 |
Who's Online |
 |
|
There are currently, 15 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
|
|
|
 |
| |
 Why Mainstream Science Rejects Creation
Posted bybibleland on Friday, June 10 @ 14:07:03 CDT
Contributed by bibleland
 Mainstream scientists do not believe in creation because they are not looking for that kind of evidence. Having been schooled to believe that evolution is the only answer to world history they are not able to correctly interpret the evidence when it is presented to them.
Is this an unfounded personal opinion of the situation? No. Since the 1700’s uniformitarianism has been used by Evolutionists to reject the Flood because such an enormous catastrophe would contradict their beloved doctrine of gradual change. Their strong belief in this theory has hindered their ability to evaluate the fossil record. Their reluctance to give up the theory of uniformitarianism is detailed in the following article chronicling the history of our understanding of dramatic climate change i.e. Ice ages. The information is condensed from an excellent article called The Discovery of Rapid Climate Change by Spencer Weart, who directs the Center for History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics.
“How fast can our planet's climate change? Too slowly for humans to notice, according to the firm belief of most scientists through much of the 20th century. To be sure, the entire world climate could change radically: The ice ages proved that. But common sense held that such transformations could only creep in over tens of thousands of years.
In the 1950s, a few scientists found evidence that some of the great climate shifts in the past had taken only a few thousand years. During the 1960s and 1970s, other lines of research made it plausible that the global climate could shift radically within a few hundred years. In the 1980s and 1990s, further studies reduced the scale to the span of a single century. Today, there is evidence that severe change can take less than a decade.
Much earlier in the 20th century, some specialists had evidence of abrupt climate change in front of their eyes. The evidence was meaningless to them. To appreciate change occurring within 10 years as significant, scientists first had to accept the possibility of change within 100 years. That, in turn, had to wait until they accepted the 1000-year time scale.
To see the rest of the article click Read More.
In 1925 the respected climate expert C. E. P. Brooks, suggested that a slight change of conditions might set off a self-sustaining shift between climate states. Suppose, he said, some random decrease of snow cover in northern latitudes exposed dark ground. Then the ground would absorb more sunlight, which would warm the air, which would melt still more snow--a vicious feedback cycle. An abrupt and catastrophic rise of tens of degrees was conceivable, Brooks wrote, "perhaps in the course of a single season." Run the cycle backward, and an ice age might suddenly descend.
Most other professional climatologists dismissed the idea as preposterous. The continental glaciers of an ice age, a kilometer thick, would surely require vast lengths of time to build up or melt away.
In 1955, the timing was pinned down by a radiocarbon-dating study, which revealed that the temperature change had been rapid; for climate scientists at midcentury, "rapid" meant a change that took place over as little as 1000 years. Ice-age changes over a thousand years or so in a restricted region, although surprising, seemed acceptable. The rate of advance and retreat of the great glaciers would be no faster than present-day mountain glaciers were seen to move. That perception was compatible with the so-called uniformitarian principle, a geological tenet that the forces that molded ice, rock, sea, and air did not vary over time. Through most of the 20th century, the uniformitarian principle was cherished by geologists as the very foundation of their science: How could one study anything scientifically unless the rules stayed the same?
The idea had become central to their training and theories during a century of disputes, when scientists painfully gave up traditions that explained certain geological features by invoking Noah's Flood or other supernatural interventions. In human experience, temperatures apparently did not rise or fall radically in less than millennia, so the uniformitarian principle declared that such changes had never happened in the past.
In 1956, studying variations in the shells of plankton that were embedded in cores of clay pulled from the deep seabed (see figure 1), radiocarbon expert Hans Suess discovered what was at the time the fastest change that anyone expected. Suess reported that the last glacial period had ended with a relatively rapid rise of temperature, about 1°C per thousand years.
By 1960, a trio of scientists at what is now the Lamont-Doherty Observatory--Wallace Broecker, Maurice Ewing, and Bruce Heezen--were reporting a variety of evidence, from deep-sea and lake deposits, that a global climate shift of as much as 5-10°C had taken place in less than a thousand years. Most of their colleagues found such a rise barely plausible. Evidence of a climate shift could only be accepted if it made sense--that is, if there existed some plausible theory of the climate system that could explain the shift.
Many experts continued to believe it was sheer speculation to imagine that the climate of a region, let alone of the entire world, could change in less than a thousand years or so. But confirmation of changes at that rate, at least, was coming from a variety of studies.
By 1981, cylinders of ice from more than two km deep showed what the researchers called "violent" changes; "a dramatic cooling of rather short duration, perhaps only a few hundred years."
Nevertheless, experts were scarcely prepared for the shock that came from the Greenland ice plateau in 1993. The comparison between cores showed convincingly that climate could change more rapidly than almost any scientist had imagined. Swings of temperature that were believed in the 1950s to take tens of thousands of years, in the 1970s to take thousands of years, and in the 1980s to take hundreds of years, were now found to take only decades. Greenland had sometimes warmed a shocking 7°C within a span of less than 50 years. More recent studies have reported that, during the Younger Dryas transition, drastic shifts in the entire North Atlantic climate could be seen within five snow layers, that is, as little as five years!
People can see only what they find believable. Over the decades, many scientists who looked at tree rings, varves, ice layers, and such had held evidence of decade-scale climate shifts before their eyes. They easily dismissed it. There were plausible reasons to dismiss global calamity as nothing but a crackpot fantasy.
First, scientists had to convince themselves, by shuttling back and forth between historical data and studies of possible mechanisms, that rapid shifts made sense, with the meaning of "rapid" gradually changing from millennia to centuries to decades. Without that gradual shift of understanding, the Greenland cores would never have been drilled. The funds required for those heroic projects became available only after scientists reported that climate could change in damaging ways on a time scale meaningful to governments. In an area as difficult as climate science, in which all is complex and befogged, it takes a while to see what one is not prepared to look for.”
|
|
| |
|
|
Article Rating |
|
|
Average Score: 2.25
Votes: 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Newsletter |
|
|
Subscribe to the Lost World Museum newsletter, which will notify you of the latest discoveries from around the world!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Help Find the Evidence |
|
|
Bibleland Studios needs your help in locating evidence that will prove the Biblical account of creation to be accurate.
We are providing a list of needed artifacts, YOU can help find them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Old Articles |
|
|
| Wednesday, May 03 | | · | Instantaneous Creation |
| Friday, April 21 | | · | Adolfi and Lee Appear on International Television |
| Thursday, April 06 | | · | "Cy" the Cyclops Kitty Moves to Lost World Museum |
| Tuesday, March 28 | | · | New Ark Anomaly Gives Researchers Hope |
| Thursday, February 16 | | · | Announcing the opening of the Lost World Museum |
| Monday, February 06 | | · | Evolution: bogus science used to attack religion |
| Monday, January 30 | | · | Giant Sequoias: A Portal Into Our Ancient Past |
| Thursday, December 08 | | · | Is Noah's Ark in Iran? |
| Tuesday, November 29 | | · | Were Adam and Eve Giants? Revisited. |
| Monday, November 21 | | · | Announcing the Greatest Sale in the History of Bibleland |
| Thursday, November 17 | | · | Chariots of the gods. |
| Friday, November 11 | | · | The Unsung Heroes of the 21st Century |
| Friday, October 28 | | · | Evolution's Ugly Red-headed Stepchild |
| Monday, October 24 | | · | Giant Humbugs |
| Tuesday, October 18 | | · | Giant Fossil Could Be Mammoth Hoax |
| Friday, October 14 | | · | Dead Men Do Tell Tales |
| Monday, October 10 | | · | Drool Points To A Designer |
| Monday, October 03 | | · | The Most Incredible Birth Ever! |
| Thursday, September 29 | | · | Celebrating 18 months online! |
| Wednesday, September 21 | | · | The Strength of Giants |
| Sunday, September 04 | | · | Show and Tell |
| Thursday, August 04 | | · | The Gospel in Creation |
| Monday, June 27 | | · | Help find the Evidence |
| Friday, June 10 | | · | Why Mainstream Science Rejects Creation |
| Tuesday, May 31 | | · | Noah's Ark Expeditions 2005 June Update |
| Friday, May 06 | | · | Was Man Ever a Half Ape Looking Midget? |
| Wednesday, April 27 | | · | Noah’s Ark: Eyewitnesses & Expeditions |
| Tuesday, April 19 | | · | The Eye of The Storm |
| Thursday, April 14 | | · | The Wonder of Reality |
| Monday, March 28 | | · | Evolutionist Turncoat… A Freak of Science? |
Older Articles
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to our news feed.