Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please, the fame and glory only comes AFTER years of ridicule, being called a quack, and censorship.

Sometimes that is the case, yes.

Kristian Birkeland challenged the status quo. He was ridiculed for over 40 years until finally actual in situ data proved him to be correct. only then did those same people that spent years ridiculing him jump on the bandwagon.....

People that clearly understood nothing or else they wouldn't have spent 40 years ridiculing someone then adopt his theory as their own. Birkeland first had to die before he received due credit.... And then they still to this day refuse to use the correct terminology and call them magnetic ropes instead of what they are.... Birkeland Currents.... After close to 100+ years he still can't get the recognition due....

You are fooling yourself if you think an entrenched paradigm lets go easily. It's what led Max Planck to state: "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Only then in the majority of cases does one then get the recognition and fame one deserves......

You mad bro?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The spaceship will have a speed of 1/2c with respect to something and 3/4c with respect to something else and 1/10c with respect to something else. Why do you choose one over the other?

And no matter which one you choose the ships clocks will still slow because of its velocity.....

One seeing a less velocity for the ship just means their velocity is greater and so their clocks are also slowing, just not the same rate as the ship.....

If you see a different velocity for the ship then I do, it just means you are traveling at a different velocity than I am. That doesn’t negate the ships clock slowing because of its velocity, or yours or mine.

If the ships clock (for analogy purposes) slowed 1 year compared to yours and 6 months compared to mine, that would just mean both the ships clock and my clock run slower than yours because I’m moving faster than you too..... and the ships clock runs slower than mine because he’s moving faster than me.... as you would see his clock 1 year slower and my clock 6 months slower as I see his clock 6 months slower. He’s moving approximately twice as fast as me.

There’s nothing magical about it, it’s all pure science.... your confused because you think it’s magical, it’s just the science of one moving faster than another and the other moving faster than either of those.....

Pure science, no magic involved.

With respect to someone who measures his velocity as 1/2c, the time dilation will be one amount. With respect to someone else who measures the velocity as 3/4c, it will be a different amount. The amount of time dilation depends on *relative* speed. There is no absolute speed.

The only reason two can see different speeds is because those two are themselves traveling at different speeds. Which means one of theirs runs slower, but still not as slow as the ships clocks....

The only difference is in our analogies we know which one has the greatest speed....

3 observers moving in space not knowing which one has the highest speed, would not be able to tell which ones clock was slowest. But if they communicated they could deduce it by asking what the other saw.

It’s just hard to ask other galaxies what they see...

Nope, that is NOT why one twin was younger.

That is exactly why the twin was younger. The energy gain from his velocity offset the energy lost to decay. There’s no magic involved, merely science. But that’s why you can’t say why his clocks slowed. Seems in the analogy below you understand it’s the ships speed, now you suddenly don’t know what causes it?

Here's a variant of your twin scenario.

Suppose now there are triplets. One (triplet A) is wherever you choose 'not moving' according to you. One (triplet B) is moving past triplet A at 60% of c. The third moves past triplet A at 90% of c. All three are at the same location at some time (as measured by all three). Now, after some time, triplet B speeds up to 99% of c (as measured by A) to catch up with triplet C, who maintains a constant speed as measured by triplet A. At some point they meet up. Which has aged less, triplet B or triplet C?

Both B and C have aged less to A by the exact same amount. When B and C first meet up their clocks read the exact same time since their velocity is the same, and they underwent the same acceleration to reach the same speeds. Although C spent longer coasting at a slower rate, B had to accelerate at a greater velocity which caused his clocks to slow more, offsetting the time C spent coasting.

The answer should be obvious to anyone who understands the usual twin paradox. Can you see easily which one ages less?

Extra credit: how can triplet A determine how much each of the other two has aged?

Triplet A is the only one that can calculate correctly.

Triplet A’s clocks don’t change. C accelerated less and then coasts, his clocks stop slowing and remain at that slowed rate during the time he coasts.

B on the other hand has to use a higher acceleration than C did to catch up to C. Causing his clocks which were not ticking as slow as C to slow more than C. He then had to decelerate to match C’s speed since he was accelerating at a greater velocity. This caused his clocks to speed up to C’s rate when they matched speeds.

Only you are confused as to what happens, because you think someone traveling at 99% of c can just magically match the speed of someone moving at 90% without having to decelerate which would cause a speed up in clocks.

Comprehend: this is why when a twin returns to earth his clocks tick at the same rate as the earth twins clocks, despite their having a slower elapsed time. Say it with me class. Increases in velocity slow clocks, therefore decreases in velocity do what? Speed up clocks, class.....

Oh my bad, did you forget all about the deceleration of a ship traveling at 99% of c compared to one at 90%? You did, didn’t you.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your quotes need some tweaking @Justatruthseeker . I see that you still live in the flat Earth. Where can this zero velocity be found?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sometimes that is the case, yes.



You mad bro?

Not at all. That injustice doesn’t bother you just says everything that needs to be said in this conversation....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your quotes need some tweaking @Justatruthseeker . I see that you still live in the flat Earth. Where can this zero velocity be found?

Doesn’t matter if everything is moving. Just means everyone’s clocks are slower, just by different amounts....

Only someone that understands changes in velocity cause clocks to slow, then thinks his clocks haven’t slowed despite the fact he’s moving..... well.... nothing needs said about that..... it says it all itself...

 

[Polymath257]

The only reason two can see different speeds is because those two are themselves traveling at different speeds. Which means one of theirs runs slower, but still not as slow as the ships clocks....

Care to do a detailed comparison?

The only difference is in our analogies we know which one has the greatest speed....

3 observers moving in space not knowing which one has the highest speed, would not be able to tell which ones clock was slowest. But if they communicated they could deduce it by asking what the other saw.

Nope. They cannot. That's one of the central aspects of SR.

That is exactly why the twin was younger. The energy gain from his velocity offset the energy lost to decay. There’s no magic involved, merely science. But that’s why you can’t say why his clocks slowed. Seems in the analogy below you understand it’s the ships speed, now you suddenly don’t know what causes it?

Not even close to being correct.

Both B and C have aged less to A by the exact same amount. When B and C first meet up their clocks read the exact same time since their velocity is the same, and they underwent the same acceleration to reach the same speeds. Although C spent longer coasting at a slower rate, B had to accelerate at a greater velocity which caused his clocks to slow more, offsetting the time C spent coasting.


Triplet A is the only one that can calculate correctly.

Triplet A’s clocks don’t change. C accelerated less and then coasts, his clocks stop slowing and remain at that slowed rate during the time he coasts.

B on the other hand has to use a higher acceleration than C did to catch up to C. Causing his clocks which were not ticking as slow as C to slow more than C. He then had to decelerate to match C’s speed since he was accelerating at a greater velocity. This caused his clocks to speed up to C’s rate when they matched speeds.

Nope. This shows you don't understand SR. The answer, again, is obvious to anyone who *does* understand SR since it is *precisely* the usual twin paradox, only between triplets B and C. Triplet A is completely irrelevant.

Only you are confused as to what happens, because you think someone traveling at 99% of c can just magically match the speed of someone moving at 90% without having to decelerate which would cause a speed up in clocks.

Yes, to change speeds requires an acceleration. In fact, that is the very definition of acceleration. But you get the effect on clocks exactly wrong.

Comprehend: this is why when a twin returns to earth his clocks tick at the same rate as the earth twins clocks, despite their having a slower elapsed time. Say it with me class. Increases in velocity slow clocks, therefore decreases in velocity do what? Speed up clocks, class.....

You can say it as many times as you like, but it will still be wrong.

Oh my bad, did you forget all about the deceleration of a ship traveling at 99% of c compared to one at 90%? You did, didn’t you.....

Nope. I did not. But your answer is still wrong.

 

[ecco]

With your views how should we post speed limits on highways? Do we need to make the Eastbound posted speeds different from the Westbound speeds to take account of the earth's rotation? Does it make sense to you that the signs should read:
Speed Limit
1060
MPH
-and-
Speed Limit
940
MPH

More accurately:
68,060 and 67,940
Oh, yeah - we gotta add in our speed around the center of the galaxy and and and.

What you are ignoring in my simple earthbound scenario and in the more advanced scenarios that others have presented is that the tools are correct only when used properly. You would misuse them and then argue that they are wrong. Like any other tool, it takes knowledge to use them properly. Think about this one...
A police officer in one of the cars on the flatbed trucks with just a simple radar gun would get a reading of 100 mph.
Cops in moving vehicles do not use a "simple radar gun". They use a radar gun system that takes into consideration the speed and direction of the vehicle they are in. That's based on having the knowledge to use the tools properly.

It's relatively easy for earthbound instruments. It's a helluva lot harder with galactic instruments - ya gotta understand the math.

It's pretty clear from following this thread who understands the maths and who argues against it.

• Comprehend. The twin walking along his ship thought he was only walking at 1 mph,
• You can pretend all you like you are walking at 1 mph,
• What you are ignoring is that just as the twin
• Which is why your simple and more complex scenarios fail to reflect reality,i And so he could not deduce from his own clocks that he had aged less
• It's exactly the same.... You just keep confusing moving on the earth speeding through space as being different than moving on a ship speeding through space.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. I'm not confused at all. One problem you have is that you ignore the fact that tools must be understood and properly used. Radar guns and speed limit signs are tools. Why is it so hard for you to address my question about speed limit signs?

Partially recapped...

Speed Limit
940
MPH

More accurately:
68,060 and 67,940

Oh, yeah - we gotta add in our speed around the center of the galaxy and and and.
​

You still haven't been able to answer why the signs should not say: 60 MPH

We are in perfect agreement of which one understands the math and who argues against it..... It's only too bad you are the one arguing against it.....

There are two positions in this thread - yours and everyone else's.

Some people have patiently tried to show your mistakes.

I'm of the opinion that someone who can not grasp simple ideas like using the right tools for the right job has no business trying to expound on topics like GR & SR.

 

[Polymath257]

Doesn’t matter if everything is moving. Just means everyone’s clocks are slower, just by different amounts....

Only someone that understands changes in velocity cause clocks to slow, then thinks his clocks haven’t slowed despite the fact he’s moving..... well.... nothing needs said about that..... it says it all itself...

Here's a fun little scenario to see how much you grasp:

Triplets. Triplet A is 'at rest'. Triplet B is moving (and has been for a while) at 60% of c past A. They experience a time dilation factor of 80% (so, their clocks go 80% as fast as A's do according to A). Now, Triplet C is going past triplet A at 80% of c. So they have a time dilation factor of 60% according to A.

Now, we both agree that triplet C's clocks appear to be going slower to B. By what factor?

 

[Polymath257]

Doesn’t matter if everything is moving. Just means everyone’s clocks are slower, just by different amounts....

Only someone that understands changes in velocity cause clocks to slow, then thinks his clocks haven’t slowed despite the fact he’s moving..... well.... nothing needs said about that..... it says it all itself...

I'll tell you what. Go to any physics department at any university. Show any physicist there this conversation and ask them who is correct about SR.

 

[ecco]

Kristian Birkeland challenged the status quo. He was ridiculed for over 40 years until finally actual in situ data proved him to be correct. only then did those same people that spent years ridiculing him jump on the bandwagon.....

Sometimes that is the case, yes.

Not at all. That injustice doesn’t bother you just says everything that needs to be said in this conversation....

Aw. But why single out science?

• Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) ...
• Johann Sebastian Bach, the composer (1685-1750) ...
• Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) ...
• Herman Melville (1819-1891) ...
• Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) ...
• Emily Dickinson (1830-1886) ...
• Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) ...
• Franz Kafka (1883-1924)

Also...

16 Famous People Whose Talents Were Only Recognized After Their Deaths​

What about JC? He wasn't too famous while he wandered about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not at all. That injustice doesn’t bother you just says everything that needs to be said in this conversation....

You haven't shown that there is any injustice going on at all.

Claiming it doesn't make it true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please, the fame and glory only comes AFTER years of ridicule, being called a quack, and censorship.

Kristian Birkeland challenged the status quo. He was ridiculed for over 40 years until finally actual in situ data proved him to be correct. only then did those same people that spent years ridiculing him jump on the bandwagon.....

People that clearly understood nothing or else they wouldn't have spent 40 years ridiculing someone then adopt his theory as their own. Birkeland first had to die before he received due credit.... And then they still to this day refuse to use the correct terminology and call them magnetic ropes instead of what they are.... Birkeland Currents.... After close to 100+ years he still can't get the recognition due....

You are fooling yourself if you think an entrenched paradigm lets go easily. It's what led Max Planck to state: "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Only then in the majority of cases does one then get the recognition and fame one deserves......

Charles Darwin challenged the status quo. He too, was ridiculed.
You know why his ideas won out?
EVIDENCE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doesn’t matter if everything is moving. Just means everyone’s clocks are slower, just by different amounts....

Only someone that understands changes in velocity cause clocks to slow, then thinks his clocks haven’t slowed despite the fact he’s moving..... well.... nothing needs said about that..... it says it all itself...

Have you seen your error and now avoid answering because of that? That is what that dodge looks like. And no, it is changes in velocity that causes clocks to slow. If an object is rapidly accelerated and then decellerated there will be very little time difference between that one's clock and an object that started in the same inertial frame of reference and did not change speed. What causes time differences is relative velocity and time spent at that relative velocity. The theory of relativity is about relative velocities.

The math of the theory of relativity works, not only in the theory itself where it is very consistent, but in the real world as well. If you want a theory of acceleration you have a lot of work to do. You need to do the math and create formulas to begin with. Then you need to test those predictions that your theory makes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll tell you what. Go to any physics department at any university. Show any physicist there this conversation and ask them who is correct about SR.

But they're wrong too. Wrong! I tell you sir! WRONG!!!! And the Earth is Flat.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Care to do a detailed comparison?

Do whatever you like. But if you and I are standing side by side (traveling the same speed) it is impossible for you to see a ship traveling at a different velocity than me.....

You know that, I know that, everyone knows that....

Only if you are traveling at a different velocity than I am can you ever see the ship traveling at a different speed than I do.....

You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.....

Deny it to your hearts content because you don't want to accept the simple science of reality.....

Nope. They cannot. That's one of the central aspects of SR.

no it's not.
The first postulate is that the laws of physics will be the same in all initial frames.

The second postulate of SR is that all frames will see light travel at c regardless of your velocity.

You just don't know why this is so.... and so you don't know why the first postulate is so as well....

SR then predicts from those two postulates that you can not deduce your own velocity from your devices or from observation. You can easily deduce your velocity relative to two other observers, not one, but a minimum of two. This does not mean you can deduce your absolute velocity from those other two, because you can not deduce the absolute velocity of any object in space.....

But you fail to understand why the first two postulates hold true regardless of the motion of the frame as long as it is constant, because you don't have the faintest clue as to why light always travels at c regardless of each frames velocity... Not the faintest clue.... and you never will because your holy priests can't tell you and their box prohibits them from deducing the correct answer....

Not even close to being correct.

Only in your fantasy world where acceleration doesn't cause changes to clocks, even if it an experimental fact.....

Nope. This shows you don't understand SR. The answer, again, is obvious to anyone who *does* understand SR since it is *precisely* the usual twin paradox, only between triplets B and C. Triplet A is completely irrelevant.

Triplet A is the only one that is relevant. His clocks don't change.... He correctly sees the rate of change of both B and C. Neither B nor C can correctly deduce their own velocity (or have you forgot you just argued that) nor can they even see the change in their own clocks.... Their opinion is useless....

Yes, to change speeds requires an acceleration. In fact, that is the very definition of acceleration. But you get the effect on clocks exactly wrong.

No, you just don't understand the subject in the slightest...

Time dilation - Wikipedia

"either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field."

Einstein deduced that gravity was the same as acceleration, hence clocks slow in a gravitational well.... because they have energy added which offsets the rate of decay, just as an accelerating rocket has energy added which offsets the rate of decay.

But then that's why you never give your reason, because you don't have one.....

You can say it as many times as you like, but it will still be wrong.

Agreed, you can say that as many times as you like and the only reason you and I will ever see a spacecraft moving at different velocities is if we are ourselves moving at different velocities... You'll still be wrong no matter how many times you make claims without being able to justify them. But that's because you can't, so all you can do is claim the other person wrong....

Nope. I did not. But your answer is still wrong.

yes you did, but then that's why you just keep making claims of incorrectness while being unable to show it is incorrect.....

Standard tactic when one has lost the battle..... knows it and knows he has no scientific response to give.....

I'll state the truth again.....

If the ships clock (for analogy purposes) slowed 1 year compared to yours and 6 months compared to mine, that would just mean both the ships clock and my clock run slower than yours because I’m moving faster than you too..... and the ships clock runs slower than mine because he’s moving faster than me.... as you would see his clock 1 year slower and my clock 6 months slower as I see his clock 6 months slower. He’s moving approximately twice as fast as me.

There’s nothing magical about it, it’s all pure science.... your confused because you think it’s magical, it’s just the science of one moving faster than another and the other moving faster than either of those.....

Pure science, no magic involved. Magic is for those that fail to understand why light always travels at c regardless of each frames velocity.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You haven't shown that there is any injustice going on at all.

Claiming it doesn't make it true.

Do your own research and learn something for once in your life.... waiting for others to do your work for you is pathetic.....

Kristian Birkeland - Wikipedia

"Birkeland's vision of what are now known as Birkeland currents became the source of a controversy that continued for over half a century, because their existence could not be confirmed from ground-based measurements alone. His theory was disputed and ridiculed at the time as a fringe theory by mainstream scientists,[1][8] most notoriously by the eminent British geophysicist and mathematician Sydney Chapman who argued the mainstream view that currents could not cross the vacuum of space and therefore the currents had to be generated by the Earth. Birkeland's theory of the aurora continued to be dismissed by mainstream astrophysicists after his death in 1917. It was notably championed by the Swedish plasma scientist Hannes Alfvén,[9] but Alfvén's work in turn was also disputed by Chapman.[10]

Proof of Birkeland's theory of the aurora only came in 1967 after a probe was sent into space. The crucial results were obtained from U.S. Navy satellite 1963-38C, launched in 1963 and carrying a magnetometer above the ionosphere.[11] Magnetic disturbances were observed on nearly every pass over the high-latitude regions of the Earth. These were originally interpreted as hydromagnetic waves, but on later analysis it was realized that they were due to field-aligned or Birkeland currents"

But when you are beaten, try to jump on the bandwagon and steal the others fame...

Sydney Chapman (mathematician) - Wikipedia

"He disputed and ridiculed the work of Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfvén, later adopting Birkeland's theories as his own."

That's the problem today. people are too lazy to do their own research....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Aw. But why single out science?

• Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) ...
• Johann Sebastian Bach, the composer (1685-1750) ...
• Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) ...
• Herman Melville (1819-1891) ...
• Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) ...
• Emily Dickinson (1830-1886) ...
• Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) ...
• Franz Kafka (1883-1924)

Also...

16 Famous People Whose Talents Were Only Recognized After Their Deaths​

What about JC? He wasn't too famous while he wandered about.

We were discussing science at the time..... Perhaps, just perhaps that is why?

If you want to branch it out into the fields of Music, art and literature and religion to further back up my point that challenging the existing paradigm usually leads to trouble. Why I don't mind at all your support.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Charles Darwin challenged the status quo. He too, was ridiculed.
You know why his ideas won out?
EVIDENCE.

No, people fleeing from the evidence of God into the only thing they could then postulate to avoid the Designer.....

What evidence?

Fossils remaining the same across millions of years for each creature until they go extinct? No change so completely evident that in almost all cases a single picture will suffice to identify a specific type of creature across the millions of years of its existence until it goes extinct?

Bacteria remaining bacteria regardless of the numbers of mutations?

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies regardless of the numbers of mutations?

Oh, my bad.... You meant imagining imaginary "missing common ancestors" to connect different creatures was evidence.

Or were you talking about imagining a creature had flippers, placing it in a lineage, then finding out it had feet instead, but keeping it right where they originally placed it anyways???? Even if it was nothing like what they had imagined it "should" have looked like.......

I guess if imagination is evidence, then yes, you got tons of it.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do whatever you like. But if you and I are standing side by side (traveling the same speed) it is impossible for you to see a ship traveling at a different velocity than me.....

You know that, I know that, everyone knows that....

Only if you are traveling at a different velocity than I am can you ever see the ship traveling at a different speed than I do.....

You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.....

Deny it to your hearts content because you don't want to accept the simple science of reality.....



no it's not.
The first postulate is that the laws of physics will be the same in all initial frames.

The second postulate of SR is that all frames will see light travel at c regardless of your velocity.

You just don't know why this is so.... and so you don't know why the first postulate is so as well....

SR then predicts from those two postulates that you can not deduce your own velocity from your devices or from observation. You can easily deduce your velocity relative to two other observers, not one, but a minimum of two. This does not mean you can deduce your absolute velocity from those other two, because you can not deduce the absolute velocity of any object in space.....

But you fail to understand why the first two postulates hold true regardless of the motion of the frame as long as it is constant, because you don't have the faintest clue as to why light always travels at c regardless of each frames velocity... Not the faintest clue.... and you never will because your holy priests can't tell you and their box prohibits them from deducing the correct answer....



Only in your fantasy world where acceleration doesn't cause changes to clocks, even if it an experimental fact.....



Triplet A is the only one that is relevant. His clocks don't change.... He correctly sees the rate of change of both B and C. Neither B nor C can correctly deduce their own velocity (or have you forgot you just argued that) nor can they even see the change in their own clocks.... Their opinion is useless....



No, you just don't understand the subject in the slightest...

Time dilation - Wikipedia

"either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field."

Einstein deduced that gravity was the same as acceleration, hence clocks slow in a gravitational well.... because they have energy added which offsets the rate of decay, just as an accelerating rocket has energy added which offsets the rate of decay.

But then that's why you never give your reason, because you don't have one.....



Agreed, you can say that as many times as you like and the only reason you and I will ever see a spacecraft moving at different velocities is if we are ourselves moving at different velocities... You'll still be wrong no matter how many times you make claims without being able to justify them. But that's because you can't, so all you can do is claim the other person wrong....



yes you did, but then that's why you just keep making claims of incorrectness while being unable to show it is incorrect.....

Standard tactic when one has lost the battle..... knows it and knows he has no scientific response to give.....

I'll state the truth again.....

If the ships clock (for analogy purposes) slowed 1 year compared to yours and 6 months compared to mine, that would just mean both the ships clock and my clock run slower than yours because I’m moving faster than you too..... and the ships clock runs slower than mine because he’s moving faster than me.... as you would see his clock 1 year slower and my clock 6 months slower as I see his clock 6 months slower. He’s moving approximately twice as fast as me.

There’s nothing magical about it, it’s all pure science.... your confused because you think it’s magical, it’s just the science of one moving faster than another and the other moving faster than either of those.....

Pure science, no magic involved. Magic is for those that fail to understand why light always travels at c regardless of each frames velocity.....

Sigh. You may be conflating gravitational dilation with acceleration dilation. I do not think that they are the same since gravitational dilation is due to being withing a gravity well, or under the influence of a mass. But let's use a figure from the Wiki article that you linked to give a numerical example:

" It has also been calculated that due to time dilation, the core of the Earth is 2.5 years younger than the crust.[33] "

Please note that the force of gravity at the center of the Earth is zero. But yet time passes slower there since it is deeper in the gravity well. If you want to claim that it is due to "acceleration" it is a difference of 2.5 years/4.55 billion years as a fraction of any time period. Or 5.49*10-8% of any time period. When dealing with a period of tens of years that is an inconsequential error. What can be measured directly, what can be tested directly, is the effect of velocity. You are once again accusing others of your sins when you say that others believe in magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, people fleeing from the evidence of God into the only thing they could then postulate to avoid the Designer.....

What evidence?

Fossils remaining the same across millions of years for each creature until they go extinct? No change so completely evident that in almost all cases a single picture will suffice to identify a specific type of creature across the millions of years of its existence until it goes extinct?

Bacteria remaining bacteria regardless of the numbers of mutations?

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies regardless of the numbers of mutations?

Oh, my bad.... You meant imagining imaginary "missing common ancestors" to connect different creatures was evidence.

Or were you talking about imagining a creature had flippers, placing it in a lineage, then finding out it had feet instead, but keeping it right where they originally placed it anyways???? Even if it was nothing like what they had imagined it "should" have looked like.......

I guess if imagination is evidence, then yes, you got tons of it.....

Once again, "change of kinds" is a creationist strawman. You are still an ape regardless of how many mutations since your earliest "ape" ancestor.