[globjgtyf]

Dear Philadelphia Speaks (PS),

I tried to join PS earlier today, but when I tried to post, it said "Paul G. Humber, you do not have permission to access this page. … If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."

Well, “activation” did not come. Thus, I decided to use a different email account and use another of my names. Gil, BTW, is short for Gilbert, my middle name. Within minutes of my signing up, the activation email arrived in that other email address inbox. I still do not have the activation email for my first effort, however.

Now maybe I made a mistake somehow, or maybe the moderator does not want me on this thread—though I originated it while on PhillyBlog. If memory serves me, there had been perhaps 35,000 hits and maybe 3,000+ responses. I don’t remember, but it was large.

Now, if the moderator does not want me posting here, this may be my first and last post. There is something you, if you still believe in the freedom of speech, can do, however. If you see no more posts from me, protest. Tell him/her that you want to read Gil (aka Humber) even if you do not believe Creator Christ created it all less than 10,000 years ago.

For those who do not know me, I have written books. One is entitled, Evolution Exposed, and is available on Amazon. I am also the editor of Reasons to Reject Evolution and Reasons to Affirm a Young Earth. Nine of my videos are on YouTube. Just search my name.

BTW, I’m not using s pseudo-name. I am a young-earth creationist, but I actually agree with Darwin at one point. According to 'scienceline' (http://scienceline.org/2008/01/17/br...-complexity/): ' Darwin famously wrote in the Origin of Species ‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’”

Every cell of our bodies is marvelously complex, with biological factories involving many, extremely intricate molecular machines. Don’t believe the evolutionary lie about simple cells. There never was a simple cell in all of creation! To praise evolution for the wonders of nature in nonsense. Evolution is pathetic, anti-science—sheer idiocy.

I shared what follows on PhillyBlog, but some here may not have seen it. It is from yet another (unpublished) booklet that I have been working on:

The trilobite eye may seem to be an odd place to continue, but its very place and existence in the fossil record challenges the conventional “Geologic Time Scale.” Viewed as among the earliest forms of life, the trilobite has eyes that are super-super-super complex. Riccardo Levi-Setti was professor of physics and director of the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago. He was also a research associate at the Field Museum of Natural History. His beautiful book, Trilobites, published by The University of Chicago Press, contains these words:

“Among the remains of early life on earth, the fossil record we find buried in ancient sedimentary rocks bears evidence of an extraordinary group of marine creature, the trilobites. The position of these invertebrates in the evolution of the animal kingdom is extraordinary because of their early ascent to a high level of functional complexity, described in fascinating detail by their persistent and ubiquitous fossil remains. Trilobites could see their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes, the first use of optics coupled with sensory perception in nature. As a unique feat in the history of life, their eye lenses were shaped to correct for optical aberrations, with design identical to that proposed (quite independently of any knowledge of trilobites) by Descartes and Huygens. … When we humans construct optical elements, we sometimes cement together two lenses that have different refractive indices, as a means of correcting particular lens defects. In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery--that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century--borders on sheer science fiction.”

Continuing, “By comparing the shape of the aspheric lens exit surfaces constructed by Huygens and Descartes with the two lens structures identified by Clarkson … little doubt remains that trilobites utilized the properties of Cartesian Ovals more than 400 million years before the seventeenth-century masters discovered the principle. ... The design of the trilobite's eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure.”

Some evolutionists probably would say, “That’s okay; trilobites evolved eyes from eyeless trilobites,” but this does not seem to take into account the following. In his book, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology (McGraw-Hill), Donald R. Prothero wrote: "Trilobites as a whole remained constructed on the same archetypal plan defined in the earliest Cambrian, and, especially after the Early Ordovician, changes of real significance remained surprising low." He also wrote, "Another common trend is the reduction and loss of eyes, which happened independently in several clades." Loss of eyes does not account for how the eyes got there to begin with.

In summary, super-complex trilobite eyes existed at the beginning of the so-called evolutionary process. There was “surprisingly low” change (Prothero), and what existed “borders on sheer science fiction” (Levi-Setti).

In a previous publication, 50 reasons were supplied questioning the billions-of-years paradigm, but here is evidence that trilobites, assumed to be among the earliest of known fossils, typically had eyes of such complexity as to beg for an alternative explanation. Did they really evolve? Were they not instead designed by a marvelous Designer?

[kaysions]

Gosh, this really does sound like Humber.

If it IS you, Paul, let me say with all seriousness that I am terribly glad to see you. It is like old times.

If some moderator does not want you posting here, they will earn my undying irritation. We need Paul.

[Klavalala]

Sean, you wrote: “If it IS you, Paul, let me say with all seriousness that I am terribly glad to see you. It is like old times.”

Wow, it’s nice to have at least one sort-of friend. I know you do not buy into my creation science thing, but at least you seem to be willing to be civil.

You added, “If some moderator does not want you posting here, they will earn my undying irritation. We need Paul.”

Wow, this is another affirming comment!

Continuing with what I had posted earlier, while I still have “life” here, the idea that planet earth experienced a world-wide flood in its distant past is seldom mentioned in today’s schools, colleges and media. It is fair to say that much of academia has rejected such a concept. This, however, does not mean that the idea has been disproved but that it has been replaced by another view of earth history. This more recent view is that the earth, through eons of time, has undergone changes which can be explained outside of a giant flood.

What difference does it make if there was or was not a world-wide flood? The difference is that it is important to acknowledge information that has so often been ignored by many in the scientific community. Next, why have these facts been put on a back burner instead of being studied to determine their validity?

The turning away from a global flood paradigm is a recent development. For the most part it arose in the 18th century, encouraged by Charles Lyell and others who instead felt that slow earth processes could be responsible for what can be seen today. It was at this time that the phrase “the present is the key to the past” became popular, but the “past is the key to the present.” The global flood better explains what we see in today’s world. Those who worked to change minds from a global flood to something different did so not because of scientific information but because they wished to distance themselves from the flood usually associated with Noah--an event where God spoke and where people were confronted with their relationship with Him. This is to say that the basis for developing a different view of earth history was prompted by particular individuals who wanted to be autonomous from God. At its root, this discussion is not about science but about mankind’s standing before God.

It is particularly sad that some Christian scholars, holding to the inerrancy of Scripture, also seem to compromise by being either silent or questioning in this area. It is hoped that the following reasons will encourage Christians to give true answers for their hope (1 Peter 3:15) in a positive way.

In a recent article by Larry Vardiman, entitled Sleuthing Superfaults, the author wrote that “evidence continues to mount that many massive geologic processes have occurred in months, days, and even minutes.” He added that “much larger displacements of rock for many miles have come to be called superfaults. They require catastrophic explanations.” For example, he wrote: “The Heart Mountain detachment fault in northwestern Wyoming near Yellowstone National Park is the largest continental rockslide known on earth. This mass of rock, more than 400 square miles in area and over 1,000 feet thick, moved rapidly down a slope of less than 2 degrees at an estimated speed of 50 miles per hour.” He added: “The amazing irony of Heart Mountain is that uniformitarian geologists who believe in millions of years of earth history and slow, gradual processes are being forced by the evidence to recognize catastrophic process.” He concluded the article with these words: “Dr. Steve Austin, who manages the FAST program under contract to ICR, has studied the Heart Mountain detachment fault for several years and is excited about its potential as an argument for a young earth and a catastrophic Flood.”

[furillo]

FYI your email provider probably grabbed the activation email as spam. I activated the other account. Do you want me to delete it?

[RlUbQU3R]

FYI your email provider probably grabbed the activation email as spam. I activated the other account. Do you want me to delete it?

Thanks, but I checked my "Spam" and did not see any activation email--either there or in my Trash Bin. I just logged out as "Gil" and logged in with this (my fuller) name. If this works, then maybe I won't need the other. Is it wrong to have two log-in names? I have two different email addresses.

[MatueHarton]

Thanks, but I checked my "Spam" and did not see any activation email--either there or in my Trash Bin. I just logged out as "Gil" and logged in with this (my fuller) name. If this works, then maybe I won't need the other. Is it wrong to have two log-in names? I have two different email addresses.

for what it is worth, I like you better as Paul Humber than Gil.

[illiderob]

He added: He concluded the article with these words: “Dr. Steve Austin, who manages the FAST program under contract to ICR, has studied the Heart Mountain detachment fault for several years and is excited about its potential as an argument for a young earth and a catastrophic Flood.”

If the Six Million Dollar Man is a young-Earth creationist, that's all the proof I need. Count me in.

P.S. Welcome, Paul!

[Tribas4u]

[B]NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO[/B

[brorwargy]

For scientists, moon rocks tell story of a young Earth | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/20/2009

[heennaRaf]

for what it is worth, I like you better as Paul Humber than Gil.

You got it, Sean. The administrator activated my first efforts. Continuing with what I had written as “Gil,” it is not only that marine fossils are found at high elevations all over the earth, but that all fossils of every stripe (marine and otherwise) were quickly buried. Fossils in many places around the earth show massive evidence of rapid burial. If it is not the tons of herring fossils of the Green River formation, it is the billions of nautiloids of the Redwall Limestone. If it is not dinosaur bones in close proximity to one another in North America, it is dinosaur fossils in China, Argentina, etc. Additionally, about 350 whales were found buried together in the Pisco formation of Peru in a block with surface area of 1.5 square kilometers and depth of 80 meters. They were found complete. Baleen whales were among those preserved. Researchers speak of rapid burial. "The diatomaceous sediment lacks repeating primary laminations," and "there is no evidence for bioturbation by invertebrates." This suggests a single event that buried all the whales completely and quickly. “Indicators of storm deposits, such as hummocky cross-bedding, indicate that the sediments were deposited above storm wave base.” Some whales were found complete, articulated, and pristine. Others were disarticulated, but the bones were close together. The whole complex is suggestive of catastrophe.

[Enrobrorb]

I just watched and listened to portions of a fabulous debate involving Professor Richard Dawkins and his Oxford University colleague Dr. John Lennox. They “engaged in a lively debate over what is arguably the most critical question of our time: the existence of God. The debate centered on Dawkins' views as expressed in his best-seller, The God Delusion, and their validity over and against the Christian faith. Both presenters agreed to the format and topics of discussion.”

As Dawkins is perhaps the greatest defender of evolution on earth, I think Dr. Lennox did a fabulous job. If you would like to see and hear it, click here, The Dawkins Lennox Debate: Richard Dawkins, John Lennox, The God Delusion Debate.

On person wrote: “Even folks who are pro-Dawkins tell me they think Lennox ate his lunch.”

If you would like to read about my personal interactions with Dr. Dawkins, click here, http://www.creationresearch.org/crea.../cm08%2004.PDF

[kanchouska]

I knew you would answer my calling....

Welcome back.

Although I do not agree with your opinions they do serve to sharpen my own and that is the whole purpose of debate. I'm sure others would agree although a great many are horrified right now as well.....

[pobrierce]

I knew you would answer my calling....Welcome back....

Thanks for the welcome, but do I know you? Do you have a new name? Are you willing to share your old name?

[usacomm]

Thanks for the welcome, but do I know you? Do you have a new name? Are you willing to share your old name?

First name Guy...last name incognito. My avatar is below

[Enjoymms]

There is further evidence for a global flood, and the significance for this thread is that the billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth point not to huge ages (necessary for evolution) but to a much shortened chronology. What are hundreds of thousands of bones, for example, doing in Chilean cave walls with moist mud underground in an otherwise permanently dry, high altitude cave in Chile?

I shared about this on PhillyBlog, but we may have some new readers here.

In a July 31, 2008 article, “Incredible Discoveries Made in Remote Caves” by Robert Roy Britt, we read these words: “Scientists exploring caves in the bone-dry and mostly barren Atacama Desert in Chile stumbled upon a totally unexpected discovery this week: water. They also found hundreds of thousands of animal bones in a cave, possibly evidence of some prehistoric human activity. … No hot place on Earth is drier than the Atacama Desert. Many parts of the high-plateau desert have never received rain that anyone can remember. Average rainfall across the region is just 1 millimeter per year. … So nobody was looking for water….”

"’Much to my surprise, as we moved about halfway through this passage, my foot completely sunk into the soil,’ Wynne said. ‘It was mud! There was a lot of it. It was all contained within the salt stream flow that meandered through this passage.’ There is no known source of water nearby. … ‘In arguably the driest desert in the world, we've found water in a cave far away from any known water source,’ Wynne said. ‘Essentially, we found water in a barren area below the Earth's surface. Why was water there? What are the mechanisms for the presence of water in these hyper-arid caves? Is this merely a phenomenon related to these caves in particular? Is there some sort of moisture sink that results in the water concentrating in certain caves and not others in the Atacama Desert?’"

“Another discovery yesterday left the researchers just shaking their heads. In a different cave in the same region, they found animal remains. Lots of them. ‘We found hundreds of thousands of bones and skulls eroding out of the cave walls,’ Wynne wrote in his blog. ‘So, we've renamed this small cave Cuevita de Huesos (or Small Cave of the Bones).’"

“The researchers had to climb about 13 feet up to find a walkable passage. ‘This is where we found all the bones mixed in with tree branches,’ Wynne wrote.”

“It's not clear if the animals were dumped into the cave by prehistoric people or if perhaps they were trapped by a flood. After all, the expedition is related to figuring out the thermal signatures of Mars caves, and the finding was made just this week. ‘Whatever the mechanism for their deposition, this find was incredibly cool and rather exhilarating,’ Wynne said. ‘Pete [Polsgrove] and I had a blast marveling over the extent of this deposition as well as discussing what could have possibly led to the deposition of these bones. Once the sensors were deployed in this feature we moved on."

“(W)hat could have possibly led to the deposition of these bones”? Based on the sheer volume of mammal and other bones deposited together in great masses around the world, we are confident that the Biggs discovery is further evidence of flood deposition. Perhaps it is related to the melting of the ice cap associated with both a global flood and its sequential Ice Age.

[traithJah]

Here are two more reasons to believe in the global (judgment) flood. Most of the mere rocks on Earth’s surface are sedimentary—about 70%, and the vast majority of sedimentary accumulations owe their depositional origin to water. Flood deniers claim that some wind-blown sediments are found deposited here and there throughout the geologic column, suggesting that there was no world-wide flood, but those deposits can be explained better as water-deposited. Only deposits on the very top of the column have been verified as wind-blown.

Also, secular scientists very much want to see water on Mars, but such is hard to find. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times on 6/17/2008, quoting a lead scientist, "We saw no water in the soil whatsoever." In contrast, they seem to shy away from acknowledging a theory of global flooding on earth. Those who deny the worldwide flood may say that there is not enough water on Earth to cover its entire surface, yet 70% of the earth’s surface is water today. If the earth (geosphere) were smoothed out, the water currently on the earth would cover 100% of the surface to a depth of over a mile! Water that is a mile deep is deep water, and parts of the ocean today are 7 miles deep! The Hypsographic Curve of our planet, for example, shows that Mount Everest as well as the rest of the dry land could easily fit into the ocean if the surface were smoothed out.

There is a coming judgment--this time by fire. The ark for safety is the Lord Jesus Christ. You must be covered in Him.

[bromgeksan]

For all the Christian bashers salivating at the resurrection of this thread from PBlog, don't. Many Christian sects, most notably Catholicism, recognize that God and evolution can and most likely do co-exist.

[UTHZzJ6f]

For all the Christian bashers salivating at the resurrection of this thread from PBlog, don't. Many Christian sects, most notably Catholicism, recognize that God and evolution can and most likely do co-exist.

My Roman Catholic friend, Hugh Owen (a contributor to my Reasons to Affirm a Young Earth booklet), sees it differently. He sends me info from time to time.

He shared, earlier this year, that "Catholic scientists, philosophers, and historians gathered in Rome at the National Research Council for a symposium entitled, 'The Theory of Evolution: A Critical Analysis.' The participants, representing six nations in Europe, North, and South America, included Guy Berthault, sedimentologist, Hugh Miller (another contributor to my Reasons to Affirm a Young Earth booklet, BTW), a research chemist, Dr. Jean de Pontcharra, an atomic physicist, Dr. Pierre Rabischong, former dean of the Medical School of Montpellier, Dr. Maciej Giertych, a population geneticist, Prof. Roberto de Mattei, historian, Dr. Thomas Seiler, physicist, Dr. Alma Von Stockhausen, philosopher, Dr. Dominique Tassot, philosopher, and Dr. Josef Seifert, philosopher. I also presented a paper from an historical perspective entitled, “The Negative Impact of the Evolutionary Hypothesis on Modern Science: A Retrospective Assessment.”

Those in attendance at the symposium included a representative of the Pontifical Council for Culture, priest representatives of two other religious congregations, professors from Regina Apostolorum, the University of Bologna , the Lateran University , and the University of Perugia , experts in various disciplines from the National Research Council, and a number of journalists.

The day’s presentations delivered a devastating refutation of the evolutionary hypothesis. The hypothesis of biological evolution was established on the foundations of the Lyellian geological time-scale which in turn was based on the sedimentological principles formulated by Nicholas Stenon in the seventeenth century. Mr. Guy Berthault presented the results of his experimental laboratory and field research which refute the fundamental principles of Lyellian geology and demonstrate that massive sedimentary rock formations around the world have formed in a fraction of the time allocated to them by the conventional time scale.

Dr. Jean de Pontcharra followed Guy Berthault by demonstrating the unreliability of radiometric dating for long ages. Despite very impressive and powerful measurement and characterization tools, and physical and chemical analysis methods, Dr. Pontcharra demonstrated that the dating of rocks using radioactive elements requires very basic assumptions whose validity has not been demonstrated. In the particular case of K/Ar method, the presence of excess Ar and the impossibility of correcting the bias introduced call into question all of the “model ages” results obtained during the last several decades in paleontology.

On behalf of his co-authors, Dr. Josef Holzschuh and Dr. Jean de Pontcharra, research chemist Hugh Miller then presented the results of several years of research in the C-14 dating of dinosaur bones. The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. When Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum , Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer ( AMS ). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna. Although the radiocarbon dates are not absolute dates, the fact that dinosaur bones consistently possess the same radiocarbon ages as other megafauna such as mastodons known to have been contemporary with man flatly contradicts the evolutionary time scale according to which dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

Physicist Dr. Thomas Seiler approached the evolutionary hypothesis from a different perspective by evaluating its claims against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Simply and clearly, Dr. Seiler demonstrated that while order may manifest in natural objects as a result of physical or chemical properties of those objects, specific complexity, such as the DNA code, has never been known to develop without intelligent direction.

As an expert in biology, Dr. Pierre Rabischong then gave a fascinating description of the organization of the human body and concluded that the non-existent natural filiations among species and the high-tech nature of all living systems flatly contradict the evolutionary hypothesis.

From his perspective as a population geneticist, Dr. Maciej Giertych evaluated the main evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis, namely race formation. Dr. Giertych demonstrated that macroevolution requires an increase of genetic variants, and that race formation which depends on their reduction is a process in the opposite direction, comparable to extinction. He showed that positive mutations, as a mechanism leading to new functions or organs, are an undemonstrated postulate. He argued that one can demonstrate many neutral and negative mutations, but no positive ones. He questioned the claim that the appearance of resistance to man-made chemicals (herbicides, fungicides, antibiotics, etc.) is evidence of positive mutations on the ground that it belongs to the multitude of defense mechanisms (like healing or acquiring immunity) defending existing life functions of an organism and not creating new ones.

The afternoon lectures examined the evolutionary hypothesis from an historical and philosophical perspective. Dr. Alma Von Stockhausen, the foundress of Gustav Seiwerth Akadamie in Germany , exposed the roots of evolutionary thought in the theology of Martin Luther and the philosophy of George Frederich Hegel. Dr. Josef Seifert, rector of the Academy of Philosophy in Chile , offered critical reflections on evolutionism as a scientific or pseudo-scientific theory and as an atheist ideology, and Dr. Dominique Tassot demonstrated the numerous logical fallacies commonly used to defend the evolutionary hypothesis.

In the face of the global celebration of anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, it seemed important to examine the evolutionary hypothesis from an historical perspective. To this end, I presented a retrospective assessment, demonstrating that confidence in the truth of the evolutionary hypothesis has repeatedly hindered scientists and medical researchers from investigating the functionality of various organs and biological systems at a great cost in human lives and avoidable human suffering.

The proceedings of the symposium will be published in English and Italian later in the “year of Darwin ” either by the National Research Council or by another publisher in Rome . This marks the second time in four months that a group of distinguished Catholic scientists has given a thorough scientific critique of the evolutionary hypothesis without any appeal to Divine Revelation. To date, none of the evolutionists who attended either of the symposia has been able to offer a persuasive rebuttal to the scientific critique of the evolutionary hypothesis offered by our colleagues.

If you want to verify that Hugh Owen contributed to my booklet, click on
http://www.hexc0de.com/nuke/modules....download&cid=4.

[Bounce]

Well I'm Catholic and I believe in evolution.

I don't think I'll be burning in hell because of it, I'll be burning for other things.

[Ervntewc]

Today, I’ve been listening to a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist. The latter is Ian Juby, another contributor to my Reasons to Affirm a Young Earth booklet. The direct link to the MP3 is here: http://www.sagadiiradio.com/sr-2009-7-24.mp3.