

I've repeatedly dodged providing evidence to support the initial claim that I made.

Instead I've quoted one of the individuals who questioned the validity of my claim and then turned that into a straw man argument by distorting his question to give the impression I was refuting his argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by him in the first place.

I know that this was pointed out to me but I flatly deny that I've done this and will now repeat that self-same straw man (incorporating sweeping generalisations).

Now having tried to wriggle out of that I'll make some bizarre and inaccurate statements about science and throw in some ad hominem attacks for good measure as that's something I like to do.

I'll round it off with a false dichotomy which results in me once more dodging the fact that I've no evidence to support my original claim and tries to hide that I'm talking absolute bullshit.

Yes. Life imitating art it most certainly is. I posted that image little realising how accurate it was but true to form "Truth in pseudoscience" you have repeatedly confirmed its accuracy.
__________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You have produced no logical or scientific justification for atheism. Whereas I have presented a logical argument based on natural law and scientific principles for theism which should satisfy any reasonable person. Furthermore, I have presented a logical argument as to why atheist naturalism is unscientific nonsense. I don’t expect you, or any other died-in-the-wool atheist to accept it, because atheism is an insidious and deceptive cult, which attempts to indoctrinate the public through relentless hype and propaganda.

Here is some good news for any theists reading this. All atheist arguments are easily demolished. Not because I, or any other theist, is exceptionally clever, but because atheism is based on lies and deceit. Once people realise that, it becomes obvious that there will be major flaws in EVERY atheist argument. It is then a simple matter, for anyone interested in truth, to expose them.

Atheism is claimed to be the scientific viewpoint and supporter of science. That is the great deception of the modern age.
What is the truth?
Science is based on looking for adequate causes of EVERY natural happening or entity AND on making predictions and assessments about the natural world, based on the validity of natural laws.
Atheism is based on ignoring the fact that EVERY natural happening or entity requires an adequate cause, not just ignoring it, but even actively opposing it. Atheism is about looking for, and hoping to find, non-causes and inadequate causes.
Atheism is also against the scientific method, of making assessments and predictions based on the validity of natural laws, and in favour of rejecting and challenging the validity of natural laws.

Your argument that we just don’t know whether causality or any other natural laws existed before the start of the universe, is not a valid argument for atheism. Even if it was a sensible argument, the very best that could be said of it, is that it is an argument for agnosticism. Not knowing (agnosticism) is a neutral position, it is not an argument for or against theism or for or against atheism. If you claim to be in the ‘don’t know’ camp and are a genuine agnostic, you have to sit firmly on the fence - you have no right to ridicule and lambast theists who believe that causality and natural laws are universally valid and by the same token you cannot ridicule atheism. You are clearly not a genuine agnostic, because you come down firmly on the side of atheism made evident by the fact that you support ‘silly deities’ posts and photostream which attacks theism. That is not a ‘don’t know’ (agnostic) position.

The argument for atheism cannot be simply based on ‘not knowing’ whether the law of cause and effect and other natural laws existed prior to the universe. Atheism depends on a definite rejection of causality and natural laws at the beginning of the material realm.
And that argument also reveals atheists as gross hypocrites.
When Stephen Hawking declared to the world: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” atheists applauded and crowed about ‘science’ making God redundant. How come they didn’t criticise him for claiming he knew the law of gravity pre-existed the universe? Apparently, Hawking KNEW the law of gravity existed, but decided that the law of cause and effect and other natural laws didn’t exist. What happened to the: “we just don’t know what laws existed before the universe or Big Bang” argument on that occasion? Unbelievable hypocrisy! Which effectively demolishes the bogus atheist argument that “we don’t know what laws existed”. What atheists actually mean to say is that: “we know that laws which support our argument did exist, but we don’t know that laws which destroy our argument existed”.

As I said before:
The only way atheist, naturalist beliefs can be true, is if natural laws and the basic principle behind the scientific method are not true and valid.
So there is a straight choice between supporting atheism - OR supporting the universal validity of science and natural law. You can't do both...
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science

I'll make this very simple "Truth in pseudoscience"

You made a claim.

The scientific method requires that you provide evidence for your claim. That is a fundamental scientific principle.

Logical argument is not evidence. Particularly when such arguments are logical fallacies. For example I could state the following:

1. Some men are doctors.
2. Some doctors are women.
3. Therefore, some men are women.

Logically that is correct, however it is patently wrong. In order to prove it true I would have to provide evidence. That is the problem with your arguments. Arguments are not evidence. You may think they are logical but they fail because they are logical fallacies and because you provide no EVIDENCE to support your claim.

Everything else you've stated (the straw man arguments, the reversal of burden of proof, the ad hominem attacks, the quoting the phrase "natural laws" ad nauseum) is merely you dodging for the umpteenth time the fact that you have no evidence to support your claim.

I'll repeat, the scientific method requires that you provide evidence for your claim. That is a fundamental scientific principle.

EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE

SHOW US THE EVIDENCE

Your failure to grasp this and the nature of your responses simply reinforces the satire contained in the original image.
________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity
Your comments are as pathetic as your original image.
Your ridiculous image, which you seem to be so proud of, is a straw man portrayal of a Christian, which bears no relationship whatsoever to any Christian I know, or know of. It is nothing more than a crude and offensive stereotype which exists only in the imagination of atheist ideologues and zealots. I have shown it to be entirely false. I have shown that theism is based on eminently reasonable arguments and that it is atheism that is unreasonable nonsense with NO credible, logical or scientific argument Furthermore I have not mentioned, nor have I needed to mention, anyone being condemned to hell.

As for your stupid example of a logical argument, it bears no comparison to my logical argument.
Science uses natural laws to predict and assess the answers to questions, that is all science can do. It cannot make predictions or assessments based on the idea that natural laws are not valid. My logical argument is the ONLY possible assessment based on the validity of natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method. if you think that is wrong, once again, I challenge you to give a logical or scientific argument against it?
My evidence is that natural laws can be observed, and tested by repeated experiment and have been shown to be valid in all known circumstances - AND that scientific research cannot even be carried out without an acknowledgement that we can expect every natural occurrence to have an adequate cause. I cite the known and tested universality of natural laws and scientific principles as my evidence.
My evidence is the fact that science and natural law supports my logical argument for a supernatural, first cause and definitively rejects the notion of a natural, first cause. It couldn't be clearer than that.
My argument is based on things we know, ALL atheist arguments are based on fantasy - what ifs, maybes, what we don't know and are never likely to know.
_________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
So your evidence is...........just a repeat of you saying you're right and everyone else is wrong? You don't seem to get what the scientific method requires of those who make claims.

A central theme of science and scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or at least empirically based, that is, it should depend on evidence or results that can be observed by our senses. Scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experience or observations and empirical data is based on both observations and experiment results.

Not one of your statements refers to empirical evidence of a supernatural being.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Aimless Alliterations

Thanks for that. It saves me the trouble of having to explain the concept of evidence yet again to our scientifically-challenged "friend".

"Truth in pseudoscience" The example of flawed logic I provided you with was just that - an example. You appear to have some difficulty understanding that trying to prove an argument through the use of logic is always going to fail if you use flawed logic. Your repeated use logical fallacies simply illustrates this.

Your constant ad hominem attacks when you are accused of such behavour are further examples of logical fallacies. So my comments are far from pathetic......they are an uncannily accurate reflection of the satire contained in the original image.

If you can't see that, then that's your problem and I think we can safely say this debate is at an end.
___________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
Yes. For someone who claims to use science to supposedly support his claims there appears to be some pretty fundamental gaps in "Truth in pseudoscience's" knowledge of science and scientific principles.

Something that's reflected in all of his bizarre claims.
__________________________________________
Mark 2y
@"Truth in science" and pretty much everyone too..
1. Your wish thinking does not work as advertised. (unlikely headline: prayer meeting ends world hunger)
2. Your convoluted blathering is only a neon sign to the above.
3. As a person raised on the secular ideals of the U.S. I can not support any leader who is not answerable to the rest of us, so "worship" is totally out of the question.
(even the "inalienable rights" line proves the plastic nature of a simple deist assumption of a god's nature, let alone one who takes more license)
4. I'm disappointed that anyone gives you the time of day, as your kind need not be eliminated but simply left to wither away.
____________________________________________
The debate ended with the comment by atheist 'Mark' above.
I didn't think there was any point in continuing, as the arguments were already becoming repetitive.
I think I am justified in concluding that this debate (as many others) demonstrated that the atheist belief in naturalism - and the belief that there was no adequate, infinite, first cause of everything temporal - is bankrupt. It is bankrupt because it relies completely on natural laws not being universally valid. Atheist HAVE TO dismiss natural laws, because they are fatal to their ideology of naturalism. To dismiss natural laws is not scientific, we depend on the reliability of natural laws to make scientific predictions. We cannot practice science without trusting in natural laws. So, atheism, in seeking to debunk natural laws, is exposed as ANTI-SCIENCE.
The image posted by Silly Deity with the original debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/131599163@N05/18212093014

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid stratification principle.

Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.

Rapidly deposited, sandbank with geological features of sedimentary rock, i.e. strata, folded strata and faulting. Formed in a single, tidal event of turbulent, high tide with gale force winds. See other examples: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid stratification. Field evidence.

Location: Sandown beach, Isle of Wight. Formed on 17/11/2016, Overall depth of deposit: approx 20 inches.

This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.

Strata lines/layers are clearly visible in this photo.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sediment, with the strata or layers representing a timescale or even a particular, environmental epoch, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly. Such field studies and the experiments show that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... It also shows that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions or even thousands of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

See set of photos of another example of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/th...

Visit the fossil museum:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid stratification principle.

Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.

This close-up photo shows the detail, see distance photo for context.

Rapidly deposited, sandbank with geological features of sedimentary rock, i.e. strata, folded strata and faulting. Formed in a single, tidal event of turbulent, high tide with gale force winds.

Rapid stratification. Field evidence.

Location: Sandown beach, Isle of Wight. Formed on 17/11/2016, Overall depth of deposit: approx 20 inches.

This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.

Strata lines/layers are clearly visible in this photo.

Dr Berthault's experiments (sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sediment, with the strata or layers representing a timescale or even a particular, environmental epoch, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly. Such field studies and the experiments show that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... It also shows that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions or even thousands of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

See set of photos of another example of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/th...

Visit the fossil museum:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid stratification principle.

Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.

The close-up photo shows the detail, the distance photo shows the context.

Rapidly deposited, sandbank with geological features of sedimentary rock, i.e. strata, folded strata and faulting. Formed in a single, tidal event of turbulent, high tide with gale force winds.

Rapid stratification. Field evidence.

Location: Sandown beach, Isle of Wight. Formed on 17/11/2016, Overall depth of deposit: approx 15 inches.

This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.

Strata lines/layers are clearly visible in this photo.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sediment, with the strata or layers representing a timescale or even a particular, environmental epoch, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly. Such field studies and the experiments show that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... It also shows that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions or even thousands of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/th...

Visit the fossil museum:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid stratification principle.

Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.

This close-up photo shows the detail, see distance photo for context here: www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/31322567145

Rapidly deposited, sandbank with geological features of sedimentary rock, i.e. strata, folded strata and faulting. Formed in a single, tidal event of turbulent, high tide with gale force winds.

Rapid stratification. Field evidence.

Location: Sandown beach, Isle of Wight. Formed on 17/11/2016, Overall depth of deposit: approx 20 inches.

This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.

Strata lines/layers are clearly visible in this photo.

Dr Berthault's experiments (sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sediment, with the strata or layers representing a timescale or even a particular, environmental epoch, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly. Such field studies and the experiments show that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... It also shows that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions or even thousands of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

See set of photos with other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/th...

Visit the fossil museum:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The Flickr Reasonrally Image Generatr

About

Looks like Jesus was there too. by DavyRocket

Bad Religion performs. by DavyRocket

Notable Attendees. by DavyRocket

Represent! by DavyRocket

Yep! by DavyRocket

Dwakins speaks. by DavyRocket

Evolution timescale refuted by scientific evidence by Truth in science

Darwin's Racism by Leon Zitzer. by Truth in science

Evolution timescale refuted by scientific evidence by Truth in science

Evolution, multi-million year timescale refuted by scientific evidence by Truth in science

The incredible, microbes-to-human evolution story. by Truth in science

Evolution multi-million year timescale debunked by field & experimental evidence by Truth in science

Evolution timescale refuted by field & experimental evidence by Truth in science

If you think you are an atheist? - You had better think again! (continue reading). by Truth in science

Debate exposes atheism as bankrupt - read an actual debate here by Truth in science

Stratified soft sand deposit - Rapid stratification, field evidence. by Truth in science

Stratified soft sand deposit - Rapid stratification, field evidence. by Truth in science

Stratified soft sand deposit - Rapid stratification, field evidence. by Truth in science

Bill Nye The Science Guy - BW by hillels

Stratified soft sand deposit - Rapid stratification, field evidence. by Truth in science