View Full Version : Science Disproves Evolution
Two-Celled Life?
Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.
.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes19.html#wp1012455
Copyright © 1995–2008
Embryology 1
Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086
Copyright © 1995–2008
Embryology 2
Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086
Copyright © 1995–2008
FurthurBB
01-22-2009, 12:03 PM
I have reported this. I do not believe your 18th century ideas have been in the news and all. They are just lies and should not be on this forum at all. IMO
dref99
01-23-2009, 03:49 AM
I have reported this. I do not believe your 18th century ideas have been in the news and all. They are just lies and should not be on this forum at all. IMO
I don't see alot of point in reporting things - but I do agree the spiel is absolute nonsense. It is time for the USA to join the 21st century - even some 20th century thoughts would be good, and stop giving anyone an excuse to present this type of nonsense.
jmo
Patriot
01-23-2009, 08:25 PM
I have reported this. I do not believe your 18th century ideas have been in the news and all. They are just lies and should not be on this forum at all. IMO
Why would you try to censor it? Why would you say it doesn't belong on this forum? This is the religion forum, right? People are free to post whatever they want to talk about, right? Whether or not everyone on the forum agrees with it?
Points were well made and references given. Rather than try to censor, how about you post what the alleged lies are and refute what was offered, with references. In fact, since you stated that it is all lies as a fact, I believe the etiquette that has been encouraged here is to provide sources. I look forward to reading your rebuttal.
Details
01-23-2009, 08:48 PM
This is the "World Religions in the News" forum - rules for this forum are that any threads are about a current news event - this, obviously, isn't it. And the OP has been posting this same stuff in a new thread every couple days or so for a week or some such, the first was rebutted properly, the rest ignored. Of course, the rebuttal is simple - what they post as evolution science, isn't, and hasn't been for a few centuries.
Patriot
01-23-2009, 09:52 PM
Good point that the forum is for current news but the post has been reported and is still here, so I guess the moderator is okay with it.
And I only see one other post and I don't see where it was rebutted properly. I see a response that begins with a condescending "honey" and ends implying Creationists aren't smart enough to understand science and make up lies. I would be interested in seeing the actual points in the post rebutted, rather than just "they are dumb and liars". JMO.
Details
01-23-2009, 09:58 PM
The exact same thing has been posted before, a new thread each time, copying and pasting a rebuttal each time, IMO, is far more than this tripe deserves. It was posted at least once where it probably fits best - in OC - I think that's where the response was. Just look - search the OP's posts, I think this thread is all they're doing - so look back, you'll find the one with the rebuttal.
Rapid Burial
Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish (a), show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions (b) that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes21.html#wp1012558
Copyright © 1995–2008
IcyLogic
02-02-2009, 10:35 AM
Sadly for you Pahu, every scientific advance in all the fields of life sciences have only further established the validity and ongoing effects of evolution and natural selection.
Its pointless you trying to prove that all living creatures were put in place, as is, and have stayed the same thoughout the history of life on this planet.
We can see throught the way canines have been bred into so many variations, and plants too, that natural selection and Evolution are right in front of our eyes and still happening.
The preservation of fossilised specimens cannot be broadly swept aside by you. It depends utterly on the conditions where that specimen died as to how preserved it can be. Low oxygen levels, sudden surges of silt and debris, totally dry air, all these can aid in preserving dead creatures until they become fossils. Jellyfish too.
The age of this planet gives ample time for single celled life to become all that we see today. Radiometric dating gives our planet an age of about 4.54 billion years. We get so used to hearing about billions of dollars that we forget what a huge number that is.
Sorry Pahu, evolution is a fact, its how life blossomed and expanded from single cells until now we have our wonderful teeming planet.
Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, but blindly disregarding provable facts merely renders those views as both marginal and untenable.
LisaM22
02-04-2009, 08:03 PM
I know I asked this question before and it is Biology 101 in high school, but have any creation science people ever acknowledge the science concept of punctuated equilibrium? They seem to be arguing against evolution without even acknowledging some of the basic theory and evidence kids hear about in high school. Who wants to continually hear their twisted logic, non-science, and arguing by omission. Why not just accept the mystery of whatever you believe instead of attacking a scientific theory in the first place, let alone one that has tons of evidence supporting it?
the same reason some Christians did not want to believe the world wasn't flat, they feel that if they believe the world wasn't flat it would mean everything they else they believed could also be false
LisaM22
02-04-2009, 10:09 PM
most children quit Sunday school at a young age if they even go at all anymore, so they want to force their way into the public schools it seems, remember, believers = donations = $$$ to some churches
Sadly for you Pahu, every scientific advance in all the fields of life sciences have only further established the validity and ongoing effects of evolution and natural selection.
That’s based on wishful thinking. The fact is that as science learns more about our universe, they are finding that the facts support creation, not evolution.
Its pointless you trying to prove that all living creatures were put in place, as is, and have stayed the same thoughout the history of life on this planet.
Where is there any evidence to the contrary?
We can see throught the way canines have been bred into so many variations, and plants too, that natural selection and Evolution are right in front of our eyes and still happening.
First, breeding involves intelligent intervention, not natural selection. Second, selective breeding always changes aspects of a species. You have big dogs, little dogs, hairy dogs, hairless dogs, different colored dogs, etc. Notice they are all dogs. No new species have been produced by selective breeding. Breeders always are limited by this boundary.
The preservation of fossilised specimens cannot be broadly swept aside by you. It depends utterly on the conditions where that specimen died as to how preserved it can be. Low oxygen levels, sudden surges of silt and debris, totally dry air, all these can aid in preserving dead creatures until they become fossils. Jellyfish too.
The fossil record may include some of the ways you describe, but they do not begin to explain over 99% of them.
The age of this planet gives ample time for single celled life to become all that we see today. Radiometric dating gives our planet an age of about 4.54 billion years. We get so used to hearing about billions of dollars that we forget what a huge number that is.
The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (such as the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to “blind tests.” In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error—indicating major errors in methodology and understanding. One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error.
A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This is a huge and critical assumption that few have questioned. Several lines of evidence show that radioactive decay rates were once much faster than they are today. A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood.
“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ ” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.
“For some inexplicable reason, the nuclei of certain elements become unstable and spontaneously release energy and/or particles.” Stansfield, p. 82.
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences25.html#wp2569480]
At various times and places, man-made objects have been found encased in coal. Examples include a thimble. an iron pot, an iron instrument, an 8-karat gold chain, three throwing-spears, and a metallic vessel inlaid with silver. Other “out-of-place artifacts” have been found inside deeply buried rocks: nails, a screw, a strange coin, a tiny ceramic doll, and other objects of obvious human manufacture. By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man. Again, something is wrong.
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences30.html#wp1260402]
Sorry Pahu, evolution is a fact, its how life blossomed and expanded from single cells until now we have our wonderful teeming planet.
Only in your dreams!
Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, but blindly disregarding provable facts merely renders those views as both marginal and untenable.
__________________
The voice of truth is soft, but it is enduring and will eventually be heard.
On that we agree. Hopefully you will begin to base your beliefs on facts rather than marginal and untenable myths and wishful thinking.
I know I asked this question before and it is Biology 101 in high school, but have any creation science people ever acknowledge the science concept of punctuated equilibrium? They seem to be arguing against evolution without even acknowledging some of the basic theory and evidence kids hear about in high school. Who wants to continually hear their twisted logic, non-science, and arguing by omission. Why not just accept the mystery of whatever you believe instead of attacking a scientific theory in the first place, let alone one that has tons of evidence supporting it?
Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.
Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes22.html#wp1136899
Geez, I guess. I just don't get it. I don't want to live in some small, weird world where I try to indoctrinate children in science classes by introducing my religious beliefs disguised as science. If they want to have religion classes where all religions are discussed and learned about, that's fine by me. Now, where would the teaching of creation science go if every religion or organized spiritual belief system came up with some pseduo-science to explain the origin of life (or whatever) and all of them started claiming they had a place in the science classroom. Then they push to have National Standards for Faith-Based Science enacted with specific objectives to be learned and tested for by each of these groups. Maybe kids would have to go to school for a couple of years longer just so all this could be shoved down their throat.
Evidence must be observable and verifiable. Millions of people know evidence that opposes evolution. Even polls conducted by evolutionist organizations have shown that about 80% of the American public want such evidence taught in the schools their taxes finance.
Some people who want to suppress the evidence against evolution do so for their religious reasons. Let’s just agree to stick to the scientific evidence on both sides of the origins issue.
In the first half of my life, I was an evolutionist, but after learning some convincing evidence, I had to reject evolution. Of course, the origins issue has religious implications for everyone—even those who claim to hold no religious views. But the issue can be addressed from a purely scientific standpoint.
Scientists (even some evolutionists) who understand the amazing complexity inside a living cell know it could never have evolved; it had to be created. But science cannot say who the creator was. Nevertheless, when one understands the evidence, it is clear that this amazing complexity could not have evolved. It is hard to imagine an unbiased person who understands the evidence reaching any other conclusion. Unfortunately, few educators and scientists have heard this evidence. (Unintended ignorance is excusable. Unwillingness to learn is not. Preventing students from learning is reprehensible.)
Because much scientific evidence is being censored from our schools, a small but growing number of individuals, such as myself, spend our time teaching others this evidence. People, including scientists, are excited about what they are learning. If the schools did their job, this rapidly-growing endeavor would shrink. But today, parental dissatisfaction with public schools in general, and science education in particular, has never been higher—in large part because of the one-sided way origins has been taught.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ419.html#wp1060587
Parallel Strata
The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time.
Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. [Fossil trees are found worldwide crossing two or more strata]…Had burial been slow, the treetops would have decayed. Obviously, the trees could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences26.html#wp1009156
lunchlady
02-11-2009, 07:37 PM
Hmmmm.... "Science" is a field with millions of people, a small number of whom are trying to find evidence against evolution. The website linked over and over is pretty biased, IMO.
Instead of straining to "disprove evolution", which I think is ultimately a doomed endeavor, how about finding ways for people to feel comfortable with modern science AND traditional religion? Apply some brainpower to that instead, and you will help preserve respect for religion in the difficult decades to come.
LisaM22
02-19-2009, 06:52 PM
those that want to believe the bible is the word of a god are running scared, evolution has proven that the story of genesis is a myth and they just can not accept that any more then early Christians could accept that the earth was round or that that everything did not revolve around the earth and that instead the earth revolved around the sun - the reason they can not accept it is because if this part of the bible is a myth, what does that mean about the rest of the bible?
I see a future when these types of people believe in a god rather then a bible
Hmmmm.... "Science" is a field with millions of people, a small number of whom are trying to find evidence against evolution. The website linked over and over is pretty biased, IMO.
Instead of straining to "disprove evolution", which I think is ultimately a doomed endeavor, how about finding ways for people to feel comfortable with modern science AND traditional religion? Apply some brainpower to that instead, and you will help preserve respect for religion in the difficult decades to come.
It is true the site from which I get most of the information I am sharing is biased in favor of creation. That is because science supports creation, not evolution. The real question we should be asking is what is true. That is my reason for sharing and it should lead to your desire to find comfort in both science and religion. They are not at odds.
Fossil Gaps
If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).
a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.
“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.
Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
LisaM22
02-20-2009, 04:21 PM
Fossil Gaps exist because the world is ever changing, extinction events, climate change, ect...., nature has sometimes wiped the board clean of many species, that doesn't disprove evolution and don't confuse Darwin's idea's with evolution, he was just the first person that discovered the truth, he did not know it all
FurthurBB
02-20-2009, 08:43 PM
It is true the site from which I get most of the information I am sharing is biased in favor of creation. That is because science supports creation, not evolution. The real question we should be asking is what is true. That is my reason for sharing and it should lead to your desire to find comfort in both science and religion. They are not at odds.
True, science and religion are not at odds, but, science and creationsim are. IMO
Doc Holliday
02-21-2009, 04:16 AM
Naturalistic Darwinian evolution doesn't work according to magic; it works (ultimately) according to the fundamental laws of physics (just like everything else in this universe). If God created those laws then he created us, even though we are a product of biological evolution.
It's all a matter of perspective. God and Darwin get along just fine.
LisaM22
02-21-2009, 01:42 PM
Naturalistic Darwinian evolution doesn't work according to magic; it works (ultimately) according to the fundamental laws of physics (just like everything else in this universe). If God created those laws then he created us, even though we are a product of biological evolution.
It's all a matter of perspective. God and Darwin get along just fine.
very true, I could accept that, but many that believe in the bible as the word of a god can not accept that, because that is not what it says in the bible
believing in a god and believing in the bible are not one and the same - those with issues believing in evolution put their belief in the bible above their belief in a god
LisaM22
02-22-2009, 01:29 PM
Although I am not any type of expert, it is my humble opinion that the creation, as described in the Bible, does not conflict with evolution, because while the Bible tells the story in releative terms, in lieu of specific ones, both methods start with life in the seas, end with man being the last of the animials, and plants upon the land.
BTW, both claim that man came from the dust, and it is clear that man will return to dust, in time.
Also, at least in my lifetime, there have been no new species created, or evolved.
bacteria has a very short life span and as we have seen it has evolved in certain case to become immune to antibiotics
same with some insect and pesticide
lunchlady
02-22-2009, 03:01 PM
snipped
Also, at least in my lifetime, there have been no new species created, or evolved.
I think the current boom in autism might be due to a change in gene expression, caused by some change in the internal chemistry of mothers and developing fetuses. The change could be caused by the hormonal shifts caused by chronic stress, which can be caused by modern life. Sleep deprivation, schedules conflicting with biorhythms, caffeine and alcohol and other drugs to help cope with the previous items, overeating and underexercising, indoor environments, exposure to thousands of chemicals drugs toxins pollutants, and so on.
Changes in gene expression are a quick way to change the nature of a population, while evolution and natural selection many require many generations to produce a change across an entire population.
The rate of change of our living conditions has vastly exceeded the ability to genetically adapt to them. I think this is why we have kids diagnosed with ADD because they can't sit quietly for hours and hours at school and why many of us can't get really relaxed unless we go into the country for at least 2 weeks, if even then.
My point here is that organisms are constantly responding and being shaped by their environment, even if a huge genetic shift doesn't occur in a human lifetime, which is very brief compared to the length of time that the Earth has had living beings on it.
LisaM22
02-22-2009, 05:23 PM
some want to say inaccuracies of the book by Darwin disproves evolution, no more true then the inaccuracies in the bible disprove god - all it proves is that the books were written by men - a log time ago, people believed in sun gods, just because they were not correct doesn't prove the sun is not real, just proves these were ideas of men - people need to learn they can believe in a god without believing in the bible and that that bible is the word of some god - just my 2 cents
as for evolution, i can accept that Darwin did not know it all and still accept that evolution is the real - wonder if those that believe in the bible can still believe in their god if they find their bible is not a factual book, but a myth based of fact and fiction intertwined? I say they can if their belief in god is stronger then their belief in the bible
Doc Holliday
02-22-2009, 06:15 PM
very true, I could accept that, but many that believe in the bible as the word of a god can not accept that, because that is not what it says in the bible
believing in a god and believing in the bible are not one and the same - those with issues believing in evolution put their belief in the bible above their belief in a god
Yes yes.. God and Darwin (or theism and Darwin) get along just fine, but some specific religious faiths and Darwin might not be very fond of each other. :)
LisaM22
02-22-2009, 08:44 PM
Yes yes.. God and Darwin (or theism and Darwin) get along just fine, but some specific religious faiths and Darwin might not be very fond of each other. :)
myths and science often find themselves at odds...
lunchlady
02-23-2009, 01:49 AM
IMHO, many people believe the increase is due to the number and severity of vaccinations our children are now receiving.
That's been studied over and over again and the studies mostly show that they don't make a difference. I would be happy if it was something so simple.
razrbladromance
02-23-2009, 02:17 AM
My views on Evolution vs. Creationism:
Both ultimately are theories. One is a religious theory, while the other scientific.
I choose the theory which is scientific. Science is tangible. Science involves facts and evidence to support the theory.
Creationism is a personal belief which involves religion. There is no tangible evidence to support creationism.
IMO as always.
My views on Evolution vs. Creationism:
Both ultimately are theories. One is a religious theory, while the other scientific.
I choose the theory which is scientific. Science is tangible. Science involves facts and evidence to support the theory.
Creationism is a personal belief which involves religion. There is no tangible evidence to support creationism.
IMO as always.
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.
[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2]
Naturalistic Darwinian evolution doesn't work according to magic; it works (ultimately) according to the fundamental laws of physics (just like everything else in this universe). If God created those laws then he created us, even though we are a product of biological evolution.
It's all a matter of perspective. God and Darwin get along just fine.
Have you ever compared evolution with the fundamental laws of physics? The first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount or energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn't change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down. This means that the universe is and always has been finite. So it must have had a beginning.
The law of causality tells us that whatever happens is caused, so what caused the universe to begin? It is [speculatively] possible that the big bang is simply the latest in a series of explosions that destroy all evidence of what came before. But that only backs the question up a few steps to "What caused the first explosion?" It is also [speculatively] possible that the steady state theory is right, that the universe had no beginning and is creating hydrogen from nothing to maintain energy without running down. But this explanation is contrary to the evidence and the law of causality.
There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. In the case of the origin of first life, either it came about by spontaneous chemical generation without intelligent intervention, or by the intervention of an intelligent being through special Creation.
Evolutionists believe that life began in a spontaneous way from nonliving chemicals by purely natural processes. Shortly after the earth was cooled enough to allow it, they tell us, the combination of simple gases like hydrogen, nitrogen, ammonia, and carbon dioxide reacted to form elementary amino acids, which in time developed into DNA chains and finally cells. Of course, this is said to have taken several billion years and the extra energy of the sun, volcanic activity, lightning, and cosmic rays were needed to keep the process going. Experimentation begun by Stanley Miller arid Harold Urey has attempted to reconstruct these conditions and has had success in producing various amino acids needed for life. From this, much of the scientific community has concluded that the spontaneous chemical generation of life from a pre biotic soup is the way life began.
There are, however, some very good reasons to reject this view. First, the early earth conditions necessary to produce life are just as likely to destroy it. The experimental work has shown that no oxygen can be present for the reaction to work. Also, the energy needed from the sun and cosmic radiation are damaging to the very substances produced. Under the conditions required for life to have arisen spontaneously, it is more likely that the elements would be destroyed faster than they could be produced. Even if the right chemicals could be produced, no satisfactory answer has been given for how they could have been arranged properly and been enclosed in a cell wall. This would require another set of conditions altogether.
What could explain the sudden appearance of life and also provide for the informational organization of living matter? If we apply the principle of uniformity (analogy) to the question, the only cause that we know routinely does this kind of work in the present is intelligence. The reasonable assumption is that it also required intelligence to do it in the past. Uniform experience proves this to us and, as Hume said, "As a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof from the nature of the fact" that the information inherent in living things required an intelligent cause. Since it is not possible that we are speaking of human intelligence, or even living beings in the natural sense, it had to be a supernatural intelligence. Once it is admitted that there is a radical disjunction from nothing to something at the beginning of the universe, there can be little objection to the idea of another intervention when the evidence clearly points to it.
But what of the fossil evidence that has been so widely proclaimed? Darwin recognized this as a problem as well and wrote in “The Origin of Species,” "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." [Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859), p. 280] In the 150 years since Darwin wrote, the situation has only become worse for his theory. Noted Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has written, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History May 1977, p. 14]
Eldredge and Tattersall agree, saying:
“Expectation colored perception to such an extent that the most obvious single fact about biological evolution—non-change—has seldom, if ever, been incorporated into anyone's scientific notions of how life actually evolves. If ever there was a myth, it is that evolution is a process of constant change.” [Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 8]
What does the fossil record suggest? Evolutionists like Gould now support what creationists like Agassiz, Gish, and others have said all along:
“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
“1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
“2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’" [Gould, op. cit. pp. 13-14]
The fossil evidence clearly gives a picture of mature, fully functional creatures suddenly appearing and staying very much the same. There is no real indication that one form of life transforms into a completely different form.
Now that we have new evidence about the nature of the universe, the information stored in DNA molecules, and further fossil confirmation, the words of Louis Agassiz resound even more loudly than they did when first written in 1860: "[Darwin] has lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which pervades the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind, and therefore intelligible to us as thinking beings, and unaccountable on any other basis than that they owe their existence to the working of intelligence; and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature." [Louis Agassiz, "Contribution to the Natural History of the United States" in American Journal of Science, 1860]
There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. The overwhelming evidence supports the Creationist view.
bacteria has a very short life span and as we have seen it has evolved in certain case to become immune to antibiotics
same with some insect and pesticide
Aren't the immune bacteria still bacteria? No new species is produced. We are constantly attacked by bacteria, which we fight off and become immune to, but we are still us, aren't we?
Fossil Gaps 3a
Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
lunchlady
02-24-2009, 08:49 PM
Aren't the immune bacteria still bacteria? No new species is produced. We are constantly attacked by bacteria, which we fight off and become immune to, but we are still us, aren't we?
A new species of bacteria doesn't take long, a whole new category of animals from one category takes a very very long time. There's no way you would see that in one human lifetime.
Doc Holliday
02-24-2009, 11:01 PM
Have you ever compared evolution with the fundamental laws of physics?
Pahu, my whole point is that there is no conflict between Darwinian evolution and belief in God.
If God created those fundamental laws of physics, then he created us even though we emerged via a process of biological evolution on this planet.
I sometimes picture God creating an unimaginably vast 'multiverse' of unimaginable numbers of universes, where observers in a single universe are forever prevented from arriving at absolute truth (the true origin of Everything) via their limited science developed by their limited minds. Such a view of creation is compatible with any cosmology - static, dynamic, and even cyclical - that science comes up with.
I find it difficult to motivate myself to present arguments in the Creation/Evolution debate. I just don't care much anymore (except when it comes to church state issues and attempts to teach "creation science" in public schools). It seems to me that most of the heat comes from atheists on one side who seem to take comfort in Darwinian evolution as supporting their atheism, and creationists on the other side who cling to a faith that is in direct conflict with evolution.
I'm convinced you are fighting a losing battle, Pahu. I am convinced evolution is a fact supported by a mountain of evidence that continues to grow day by day.
Carry on, if you must, but remember that God gets along fine with evolution. I'm sure that "creation science" will someday be seen as the falsity that it is, but belief in God will continue just fine. :)
LisaM22
02-25-2009, 01:27 AM
Pahu, my whole point is that there is no conflict between Darwinian evolution and belief in God.
<snip>
no one is saying there is, but it does conflict with the bible version of events, which for those that believe in their bible more then god, they can not accept it as it says their bible is not the words of a god, but of man
Doc Holliday
02-25-2009, 01:53 AM
no one is saying there is
I know, but my post that Pahu quoted wasn't meant to serve as an incitation for more of his/her outdated references. Not to mention that I know of no serious objection to Darwinian evolution that isn't ultimately motivated by a religious belief - specifically Christianity and increasingly Islam - where an either/or dichotomy is set up between God and evolution.
LisaM22
02-25-2009, 12:01 PM
I know, but my post that Pahu quoted wasn't meant to serve as an incitation for more of his/her outdated references. Not to mention that I know of no serious objection to Darwinian evolution that isn't ultimately motivated by a religious belief - specifically Christianity and increasingly Islam - where an either/or dichotomy is set up between God and evolution.
because Muslims, Christianity, ect... evolved from the same old testament religion it would seem to follow that some from each of those religions would not be able to believe the old testament was not 100% factual
FurthurBB
02-25-2009, 12:14 PM
because Muslims, Christianity, ect... evolved from the same old testament religion it would seem to follow that some from each of those religions would not be able to believe the old testament was not 100% factual
Islam used to be one of the most progressive religions, especially when it came to science. If it was not for Islam, Europe would have remained in the dark ages for an indefinite amount of time. It is sad to see the inventors of all modern math and science fall to the level that they have. IMO
lunchlady
02-25-2009, 01:04 PM
Islam used to be one of the most progressive religions, especially when it came to science. If it was not for Islam, Europe would have remained in the dark ages for an indefinite amount of time. It is sad to see the inventors of all modern math and science fall to the level that they have. IMO
That's an interesting thing. I think the chronic tension between religious fundamentalism and progressiveness is the source of a lot of conflict in all religions and society.
Fundamentalism pushes a religion towards being intolerant, dogmatic, rigid, violent and anti-intellectual; progressiveness pushes the same religion towards being adaptive, tolerant, and welcoming to intellectual debate.
I see the same dynamic determining how people age. Some people don't seem to incorporate one new idea or interest after the age of 25, while others keep learning and adjusting their world view their entire lives. Who would you rather hang out with?
Fundamentalists enjoy feeling morally superior and sure of themselves, while progressives are more bogged down in complexities and dilemmas and lacking in certitude. I think one of the reasons that fundamentalists sometimes rise to stations of high power is because the leadership appeal of simplicity and certitude, however misguided it may be.
I think any particular instance of fundamentalism is inevitably doomed, but it may create a lot of havoc when its in its heyday.
crocdog1
02-25-2009, 04:31 PM
that's an interesting thing. I think the chronic tension between religious fundamentalism and progressiveness is the source of a lot of conflict in all religions and society.
Fundamentalism pushes a religion towards being intolerant, dogmatic, rigid, violent and anti-intellectual; progressiveness pushes the same religion towards being adaptive, tolerant, and welcoming to intellectual debate.
I see the same dynamic determining how people age. Some people don't seem to incorporate one new idea or interest after the age of 25, while others keep learning and adjusting their world view their entire lives. Who would you rather hang out with?
Fundamentalists enjoy feeling morally superior and sure of themselves, while progressives are more bogged down in complexities and dilemmas and lacking in certitude. I think one of the reasons that fundamentalists sometimes rise to stations of high power is because the leadership appeal of simplicity and certitude, however misguided it may be.
I think any particular instance of fundamentalism is inevitably doomed, but it may create a lot of havoc when its in its heyday.
Great Post!
lunchlady
02-25-2009, 04:50 PM
Great Post!
Thanx crocdog1! :smile::blushing:
Pahu, my whole point is that there is no conflict between Darwinian evolution and belief in God.
If God created those fundamental laws of physics, then he created us even though we emerged via a process of biological evolution on this planet.
A lot of believers use that scenario attempting to reconcile evolution and the Bible and it sounds reasonable on the surface. But when examined more closely, there are some problems:
First, evolution teaches the development of life-forms with no intelligent cause. God reveals He created everything and everyone.
Second, scientific facts do not support evolution, they support creation.
I sometimes picture God creating an unimaginably vast 'multiverse' of unimaginable numbers of universes, where observers in a single universe are forever prevented from arriving at absolute truth (the true origin of Everything) via their limited science developed by their limited minds. Such a view of creation is compatible with any cosmology - static, dynamic, and even cyclical - that science comes up with.
The problems I see with your imaginary scenario is the facts don’t support it, and there can’t be more than one universe since the definition of universe is everything that exists.
I find it difficult to motivate myself to present arguments in the Creation/Evolution debate. I just don't care much anymore (except when it comes to church state issues and attempts to teach "creation science" in public schools).
What’s wrong with presenting all sides of the question of origins? Isn’t that a better, more affective and honest way to teach?
It seems to me that most of the heat comes from atheists on one side who seem to take comfort in Darwinian evolution as supporting their atheism, and creationists on the other side who cling to a faith that is in direct conflict with evolution.
I'm convinced you are fighting a losing battle, Pahu. I am convinced evolution is a fact supported by a mountain of evidence that continues to grow day by day.
Where is that mountain of evidence?
Carry on, if you must, but remember that God gets along fine with evolution. I'm sure that "creation science" will someday be seen as the falsity that it is, but belief in God will continue just fine. :)
How can an intelligent cause and an unintelligent cause be logically compatible?
Fossil Gaps 4a
“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that.” Hitching, p. 19.
“There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today.” Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Fossil Gaps 5a
“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.” George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.
“...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.” Ibid., p. 23.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Fossil Gaps 6a
“...there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.” Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.
“Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them.” Ibid., p. 266.
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils....We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.
“New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.” Ibid., p. 12.
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Fossil Gaps 7a
In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:
“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is...not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless...because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.” “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Fossil Gaps 8a
Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.
Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.
“...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
“Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.” David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.
“In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing.” Goldschmidt, p. 98.
“When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.” Ibid., p. 97.
“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
lunchlady
03-20-2009, 02:14 PM
Pahu- Your references seem to be biased and/or old, for the science world. What about all the recent news of the discovery of the development of wings or fur on otherwise reptilian fossils? Like in the last 5 years or so?
Pahu- Your references seem to be biased and/or old, for the science world. What about all the recent news of the discovery of the development of wings or fur on otherwise reptilian fossils? Like in the last 5 years or so?
Most of the scientists being quoted believe in evolution, but have discovered facts that disprove the idea. It is true that my sources are biased toward creation. The reason is the known and proven facts of physics leave no other conclusion. The problem with the evolution bias is those facts must be replaced by alternative speculations. As to your question about the development of wings or fur on otherwise reptilian fossils, you may find the following information interesting:
http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp
P.S. If old information bothers you, you should really be bothered by the information from the founder of evolution in 1859.
lunchlady
03-20-2009, 09:46 PM
It doesn't bother me that Darwin and others first hypothesized about evolution over 150 years ago, as science has built steadily on the theory since then.
I accept Genesis in a figurative way and I don't understand the need to discount mountains of scientific evidence about how the earth and its creatures have arrived at the current state we all find ourselves in. I doubt God wants us to be arguing about when it all started either. One person put it this way: "I don't believe in God, but I believe in God's computer." I think that means that the long accumulation of events on Earth that has brought us to today's situation is truly amazing and was even perhaps a planned event by some entity.
Genesis emphasizes the relationship between God and man, and between people. I think the interesting parts are the thirst for knowledge and hubris, the desire of man to hide from and be equal to God, and the roles of men and women in creation. I don't agree with all interpretations and translations and some are more beautiful than others.
It doesn't bother me that Darwin and others first hypothesized about evolution over 150 years ago, as science has built steadily on the theory since then.
That is what we have been led to believe, but when science shines its light on evolution, it is found to be unscientific.
I accept Genesis in a figurative way and I don't understand the need to discount mountains of scientific evidence about how the earth and its creatures have arrived at the current state we all find ourselves in.
What are you calling "mountains of scientific evidence"? If it is the valid evidence disproving evolution, which I have been sharing, we agree. If not, what evidence proves evolution, in your opinion?
I doubt God wants us to be arguing about when it all started either. One person put it this way: "I don't believe in God, but I believe in God's computer." I think that means that the long accumulation of events on Earth that has brought us to today's situation is truly amazing and was even perhaps a planned event by some entity.
I agree that God does not want us arguing about origins. He wants us to accept His revelation, which science confirms, by the way.
Genesis emphasizes the relationship between God and man, and between people. I think the interesting parts are the thirst for knowledge and hubris, the desire of man to hide from and be equal to God, and the roles of men and women in creation. I don't agree with all interpretations and translations and some are more beautiful than others.
The problem is not in the revelation, but in our tendency to make it/Him say what we want to believe.
Fossil Gaps 1b
At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).
b. “The prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) evolved from them, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go.... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable.” Katrin Henze and William Martin, “Essence of Mitochondria,” Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
LisaM22
03-23-2009, 07:18 PM
The Atheist Delusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU
Doc Holliday
03-23-2009, 07:36 PM
A lot of believers use that scenario attempting to reconcile evolution and the Bible and it sounds reasonable on the surface.
But I wasn't attempting to reconcile the Bible and evolution. I was talking about a philosophical theism quite apart from any specific religious belief.
But when examined more closely, there are some problems:
First, evolution teaches the development of life-forms with no intelligent cause.
But one can also hold that the intelligence of the whole thing resides at a deeper (or higher) level. In other words, no intelligent cause on earth, but an intelligent cause to the universe itself.
God reveals He created everything and everyone.
So say you. Others may say different. And still others may believe that God never had a Book written on His behalf.
The problems I see with your imaginary scenario is the facts don’t support it, and there can’t be more than one universe since the definition of universe is everything that exists.
This is just semantics. You are defining a multiverse out of existence. There's lots of ways to end up with a multiverse in science, but if you want to call it "universe" instead of "multiverse", then so be it.
What’s wrong with presenting all sides of the question of origins? Isn’t that a better, more affective and honest way to teach?
Strictly speaking, evolution isn't about the origin of life - it's about the development of life on this planet through the ages. How the very first simple life forms developed - if they developed on this planet at all - is a separate topic (abiogenesis). And, anyway, science should be taught in science, and creationism is a religious faith.
Where is that mountain of evidence?
Subscribe to science journals. Biological science continues to plod onward, day by day. I honestly don't understand how anybody can look at the history of this planet, with eyes clear and bright, not shaded by bias (religious or otherwise) and not come to the sensible conclusion that life has evolved on this planet over time, from simpler forms to more complex.
How can an intelligent cause and an unintelligent cause be logically compatible?
It's where you put the intelligence. Say, for example, that God created the universe in the "Big Bang". Then, even though life evolved on this planet via biological processes, God is still the ultimate cause or creator because He started the whole process in the Big Bang. God is the creator, then, even though purely naturalistic evolution is also true.
LisaM22
03-23-2009, 07:47 PM
But I wasn't attempting to reconcile the Bible and evolution. I was talking about a philosophical theism quite apart from any specific religious belief.
But one can also hold that the intelligence of the whole thing resides at a deeper (or higher) level. In other words, no intelligent cause on earth, but an intelligent cause to the universe itself.
So say you. Others may say different. And still others may believe that God never had a Book written on His behalf.
This is just semantics. You are defining a multiverse out of existence. There's lots of ways to end up with a multiverse in science, but if you want to call it "universe" instead of "multiverse", then so be it.
Strictly speaking, evolution isn't about the origin of life - it's about the development of life on this planet through the ages. How the very first simple life forms developed - if they developed on this planet at all - is a separate topic (abiogenesis). And, anyway, science should be taught in science, and creationism is a religious faith.
Subscribe to science journals. Biological science continues to plod onward, day by day. I honestly don't understand how anybody can look at the history of this planet, with eyes clear and bright, not shaded by bias (religious or otherwise) and not come to the sensible conclusion that life has evolved on this planet over time, from simpler forms to more complex.
It's where you put the intelligence. Say, for example, that God created the universe in the "Big Bang". Then, even though life evolved on this planet via biological processes, God is still the ultimate cause or creator because He started the whole process in the Big Bang. God is the creator, then, even though purely naturalistic evolution is also true.
well said doc, I think the belief in a god will endure, not so sure about the belief in any bible as being the word of a god though, seems more and more people are questioning that, and even those that believe in the bible, do not believe or follow everything written in it anymore
The Atheist Delusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU
Cute erroneous sarcasm does not prove evolution. Nor do the known laws of physics. On the contrary, to believe in evolution, those laws are replaced with alternative speculations--science fiction.
Streetdreamer
03-24-2009, 06:59 AM
Cute erroneous sarcasm does not prove evolution. Nor do the known laws of physics. On the contrary, to believe in evolution, those laws are replaced with alternative speculations--science fiction.
I cosign, for the most part, everything you say. I dont buy the belief that we can have an origin without an Originator. Evolution is a religion of disbelief, not a truth or fact of science. Otherwise scientists would be more inclined to reconcile the existance of a Creator rather than the absence of fossil records or the willfully misconstrued fossil records. The actual comtemplation of the existance of God is a good way to get your funding dropped. At nearly every stage, all so called evidence presented about human evolution is rife with willfull falsehoods and misrepresented facts.
As for creationism in schools, well people will dispute dogma. That being the case you're going to have to come up with a curriculum that wont dispute anyone's religion for it to be accepted. To me that sounds impossible.
LisaM22
03-24-2009, 07:23 AM
I cosign, for the most part, everything you say. I dont buy the belief that we can have an origin without an Originator. Evolution is a religion of disbelief, not a truth or fact of science. Otherwise scientists would be more inclined to reconcile the existance of a Creator rather than the absence of fossil records or the willfully misconstrued fossil records. The actual comtemplation of the existance of God is a good way to get your funding dropped. At nearly every stage, all so called evidence presented about human evolution is rife with willfull falsehoods and misrepresented facts.
As for creationism in schools, well people will dispute dogma. That being the case you're going to have to come up with a curriculum that wont dispute anyone's religion for it to be accepted. To me that sounds impossible.
so how can we have a god without a god creator? if a god can poof into existence, why not energy, seems like energy would be less complex of a poof to me - you can believe in a higher power without having to believe in the bible and the way people long ago dreamed the world was created - we know know that everything in our universe can be created from energy, everything, even you and I - Science proved that with E=mc2
I cosign, for the most part, everything you say. I dont buy the belief that we can have an origin without an Originator. Evolution is a religion of disbelief, not a truth or fact of science. Otherwise scientists would be more inclined to reconcile the existance of a Creator rather than the absence of fossil records or the willfully misconstrued fossil records. The actual comtemplation of the existance of God is a good way to get your funding dropped. At nearly every stage, all so called evidence presented about human evolution is rife with willfull falsehoods and misrepresented facts.
As for creationism in schools, well people will dispute dogma. That being the case you're going to have to come up with a curriculum that wont dispute anyone's religion for it to be accepted. To me that sounds impossible.
Welcome to the reality train. Glad to have you aboard.
so how can we have a god without a god creator? if a god can poof into existence, why not energy, seems like energy would be less complex of a poof to me - you can believe in a higher power without having to believe in the bible and the way people long ago dreamed the world was created - we know know that everything in our universe can be created from energy, everything, even you and I - Science proved that with E=mc2
Why do you believe God "poofed" into existence? All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
Just because we cannot imagine an eternal God does not disprove the scientific facts that disprove evolution.
“This question comes up a lot. The problem is that people don’t listen well to what we have to say. We didn’t say that everything needs a cause; we said everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didn’t have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. If God needed a cause, we would begin an infinite regress of cause that would never answer the question. As it is, we can’t ask, “Who caused God?” because God is the first cause. You can’t go back any farther than a first” (“When Skeptics Ask” by Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks p 29).
“If God is eternal, when did He create the world? This asks a confused question. Being in time, we can imagine a moment before the beginning of time, yet there really was no such moment. God did not create the world in time; He is responsible for the creation of time. There was no time ‘before’ time. There was only eternity. The word ‘when’ assumes that there was a time before time. This is like asking, ‘Where was the man when he jumped off the bridge?’ On the bridge? That was before he jumped. In the air? That was after. In this question, ‘when’ assumes a definite point for a process action. Jumping is the process of going from the bridge to the air. In the question about Creation, it tries to put God into time rather than starting it. We can speak of a creation of time, but not in time. (ibid. pp 31, 32).
Is it really true that everything in the universe can be created from energy? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say everything is composed of energy. So where did the energy come from? Does it make sense that it just 'poofed" into existence? Doesn't it make more sense to assume energy had a cause? Is there any known natural cause for the existence of energy? If not, the wouldn't the cause have to be supernatural?
LisaM22
03-24-2009, 06:51 PM
<snip>
Is it really true that everything in the universe can be created from energy? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say everything is composed of energy. So where did the energy come from? Does it make sense that it just 'poofed" into existence? Doesn't it make more sense to assume energy had a cause? Is there any known natural cause for the existence of energy? If not, the wouldn't the cause have to be supernatural?
where would a god come from, same questions you seem not to be able to grasp about energy, you seem to have no problem in believing about a god, I think it more sense to think energy came first, then everything else
where would a god come from, same questions you seem not to be able to grasp about energy, you seem to have no problem in believing about a god, I think it more sense to think energy came first, then everything else
My answer is in my previous post. What do you think is the cause of energy?
lunchlady
03-27-2009, 10:23 AM
When you get down to this level of the Where Did We Come From? debate its like the chicken and the egg, but much more fundamental of course.
You can ask where the energy came from that first created the universe, but you can also ask where the intelligent intentional omnipotent being came from. You can try to explain the formation of atoms and the Big Bang with physics, but how do you explain the formation of God? If you finally say you simply have faith that God was somehow there as the very first thing then you are right back to the chicken and egg dilemma. I am satisfied with God's origin being a mystery I don't need to understand, but I am also satisfied with it being a mystery where all the energy/matter came from. It doesn't make me feel more virtuous to have faith that one or other came first. But I am interested in the current physics investigation into where mass comes from.
As a personal aside, when I was kid I wondered why such an important guy like God, who had so many planets and stars to look after, took a special interest in our doings down on Earth. I imagined Earth as God's special little experiment, or that we were his pets and he liked seeing what we would do next. I even imagined that God was lonely so he created some company for himself, but of course we never really provide much intellectual challenge or good converstion for him, just parenting problems and limit setting.
Being thrown out of Eden and having to earn going to Heaven made me think that everyone on Earth is on probation. Some kids did something bad and now the whole school is being punished by the new rules.
When you get down to this level of the Where Did We Come From? debate its like the chicken and the egg, but much more fundamental of course.
You can ask where the energy came from that first created the universe, but you can also ask where the intelligent intentional omnipotent being came from. You can try to explain the formation of atoms and the Big Bang with physics, but how do you explain the formation of God? If you finally say you simply have faith that God was somehow there as the very first thing then you are right back to the chicken and egg dilemma. I am satisfied with God's origin being a mystery I don't need to understand, but I am also satisfied with it being a mystery where all the energy/matter came from. It doesn't make me feel more virtuous to have faith that one or other came first. But I am interested in the current physics investigation into where mass comes from.
As a personal aside, when I was kid I wondered why such an important guy like God, who had so many planets and stars to look after, took a special interest in our doings down on Earth. I imagined Earth as God's special little experiment, or that we were his pets and he liked seeing what we would do next. I even imagined that God was lonely so he created some company for himself, but of course we never really provide much intellectual challenge or good converstion for him, just parenting problems and limit setting.
Being thrown out of Eden and having to earn going to Heaven made me think that everyone on Earth is on probation. Some kids did something bad and now the whole school is being punished by the new rules.
You do pose some interesting questions and ideas. What you are overlooking is the scientific proof of God's existence. First, you need to prove to yourself He really does exist. Second, you need to determine where He has revealed His nature, our nature, our need for salvation, and His plan for our salvation. Let me help:
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.
[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2]
P.S. If you study His revelation, you will discover the chicken came first.
Doc Holliday
03-27-2009, 08:50 PM
What you are overlooking is the scientific proof of God's existence.
Sorry, but there is no such scientific proof. If there were, then there would be no need for faith. Everybody - all rationalists, scientists, and everybody else - would be compelled to believe in God as a matter of fact. God's existence would be as clear and factual as the existence of the sun in the sky.
God's existence is not so obvious. Most people experience doubt at some point in their lives, and many people have no belief in God at all. Such a state of affairs would not be possible if there were "scientific proof", as you say.
God remains an object of faith - not science. And there is nothing wrong with that (i.e. there is nothing wrong with having faith).
1. The universe exists.
I agree
2. The universe had a beginning.
Some cosmologies posit a beginning and some do not. Some describe a cyclical universe with eternal recurrence. And here is Sean Carroll's essay on time from fqxi in which he introduces the notion of an Heraclitean cosmology - eternal yes, but with certain characteristics that imply you never end up with recurrence!
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Carroll_fqxitimecontest.pdf
Other cosmologies consider time to be an illusion - e.g. various 'block universes'.
So, there are many ways to come up with eternal cosmologies in which your previous point about 'infinite regression of causes' is simply no longer valid.
8. Life exists.
I agree
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
I disagree. Abiogenesis is a continuing field of study. I think the earliest and simplest self-replicating system that could possibly be called "life" may very well have emerged from a previous non-life physical system. In fact, the boundary between simple life and simple physical system may be extremely blurry indeed.
Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
There are speculations and theories and so forth. Most scientists - if they are true to the spirit of science - are agnostic about the veracity of theories which haven't been verified by experiment or physical evidence. We don't know exactly how the very first and simplest self-replicating biological system got started - but some day we may know. We don't know which cosmology is 'true' -but some day we may know. Some day loop quantum gravity or string theory or some other as-of-yet unknown theory may be proven by experiment. Time will tell.
Faith is faith and science is science, and, to repeat myself, there is nothing wrong with faith. There are some things in science today (e.g. anthropic considerations in physics) which might persuade a person to take a leap of faith and believe in God. That's fine. But to claim scientific proof of God is just plain wrong.
lunchlady
03-28-2009, 04:58 PM
I was just thinking that one of the reasons for disagreement here is not exactly about creation or God or evolution.
I feel comfortable not feeling certain about it all, although I lean towards evolution being proven rather than disproven.
I find certitude in general a comfortable but questionable position. Life is complex and human understanding is limited, so accepting mystery and ambiguity is generally less exhausting.
Certitude is a better political strategy and people tend to choose leaders who seem confident, no matter how misguided they turn out to be. Followers are often looking for simplification of the issues and a confident leader makes the path seem clear.
MercedesV
03-28-2009, 06:19 PM
March 28, 2009 | Language matters. And we are lucky that some people will go to the mat over a few words. In Austin, Texas, this week, scientists and creationists battled over whether to include the words "strengths and weaknesses" in the state's official statement about evolution. The words would influence how evolution is taught in Texas classrooms and would be immortalized in Lone Star textbooks. As the largest textbook market in the country, the decision could pressure other high school textbook publishers to conform to Texas standards.
http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/03/28/texas_evolution_case/
Brentwood
03-28-2009, 09:00 PM
I stongly disagree w/the anti-science groups who promote creationism over science and want children taught this falsehood. It is like teaching children that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I couldn't disagree more.
FurthurBB
03-29-2009, 01:18 AM
Cute erroneous sarcasm does not prove evolution. Nor do the known laws of physics. On the contrary, to believe in evolution, those laws are replaced with alternative speculations--science fiction.
Using erroneous information in the beginning will give you no answers. it is quite sad to see, actually. IMO
Amy Thist
03-29-2009, 08:10 AM
One thing that I always puzzled about was that if you belive in creationism that means that Adam and Eve's children were very busy procreating with each other. I don't mean to be offensive but how do you explain the population of the planet? Does anyone have an answer to this?:confused:
lunchlady
03-29-2009, 02:39 PM
[QUOTE=Will;12945114]:w00t: If not so ridiculous to be teaching that flat world nonsense to students, it would almost be amusing that Texas, the home of no student left behind, could be so flat freaking backward. And, question evolution? How soon they forget.
Maybe since Texas looks so flat they still think the Earth is flat?
doctor_J
03-30-2009, 02:42 AM
I was just thinking that one of the reasons for disagreement here is not exactly about creation or God or evolution.
I feel comfortable not feeling certain about it all, although I lean towards evolution being proven rather than disproven.
I find certitude in general a comfortable but questionable position. Life is complex and human understanding is limited, so accepting mystery and ambiguity is generally less exhausting.
Certitude is a better political strategy and people tend to choose leaders who seem confident, no matter how misguided they turn out to be. Followers are often looking for simplification of the issues and a confident leader makes the path seem clear.
Great Post, very thoughtful. And I agree.
Someone said "Religion is the opiate of the masses". I'll have to look it up unless someone coughs it up for me.
doctor_J
03-30-2009, 02:55 AM
Karl Marx. I'm just quessing here that he was atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_People
lunchlady
03-30-2009, 10:16 AM
Great Post, very thoughtful. And I agree.
Someone said "Religion is the opiate of the masses". I'll have to look it up unless someone coughs it up for me.
Thank doctor J!
I partially agree with Marx, but people have such a strong drive for the religious experience that I don't think that religion can or should simply be eliminated. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The problem I have with some examples of religion is how artificial and institutional they are. Add a few hucksters who want to be rich or famous or powerful and you have an organization which is going to lead a lot of people astray and pick their pockets.
The desire to follow a religious path and a religious leader sometimes makes people blind to problems, even willfully blind. Christians are sometimes easy to lead by the nose because they have learned about the virtues of having faith, being forgiving, not throwing the first stone, turning the other cheek, and so on. The reverence for the Bible and anyone who holds themselves up as an interpreter of it makes them believe almost anything you could possibly construe from the old texts.
That all said I continue to try and find comfort and meaning from the Bible and other places. Life is truly profound and there is much to learn in our hearts. I think religion is one of the places you can see how humans came to be where they are now, with searching and questioning as a basic part of that religious impulse.
Sorry, but there is no such scientific proof [for the existence of God]. If there were, then there would be no need for faith. Everybody - all rationalists, scientists, and everybody else - would be compelled to believe in God as a matter of fact. God's existence would be as clear and factual as the existence of the sun in the sky.
Where did the sun come from?
God's existence is not so obvious. Most people experience doubt at some point in their lives, and many people have no belief in God at all. Such a state of affairs would not be possible if there were "scientific proof", as you say.
God remains an object of faith - not science. And there is nothing wrong with that (i.e. there is nothing wrong with having faith).
I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening. My faith is based on observation and experience. I have demonstrated God’s existence using the same tools. The fact that many people refuse to accept the facts does not refute them. Instead, it is a commentary on the fact that human nature will usually believe what it wants regardless of the facts.
Some cosmologies posit a beginning [of the universe] and some do not. Some describe a cyclical universe with eternal recurrence. And here is Sean Carroll's essay on time from fqxi in which he introduces the notion of an Heraclitean cosmology - eternal yes, but with certain characteristics that imply you never end up with recurrence!
Other cosmologies consider time to be an illusion - e.g. various 'block universes'.
So, there are many ways to come up with eternal cosmologies in which your previous point about 'infinite regression of causes' is simply no longer valid.
The words “posit, notion and consider” are ways to replace known physics with alternative speculations. Science uses hypotheses in an effort to explain phenomenon, and when tested they are either rejected or become theory, depending on their validity. Established physics are always open to further consideration. In the meantime, we must use what we know. That is what I am doing.
Another word you use is “notion” regarding Sean Carroll's essay on time from fqxi, and that’s all it is. Various 'block universes' is another notion that ignores the definition of “universe”, which means everything that exists. Doesn’t that rule out other universes?
I disagree [that Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis). Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Abiogenesis is a continuing field of study. I think the earliest and simplest self-replicating system that could possibly be called "life" may very well have emerged from a previous non-life physical system. In fact, the boundary between simple life and simple physical system may be extremely blurry indeed.
In the world of fiction, many things “may very well have” happened. But in the world of known biology, life always comes from pre-existing life. That fact has never been refuted in the field or laboratory.
There are speculations and theories and so forth. Most scientists - if they are true to the spirit of science - are agnostic about the veracity of theories which haven't been verified by experiment or physical evidence.
True, and that’s why those that are verified are accepted by those who are willing to go where the facts lead. Those who aren’t, continue to believe what makes them comfortable.
We don't know exactly how the very first and simplest self-replicating biological system got started - but some day we may know. We don't know which cosmology is 'true' -but some day we may know. Some day loop quantum gravity or string theory or some other as-of-yet unknown theory may be proven by experiment. Time will tell.
“Some day” is an example of unsupported faith, but not science, isn’t it?
Faith is faith and science is science, and, to repeat myself, there is nothing wrong with faith. There are some things in science today (e.g. anthropic considerations in physics) which might persuade a person to take a leap of faith and believe in God. That's fine. But to claim scientific proof of God is just plain wrong.
It is only “just plain wrong” for those unwilling to accept known facts that threaten their pre-conceptions.
Doc Holliday
04-01-2009, 12:35 AM
Where did the sun come from?
My point was that if there was "scientific proof" of God's existence, as you said, then everybody would believe in Him, not because of a leap of faith but rather because of rational reasons. Just as every (normal) human on this planet acknowledges that the sun exists, so also every (normal) human would acknowledge that God exists, if there was "scientific proof" of His existence.
"Scientific proof" isn't as well-defined as "mathematical proof", and we may very well have different ideas of what it means.
The words “posit, notion and consider” are ways to replace known physics with alternative speculations. Science uses hypotheses in an effort to explain phenomenon, and when tested they are either rejected or become theory, depending on their validity. Established physics are always open to further consideration. In the meantime, we must use what we know. That is what I am doing.
Another word you use is “notion” regarding Sean Carroll's essay on time from fqxi, and that’s all it is. Various 'block universes' is another notion that ignores the definition of “universe”, which means everything that exists. Doesn’t that rule out other universes?
If I recall what I was talking about (not so easy a task, sometimes), I was just responding to your seemingly confident belief that the universe had a beginning. It seems to me that science today isn't so sure about that, which is why I pointed out the various cosmological theories including Carroll's essay on time.
I meant to say "various block universe theories"... not "various block universes". In a block universe time doesn't really exist.
In the world of fiction, many things “may very well have” happened. But in the world of known biology, life always comes from pre-existing life. That fact has never been refuted in the field or laboratory.
Just because it hasn't been observed in the field, nor replicated in the lab, doesn't mean it didn't happen on the ancient earth billions of years ago.
Science progresses and I think they will have a very good idea of how the first "proto-cell" might have developed on the ancient earth.
There were reports last year of successful creation of "proto-cells" in the lab. They continue to make progress.
Nature took millions of years running millions of chemical experiments in the gigantic chemical lab that was the ancient earth before the first stable self-replicating cells formed, but scientists today may very well be rapidly closing in on the solution to the mystery of how the very first simple life arose from non-life.
Just because [life coming from non-living matter] hasn't been observed in the field, nor replicated in the lab, doesn't mean it didn't happen on the ancient earth billions of years ago.
Why would you cling to that belief unless you want it to be true regardless of the contrary evidence.
Science progresses and I think they will have a very good idea of how the first "proto-cell" might have developed on the ancient earth.
So your belief is based on hopeful faith, not science?
There were reports last year of successful creation of "proto-cells" in the lab. They continue to make progress.
I found a discussion between Carl Wieland and biochemist and head of nuclear medicine at Singapore General Hospital, Dr. Aw who says it is becoming even more difficult to believe that the first cell was produced by evolution. What follows are excerpts from that exchange. You can read the full exchange at: http://creation.com/chemical-soup-is-not-your-ancestor-creation-magazine
Q. Dr Aw, you’re obviously familiar in your field of biochemistry with theories of how chemicals allegedly evolved into the ‘first cell.’ How would you rate the best of these from a scientific viewpoint?
A. Very poorly. There have been many such evolutionary theories, from the early days down to the present period. But the difficulties have not decreased, they have increased, because the more we know about the cell, the more difficult it is to imagine that such an intricate thing could have just evolved by sheer random process over time without any directive force.
Q. Many theistic evolutionists I know of will not even allow God to at least create the first cell: they hold to chemical ‘chance’ evolution theories, but still somehow involve God.
A. That is an interesting point. I think it is because for them to admit that God directly created the first cell, they might as well admit that God created everything directly.
Q. Why is that?
A. Because a cell is already so complex; the more you know the cell the more you marvel at the intricacies, the regulatory mechanisms, the self-preservation of the cell which is inbuilt in addition to its complexity.
Q. What about the belief that, ‘OK, today’s cells are very complex, but maybe the first one didn’t have to be that complex,’ is that a logical position?
A. This concept of the ‘protocell,’ it’s sheer nonsense because a cell by definition must have enormous metabolic complexity or it will not survive. It’s not just a bag of protoplasm with just fluid and a few salts and bits of furniture floating around, but it’s built to control itself and propagate itself and for that there must be a minimum complexity which is the problem for ‘chemical evolution.’
Q. Could you compare the minimum complexity of a self-reproducing ‘first cell’ to some machine that we would all be familiar with?
A. There is no comparison at all, because if you look at the ‘simplest’ known cell, say a bacterium, it is acknowledged by the best microbiologists and biochemists that such cells are extremely complex, with self-diagnosis and repair systems, and incredibly complex mechanisms which are still not fully understood. People can spend their lifetime just studying the cell membrane; entire departments in universities study just the chemical ‘pumps’ that keep the integrity of the membrane. I don’t see how anybody can say there is such a thing as a protocell, there just isn’t such an animal and could never have been.
Q. What if you had all of the raw materials necessary to construct a cell and you just threw them together into a random jumbled pile, would it just assemble itself by its own properties?
A. No, the presence of building materials is one thing, the requirement of the plan to put these building materials in the proper places and get them working together is another thing. That’s why a cell is so beautiful, so intricate. Because of that, even non-Christian scientists marvel at that. Even to get one single functional protein molecule to form by chance is a mathematical absurdity. Sir Fred Hoyle recognized this. He teased his colleagues, told them to put all the raw ingredients in a swimming pool, and see if they get one single molecule needed. Of course no one will take him up, because they know it won’t work.
Dr. Aw was Associate Professor of Biochemistry, University of Singapore up to 1978. He is head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine and Director of Clinical Research at Singapore General Hospital. Author of around 30 technical papers in his field of biochemistry and nuclear medicine, he has authored a critique of origin-of-life theories titled Chemical Evolution—An Examination of Current Ideas (available from Creation Science Foundation).
Nature took millions of years running millions of chemical experiments in the gigantic chemical lab that was the ancient earth before the first stable self-replicating cells formed,
That scenario is presently quite popular, but the evidence supporting it is skimpy to non-existent.
but scientists today may very well be rapidly closing in on the solution to the mystery of how the very first simple life arose from non-life.
I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Fossil Gaps 1c
Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants (c), between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects (d), between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones) (e), between fish and amphibians (f), between amphibians and reptiles (g), between reptiles and mammals (h), between reptiles and birds (i), between primates and other mammals (j), and between apes and other primates (k).
c. If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.
[i] “The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] [i] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissue—that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants] [i]—although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] [i] fossil record.” Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.
[i] “The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known...” Ibid.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Doc Holliday
04-01-2009, 11:00 PM
Why would you cling to that belief unless you want it to be true regardless of the contrary evidence.
Who is clinging to beliefs contrary to the evidence, Pahu?
Read what I wrote again; it was a simple logically-consistent statement (well, except for the fact I used the word "ancient" wrong).
Just because the transition from chemical reactions to simple biological life hasn't been seen in the field yet, nor replicated in the lab yet, doesn't mean that it didn't happen on the earth billions of years ago, and, in fact, I consider such a thing to be eminently reasonable.
So your belief is based on hopeful faith, not science?
Again, read what I wrote. I was making a prediction. I don't know that life first formed on the earth. Maybe it was formed in space somehow and fell to earth. Maybe extraterrestrials landed in a spaceship and seeded the area with the first simple life. Maybe I'm just a Boltzmann Brain formed from the random fluctuations of molecules in a stellar cloud in the Andromeda galaxy and nobody else really exists. Maybe we are all in the Matrix. Maybe Genesis is literally true as you probably believe.
My opinion is that the most likely and reasonable explanation of the origin of life on this planet is that chemical reactions on the young earth grew more complex and eventually gave rise, somehow, to the very first simple self-replicating system that could be called 'biological'.
I found a discussion between Carl Wieland and biochemist and head of nuclear medicine at Singapore General Hospital, Dr. Aw who says it is becoming even more difficult to believe that the first cell was produced by evolution.
Pahu, that was 15 years ago. The lab experiments I was talking about took place in 2008.
I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Trust me, I'm not. I wouldn't cry any tears if science is unable to convincingly demonstrate how chemical reactions gave rise to simple biological systems.
I'm willing to live with mystery. I'm willing to live with doubt. I'm willing to say I might be wrong. I'm willing to shift my position as new data comes in.
Are you, Pahu?
Who is clinging to beliefs contrary to the evidence, Pahu?
Read what I wrote again; it was a simple logically-consistent statement (well, except for the fact I used the word "ancient" wrong).
Just because the transition from chemical reactions to simple biological life hasn't been seen in the field yet, nor replicated in the lab yet, doesn't mean that it didn't happen on the earth billions of years ago, and, in fact, I consider such a thing to be eminently reasonable.
How can you logically consider something to be eminently reasonable when the facts say it isn’t?
Again, read what I wrote. I was making a prediction. I don't know that life first formed on the earth. Maybe it was formed in space somehow and fell to earth. Maybe extraterrestrials landed in a spaceship and seeded the area with the first simple life. Maybe I'm just a Boltzmann Brain formed from the random fluctuations of molecules in a stellar cloud in the Andromeda galaxy and nobody else really exists. Maybe we are all in the Matrix. Maybe Genesis is literally true as you probably believe.
Isn’t human imagination remarkable?
My opinion is that the most likely and reasonable explanation of the origin of life on this planet is that chemical reactions on the young earth grew more complex and eventually gave rise, somehow, to the very first simple self-replicating system that could be called 'biological'.
And yet no one can reproduce that scenario.
Pahu, that was 15 years ago. The lab experiments I was talking about took place in 2008.
I think you are referring to experiments in protocells. Here is some information I found on that subject: http://creation.com/chemical-soup-is-not-your-ancestor
I wouldn't cry any tears if science is unable to convincingly demonstrate how chemical reactions gave rise to simple biological systems.
I'm willing to live with mystery. I'm willing to live with doubt. I'm willing to say I might be wrong. I'm willing to shift my position as new data comes in.
Are you, Pahu?
Yes. That is why I believe as I do. I believed in evolution until I was 39 simply because I accepted what I had been taught without checking it out. Then I began looking into it and found it isn’t true. The mistake we make is assuming what we believe is absolutely true. Churches are a good example of this error. That’s why there are so many that believe different contradictory things based on the same source. I’ve been kicked out of a few of them trying to convince them they are wrong. It’s like trying to reason with a brick wall, or an evolutionist, or an atheist. The attitude seems to be: “To hell with the facts, I will believe whatever makes me comfortable!”
LisaM22
04-02-2009, 05:42 PM
funny, you can believe a god popped into existence and then created everything, but can't believe with time energy became mater which with time became life? which seems more likely?
funny, you can believe a god popped into existence and then created everything, but can't believe with time energy became mater which with time became life? which seems more likely?
If we consider the known facts of science, life has never been demonstrated to come from non-living matter, nor has anyone ever been able to reproduce such an event in the lab.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]
It is erroneous to assume God “popped into existence.” God reveals He has always existed and always will. There is proof that He exists:
Join me on an imaginary trip into the past—way back into the past. Let’s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist, and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars out there burning with radioactive energy including our own sun. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning.
So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now, let’s take another step into the past. Let’s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well, we should expect to find nothing, shouldn’t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing, there is nothing but totally empty space.
But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? Space is the absence of everything. But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It can’t end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities, and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.
As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness, the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us nothing comes from nothing. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.
Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experiment, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I’ve never seen one that is based on observation, experience, experiment, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
6. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind
(the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes”(From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5).
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.
[Excerpts from “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2]
LisaM22
04-02-2009, 06:45 PM
If we consider the known facts of science, life has never been demonstrated to come from non-living matter, nor has anyone ever been able to reproduce such an event in the lab.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]
It is erroneous to assume God “popped into existence.” God reveals He has always existed and always will. There is proof that He exists:
Join me on an imaginary trip into the past—way back into the past. Let’s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist, and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars out there burning with radioactive energy including our own sun. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning.
So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now, let’s take another step into the past. Let’s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well, we should expect to find nothing, shouldn’t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing, there is nothing but totally empty space.
But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? Space is the absence of everything. But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It can’t end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities, and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.
As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness, the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us nothing comes from nothing. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.
Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experiment, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I’ve never seen one that is based on observation, experience, experiment, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
6. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind
(the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes”(From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5).
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.
[Excerpts from “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2]
if you use your same arguments about god then you have proved he doesn't exist..... I think there is a higher power, I do not think this higher power wrote a book though, I think man wrote the book using his imagination, nothing more - if we use the logic that there always had to be something before, then we can not know what was first cause there will always be a before....
natural selection is a fact, if there is or is not a god, as long as their is radiation, our gene code will keep changing with time, time on a large scale will cause many changes
Doc Holliday
04-03-2009, 01:20 AM
I’ve been kicked out of a few of them trying to convince them they are wrong.
Of that, Pahu, I don't have the slightest bit of doubt. :)
lunchlady
04-03-2009, 10:08 AM
funny, you can believe a god popped into existence and then created everything, but can't believe with time energy became mater which with time became life? which seems more likely?
I think its more likely that the energy-matter-life progression is what happened. In fact I would add to that: energy-matter-life-man-God. If you define God as the energy that makes bits of matter vibrate and turn into other things then you can put God at the beginning. If you insist on God being the Big Guy in the Sky then I think he comes after man.
One definition I've seen of love is the force that makes everything grow, Mother Nature enthusiastically forming living things from the 100 or so elements. I think you could substitute God for Mother Nature, and then sing the song "God is Love".
I think its more likely that the energy-matter-life progression is what happened. In fact I would add to that: energy-matter-life-man-God. If you define God as the energy that makes bits of matter vibrate and turn into other things then you can put God at the beginning. If you insist on God being the Big Guy in the Sky then I think he comes after man.
One definition I've seen of love is the force that makes everything grow, Mother Nature enthusiastically forming living things from the 100 or so elements. I think you could substitute God for Mother Nature, and then sing the song "God is Love".
But where did those elements come from?
lunchlady
04-03-2009, 04:02 PM
But where did those elements come from?
I think this discussion has reached an agree-to-disagree point, at least for me.
If you understood my previous posts you would know my answer to your question.
LisaM22
04-03-2009, 04:44 PM
But where did those elements come from?
where would a god come from? .... seems it would be easier to believe in the beginning those elements came into existence then a god would it not?
LisaM22
04-03-2009, 04:46 PM
I think its more likely that the energy-matter-life progression is what happened. In fact I would add to that: energy-matter-life-man-God. If you define God as the energy that makes bits of matter vibrate and turn into other things then you can put God at the beginning. If you insist on God being the Big Guy in the Sky then I think he comes after man.
One definition I've seen of love is the force that makes everything grow, Mother Nature enthusiastically forming living things from the 100 or so elements. I think you could substitute God for Mother Nature, and then sing the song "God is Love".
I agree...
where would a god come from? .... seems it would be easier to believe in the beginning those elements came into existence then a god would it not?
Not if you think about it. When we speak of elements, aren’t we speaking of the physical? How would physical elements come from nothing? Could they produce themselves before they existed? Worse yet, Isn’t the whole universe composed of physical elements? Do you know of any natural cause for anything coming from nothing? Doesn’t that suggest a supernatural cause?
Where did He come from? All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence. This is exactly what He reveals in His Holy Bible. He is eternal. He had no beginning and has no end. But how is that possible? I don’t know and I suspect we cannot know in our present limited condition.
Join me on an imaginary trip into the past—way back into the past. Let’s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist, and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars out there burning with radioactive energy including our own sun. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning.
So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now, let’s take another step into the past. Let’s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well, we should expect to find nothing, shouldn’t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing, there is nothing but totally empty space.
But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? Space is the absence of everything. But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It can’t end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities, and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.
As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness, the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us nothing comes from nothing. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.
Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experiment, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I’ve never seen one that is based on observation, experience, experiment, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.
[from “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2]
Fossil Gaps 2c
“It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.” Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.
“... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell [the death signal] of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink.” E. J. H. Corner, “Evolution,” Contemporary Botanical Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
LisaM22
04-06-2009, 10:40 PM
M-theory explains the before of our universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
"Theory "M" - Parallel Universe Theory"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsWJ8NywSk
LisaM22
04-06-2009, 10:42 PM
"Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crQvu4NygAc&feature=related
LisaM22
04-06-2009, 10:44 PM
Not if you think about it. When we speak of elements, aren’t we speaking of the physical? How would physical elements come from nothing? Could they produce themselves before they existed? Worse yet, Isn’t the whole universe composed of physical elements? Do you know of any natural cause for anything coming from nothing? Doesn’t that suggest a supernatural cause?
<snip>
sure didn't happen like the bible suggested, thus proving the bible is mans creation - if elements can't come from nothing, then how do you explain a god coming from nothing?
Doc Holliday
04-07-2009, 07:26 PM
M-theory explains the before of our universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
"Theory "M" - Parallel Universe Theory"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsWJ8NywSk
M theory is pretty speculative. All of string theory has evolved to a point where many people question whether it's even science anymore (actually, that's been the case for a few years now, with books like "Not even wrong" by Woit and "The Trouble with Physics" by Smolin).
I suppose time will tell how things shake out. I think Turok and Steinhardt give an example of a testable prediction for their theory on their website: http://endlessuniverse.net/
[A supernatural cause of the universe] sure didn't happen like the bible suggested, thus proving the bible is mans creation
Your conclusion is based on the same premise: that since God didn’t write the Bible, the universe didn’t occur the way the Bible claims, and therefore the Bible is man’s creation. Since there is no natural cause for the existence of the universe from nothing, the cause must be supernatural. Whether or not God is the author of the Bible is a separate topic.
One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. If it were written by men, how did they accomplish this. These future predictions are called “prophecies.” The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God’s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other “sacred writing” has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.
There are many prophecies that have been proven through archaeology, especially prophecy dealing with entire nations. Typically, when God declared judgment on a nation, He would send a prophet to announce to the citizens why He was judging them and what He was going to do to them if they continued their evil behavior. On occasion, God would also tell the citizens how He would reward them if they started doing what was right. The book of Jonah records a case where the Assyrians stopped doing what was evil as a result of Jonah’s short prophecy. This is what God wanted, and God did not punish them as a result of their change of heart. However, most often the people would jeer at God’s prophet and continue their bad behavior—later becoming recipients of the exact punishment that God threatened.
Like other prophecy recorded in the Bible, these predictions support the supernatural inspiration of the Bible. The prophecies recorded in the Bible came true in such a detailed way that they could not have been predicted by chance. Further, archaeologists have evidence that these prophecies were written down many years before they were fulfilled, proving that they were not falsified documents claiming to be prophecies that came true. (The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls stopped the majority of that talk.)
Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence (the evidence of early hand written copies). The famous Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the “library” of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier (third century BC) and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind today’s Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where one would expect errors to creep in).
Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity (a document written before the printing press). These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible (Old and New Testaments). The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century (100-199) AD These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree. (That is, those differences that we do observe between these hand written documents are occasional changes in the spelling of names or isolated cases of missing or changed words. Still, since we have so many copies, it is obvious to anyone but the hardened skeptic that they all represent the same text.)
Special proof exists for the New Testament, since Christians were strongly persecuted by both the Jews and the Roman government. If the New Testament writings were false, these two groups would have produced a great deal of evidence to stop the growth of this “sect.” None exists. Further, the New Testament writings (before they were assembled into the “book” we call the New Testament) circulated during the lifetimes of thousands of people who had actually seen Jesus’ miracles and other historic events. No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as “fairy tales.”
if elements can't come from nothing, then how do you explain a god coming from nothing?
God is not an element. He created all elements. Also, He reveals He has always existed. He is eternal.
Fossil Gaps 3c
“The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.” Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.
“The origin of angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.” Colin Patterson et al., “Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Fossil Gaps 1d-f
d. “The insect fossil record has many gaps.” “Insects: Insect Fossil Record,” Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).
e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:
“As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.” Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.
“How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.” Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.
“Origin of the vertebrates is obscure—there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.” Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.
f. “...there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” Taylor, p. 60.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Fossil Gaps 1g
g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition” occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.
[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]
It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.]
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Doc Holliday
04-14-2009, 07:48 PM
In case anybody is interested, Jerry Coyne has a book out called "Why Evolution is True", published in January of this year.
Here is his blog: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
I haven't read it, but I've heard some good things about it.
LisaM22
04-14-2009, 08:55 PM
Fossil Gaps 1g
g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition” occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.
[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]
It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.]
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
to understand your question you must understand the code, dna code, the differences you state are such a small difference when it comes to the code as the previous post points out - it's hard to believe anyone out there still believes in creation as written in the bible, it's like the whole flat earth or were the center of the universe and everything revolves around us all over again, time to accept the facts
evolution is fact, though exactly how we evolved through time is just a theory
...
LisaM22
04-15-2009, 05:01 AM
Maybe the way we evolved is not at odds with the story of creation, because it has man as the last of the creations, with life in the seas being first, much the same as evolutionists believe it happened.
The Bible doesn't go into any details of exactly how things were created, but does give an order in which it happened, much like the order in which evolutionists beileive things happened.
If there is a similiarity with the order in which life came into being, on this planet, between evolution and Creation, which was written about long before anyone ever considered evolution, is it just a coincidence, or could those that wrote about Creation actually know something about how man came about?
it works for those Muslims and Christians that do not take everything in the OLD Testament as god given facts, were really only referring to the fanatics that think everything in the bible is 100% fact (example, do you believe a god took out a rib from Adam to make Eve? - do you believe giving birth is painful because of Eve?)
dref99
04-15-2009, 09:07 AM
The title of the thread indicates whoever made the statement has no understanding of science whatsoever.
Creationism is a fairy story/folk lore story/religious story, to calm those in past times, bothered by the unknown, not to mention to keep the masses in line by demanding their subservience to a higher being. It would give authority to the "divine right of Kings". We have evolved past the stage of having to believe this story. Some folks like to continue to believe it (Children still believe in Santa) - sobeit - but to suggest that science can be used to "disprove" the theory of evolution is past the realms of santa claus and somewhere close to la la land.
That anyone, enjoying the benefits of Western Culture in the 21st century can spread this nonsense is mindboggling and scarry and very insulting to the average person's intelligence.
moo - but backed by Science - the definitive theory -
http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-origin-of-species-by-means-of-natural-selection/
Fossil Gaps 1h-i
h. “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.” Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
i. “The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.” W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds,” Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.
Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.
A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds,” Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267–1270.] In that report, “Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.” [Ann Gibbons, “Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood,” Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]
Bird and theropod “hands” differ. Theropods have “fingers” I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger” and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds.” [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand,” Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “...this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy.” [Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?” Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Fossil Gaps 2i-k
Theropod “arms” (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.
“...most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx [the supposed first bird].” Hinchliffe, p. 597.
Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.
j. “When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural....It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known...” William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25–26.
“The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record.” A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.
“Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.” Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.
k. “At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids.” Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
Fossil Gaps 1l
In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).
l. “It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.” Nilsson, p. 1212.
“...experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting.” Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History), “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Adventures in Earth History, editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644–645.
“A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known.” Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 302.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
spidereater
04-24-2009, 05:59 PM
sorry, Pahu, i know you were just about to post this, seeing as how you are so interested in both sides of the story - and science in general - but here it is: Arctic fossil points to missing link between seals and land mammals (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/04/22/tech-090422-pujila-fossil-seal.html)
and, please, don't wait for www.creationscience.com to tell you what you should think about this news. give us your take on it right away - i'm waiting on pins and needles!!!
sorry, Pahu, i know you were just about to post this, seeing as how you are so interested in both sides of the story - and science in general - but here it is: Arctic fossil points to missing link between seals and land mammals (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/04/22/tech-090422-pujila-fossil-seal.html)
and, please, don't wait for www.creationscience.com to tell you what you should think about this news. give us your take on it right away - i'm waiting on pins and needles!!!
For starters I think Natalia Rybczynski is quite attractive. And she is obviously intelligent and educated in her chosen field of paleontology.
Whether or not the remains of the animal (Puijila darwini) she found is related to seals remains a matter of speculation in my humble opinion. We are not told how she came to that conclusion.
Whether or not this is a missing link between seals and land animals seems to be speculation. The idea seems to be based on similarities between it and seals, and not much more.
There is also speculation that Puijila darwini lived about 23 million years ago, which places it beyond any examination of science using the modern scientific method, which requires a controlled environment where the event can be repeated over and over and over again, observation made of it, data drawn from it, and hypothesis (not fact!) empirically verified.
What can be used is the Evidential/Historical method used to solve crimes. Legal proof is based upon showing that something is true or a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The scientific method can only be used to prove repeatable events, but is not adequate for people or events within history, although science can be used to determine matching DNA, fingerprints, bullet grooves, etc.
Placing Puijila darwini 23 million yeas ago is based on dating techniques proven to be flawed. The fact that Rybczynski found the first bone fragment lying at her feet on the surface could indicate this animal didn’t die too long ago. Perhaps there are living specimens that haven’t yet been found.
Remember the discovery of living Coelacanths living contentedly off the coast of northern Tanzania 140 million years after they supposedly became extinct? That fossil was dated after being found in quarry in southern West Germany. Also, there is no change from that supposed ancient fossil to those living specimens found today.
The coelacanths were thought to be a link between fishes and amphibians, but extensive examination of living specimens proved that notion to be incorrect.
Missing Trunk 1
The “evolutionary tree” has no trunk. In what evolutionists call the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified (a), and dispersed—worldwide (b).
a. “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348.
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.” Ibid., p. 344.
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” Ibid., p. 350.
“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” Ibid., p. 351.
“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time...The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65.
“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 229.
Richard Monastersky, “Mysteries of the Orient,” Discover, April 1993, pp. 38–48.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#wp1064364
LisaM22
05-01-2009, 01:59 AM
evolution is fact, we see it in bacteria, flue strains, life evolves, were just trying to understand the details of how life evolved on this planet over the years at this point, I think most have moved beyond the creation myths...
many faiths have told their followers they can not believe in their god unless they believe all their stories, not true at all, you can believe in a higher power without believing in a religions stories
evolution is fact, we see it in bacteria, flue strains, life evolves, were just trying to understand the details of how life evolved on this planet over the years at this point, I think most have moved beyond the creation myths...
many faiths have told their followers they can not believe in their god unless they believe all their stories, not true at all, you can believe in a higher power without believing in a religions stories
Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article here (http://www.trueorigin.org/pbsevolution01.asp).
There are too many errors in “Evolution” to itemize here, but let’s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example: the development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. “Evolution” thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.
Well, not quite.
All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example—one Darwin himself used—is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.
The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution—big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals—even fruit flies —there simply isn’t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?
With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet—and this the producers don’t tell us—it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the “150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”
The producers of “Evolution” unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.
The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and—voila!—the HIV returns to its original “wild-type.” Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.
On other issues, “Evolution” mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin’s mechanism and “change over time” which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the “Cambrian Explosion,” in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.
LisaM22
05-01-2009, 05:32 PM
Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article here (http://www.trueorigin.org/pbsevolution01.asp).
There are too many errors in “Evolution” to itemize here, but let’s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example: the development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. “Evolution” thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.
Well, not quite.
All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example—one Darwin himself used—is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.
The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution—big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals—even fruit flies —there simply isn’t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?
With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet—and this the producers don’t tell us—it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the “150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”
The producers of “Evolution” unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.
The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and—voila!—the HIV returns to its original “wild-type.” Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.
On other issues, “Evolution” mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin’s mechanism and “change over time” which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the “Cambrian Explosion,” in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.
evolution occurs from changes in the dna, cross breeding uses dna code already in existence, humans can change the code faster then nature and already have, that is fact - evolution is fact, the theory is what changed when and why did it survive while others did not (was it natural selection, survival of the fittest, ect... there are many different reasons for different species evolution patterns) - the facts show that the creation myths are just stories and nothing more
Missing Trunk 2
“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.” Daniel I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7.
“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?” Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.
“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.” T. Neville George (Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow), “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5.
b. Strange Cambrian fossils, thought to exist only in the Burgess Shale of western Canada, have been discovered in southern China. See:
L. Ramsköld and Hou Xianguang, “New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans,” Nature, Vol. 351, 16 May 1991, pp. 225–228.
Jun-yuan Chen et al., “Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators,” Science, Vol. 264, 27 May 1994, pp. 1304–1308.
Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in widely separated locations stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#wp1064364
Missing Trunk 3
Evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Almost all of today’s plant and animal phyla—including flowering plants (c), vascular plants (d), and vertebrates (e)—appear at the base of the fossil record.
c. “... it is well known that the fossil record tells us nothing about the evolution of flowering plants.” Corner, p. 100.
A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Occurrence of Microflora in the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab,” Nature, Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796–797.
A. K. Ghosh, J. Sen, and A. Bose, “Evidence Bearing on the Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab,” Geological Magazine, Vol. 88, March–April 1951, pp. 129–133.
J. Coates et al., “Age of the Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range,” Nature, Vol. 155, 3 March 1945, pp. 266–267.
Clifford Burdick, in his doctoral research at the University of Arizona in 1964, made discoveries similar to those cited in the four preceding references. [See Clifford Burdick, “Microflora of the Grand Canyon,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 3, May 1966, pp. 38–50.]
d. S. Leclercq, “Evidence of Vascular Plants in the Cambrian,” Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1956, pp. 109–114.
e. John E. Repetski, “A Fish from the Upper Cambrian of North America,” Science, Vol. 200, 5 May 1978, pp. 529–531.
“Vertebrates and their progenitors, according to the new studies, evolved in the Cambrian, earlier than paleontologists have traditionally assumed.” Richard Monastersky, “Vertebrate Origins: The Fossils Speak Up,” Science News, Vol. 149, 3 February 1996, p. 75.
“Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” Paul Chien (Chairman, Biology Department, University of San Francisco), “Explosion of Life,” www.origins.org/articles/chien_explosionoflife.html, p. 3. Interviewed 30 June 1997.
“At 530 million years, the 3-centimeter-long Haikouichthys appears to be the world’s oldest fish, while another new specimen, Myllokunmingia, has simpler gills and is more primitive. To Conway Morris and others, the presence of these jawless fish in the Early Cambrian suggests that the origin of chordates lies even farther back in time.” Erik Stokstad, “Exquisite Chinese Fossils Add New Pages to Book of Life,” Science, Vol. 291, 12 January 2001, p. 233.
“The [500] specimens [of fish] may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of a storm-induced burial....The possession of eyes (and probably nasal sacs) is consistent with Haikouichthys being a craniate, indicating that vertebrate evolution was well advanced by the Early Cambrian.” D. G. Shu et al., “Head and Backbone of the Early Cambrian Vertebrate Haikouichthys,” Nature, Vol. 421, 30 January 2003, pp. 527, 529.
D. G. Shu et al., “Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China,” Nature, Vol. 402, 4 November 1999, pp. 42–46.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#wp1064364
Missing Trunk 4
In fact, many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today (f). Complex species, such as fish (g) worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish (h) sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animal species (living and extinct), have no known evolutionary ancestors (i) The fossil record does not support evolution (j).
f. “Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.” Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science, Vol. 241, 15 July 1988, p. 291.
“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.
“Stephen Jay Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed—we have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.” Chien, p. 2.
“It was puzzling for a while because they [evolutionary paleontologists] refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist now—that’s more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now.” Ibid., p. 3.
g. “But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing, a matter of hot dispute among the experts, each of whom is firmly convinced that everyone else is wrong...I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.” Errol White, “A Little on Lung-Fishes,” Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, Vol. 177, Presidential Address, January 1966, p. 8.
“The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes...” J. R. Norman, A History of Fishes, 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 343.
“All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?” Gerald T. Todd, “Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes—A Causal Relationship?” American Zoologist, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1980, p. 757.
h. Cloud and Glaessner, pp. 783–792.
i. “There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like...Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred.” Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1962), pp. 14–15.
“There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods.” Frank M. Carpenter, “Fossil Insects,” Insects (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 18.
j. “If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.” Marshall Kay and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965), p. 103.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#wp1064364
LisaM22
05-11-2009, 08:35 PM
<snip> The mistake we make is assuming what we believe is absolutely true. Churches are a good example of this error. That’s why there are so many that believe different contradictory things based on the same source. I’ve been kicked out of a few of them trying to convince them they are wrong. It’s like trying to reason with a brick wall, or an evolutionist, or an atheist. The attitude seems to be: “To hell with the facts, I will believe whatever makes me comfortable!”
did you ever think maybe it was YOU that is wrong, at one time Christians tried to convince us the world was flat, we were the center of the universe, the earth was only 6000 years old, if god wanted man to fly he would of given him wings... ect... speaking of brick walls.... how many churches have you been kicked out of because you tried to teach them your version of Christianity?
LisaM22
05-14-2009, 04:51 AM
got this from another poster
"Wired Science News for Your Neurons
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory"
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
we knew evolution took place, but we did not know it would be so easy to start the process, this means where conditions are right for life, there will be life given enough time, were not alone...
did you ever think maybe it was YOU that is wrong,
It is quite possible I am wrong, but I believe I am right, and until I see evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe as I do.
at one time Christians tried to convince us the world was flat, we were the center of the universe, the earth was only 6000 years old, if god wanted man to fly he would of given him wings... ect... speaking of brick walls....
True, which only shows how fragile we are. The Catholic Church had a religious monopoly and authority for several centuries in Europe and had drifted away from the truths taught in the Bible replacing them with many erroneous notions from Greek philosophers. Actually, the Bible teaches the earth is a globe and is suspended by nothing, among other scientifically verifiable facts. The Church of that time was a political entity as well as a religious authority.
how many churches have you been kicked out of because you tried to teach them your version of Christianity?
Why do you ask? Actually, when they discovered I did not believe in their basic theology concerning salvation etc., they became unfriendly and either asked me not to return, or suggested I go elsewhere. The Armstrong Worldwide Church of God banned me. Others, like the Seventh Day Adventist, Episcopalian, Methodist and a couple of others were a bit more subtle, but the message was clear: You are not welcome here!
I get the same reception from most of the message boards I visit sharing my understanding of reality. Human nature does not appreciate having its favorite beliefs questioned.
Out-of-Place Fossils 1
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order (a).
a. Walter E. Lammerts has published eight lists totaling almost 200 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. [See “Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United States: Parts I–VIII,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1984, p. 88; December 1984, p. 150; March 1985, p. 200; December 1985, p. 127; March 1986, p. 188; June 1986, p. 38; December 1986, p. 133; and June 1987, p. 46.]
“In the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change: modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and a plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing the sequence. But the predictive (or postdictive) power of theory is almost nil.” David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record,” Science, Vol. 213, 17 July 1981, p. 289.
“Fossil discoveries can muddle our attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees—fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodgepodges of defining features of many different groups.” Neil Shubin, “Evolutionary Cut and Paste,” Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, p. 12.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html
LisaM22
05-26-2009, 12:18 PM
I said "how many churches have you been kicked out of because you tried to teach them your version of Christianity? "
Pahu said "Why do you ask?"
I asked because of the earlier post where you said " I’ve been kicked out of a few of them trying to convince them they are wrong", I bolded that in the post you replied too, surprised you missed it
it's sad that some christians can't even get along with other christians let alone other non-christians
I said "how many churches have you been kicked out of because you tried to teach them your version of Christianity? "
Pahu said "Why do you ask?"
I asked because of the earlier post where you said " I’ve been kicked out of a few of them trying to convince them they are wrong", I bolded that in the post you replied too, surprised you missed it
it's sad that some christians can't even get along with other christians let alone other non-christians
Didn't I answer your question to your satisfaction?
If my understanding of God's definition of "Christian" is accurate, they all get along just fine, although they may disagree on minor differences of theology. When the Church was new, there was a question concerning whether Christians had to be circumcised. That question was settled without any serious problems.
At another time, Paul refused to allow someone to accompany him and another apostle accepted him and the two groups went in different directions. A few years later, Paul had a change of heart and accepted the apostle he had rejected.
So what is God's definition of a Christian? I believe it is found in Romans 8:9: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." And how do we receive the Spirit of Christ? In Acts 2:38 we are told: "Repent, (and be baptized) every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." So I believe God's definition of "Christian" is one who repents of his sins, accepts Jesus Christ as LORD, and obeys His Ten Commandment Law.
Most people are believers, but not all are Christians. A Christian is always a believer, but a believer is not always a Christian.
Out-of-Place Fossils 2
In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs (b). Hoofprints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia (c). A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years (d). Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan (e) and Arizona (f).
b. Y. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, “A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?” Moskovskaya Pravda [Moscow Truth], 5 February 1984.
c. Richard Monastersky, “A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style,” Science News, Vol. 136, 8 July 1989, p. 21.
d. Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93–96, 100.
e. Alexander Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10. [For an alternate but equivalent translation published by an anti-creationist organization, see Frank Zindler, “Man—A Contemporary of the Dinosaurs?” Creation/Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1986, pp. 28–29.]
f. Paul O. Rosnau et al., “Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona?” Parts I and II, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 26, September 1989, pp. 41–48 and December 1989, pp. 77–98.
Jeremy Auldaney et al., “More Human-Like Track Impressions Found with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta Formation at Tuba City Arizona,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 34, December 1997, pp. 133–146 and back cover.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html
LisaM22
05-27-2009, 08:44 PM
Didn't I answer your question to your satisfaction?
your said "Why do you ask?"
I was giving you my answer
LisaM22
05-27-2009, 08:45 PM
<snip>
So what is God's definition of a Christian? I believe it is found in Romans 8:9: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." And how do we receive the Spirit of Christ? In Acts 2:38 we are told: "Repent, (and be baptized) every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." So I believe God's definition of "Christian" is one who repents of his sins, accepts Jesus Christ as LORD, and obeys His Ten Commandment Law.
<snip>
Signs of True Christians (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/christians.html)
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18
"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." -- Luke 10:19
if that is the case, are there really any TRUE Christians
Signs of True Christians (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/christians.html)
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18
MARK 16:18
There are times when God intervenes miraculously to protect his followers. Occasionally he gives them special powers. Paul handled a snake safely (Acts 28:5), and the disciples healed the sick (Matthew 10:1; Acts 3:7, 8). This does not mean, however, that we should test God by putting ourselves in dangerous situations.
Cross References:
Mark 16:18—Luke 10:19; Acts 28:3-6
"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." -- Luke 10:19
if that is the case, are there really any TRUE Christians
Here is the verse you quote in context: 17 When the seventy-two disciples returned, they joyfully reported to him, “Lord, even the demons obey us when we use your name!”
18 “Yes,” he told them, “I saw Satan falling from heaven as a flash of lightning! 19And I have given you authority over all the power of the enemy, and you can walk among snakes and scorpions and crush them. Nothing will injure you. 20But don’t rejoice just because evil spirits obey you; rejoice because your names are registered as citizens of heaven.”
21 Then Jesus was filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit and said, “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise and clever, and for revealing it to the childlike. Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way.
22 “My Father has given me authority over everything. No one really knows the Son except the Father, and no one really knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
23 Then when they were alone, he turned to the disciples and said, “How privileged you are to see what you have seen. 24 I tell you, many prophets and kings have longed to see and hear what you have seen and heard, but they could not.”
Here is some commentary on those verses: LUKE 10:17-20
The disciples had seen tremendous results as they ministered in Jesus’ name and with his authority. They were elated by the victories they had witnessed, and Jesus shared their enthusiasm. He helped them get their priorities right, however, by reminding them of their most important victory—that their names were registered in heaven. This honor was more important than any of their accomplishments. As we see God’s wonders at work in and through us, we should not lose sight of the greatest wonder of all—our heavenly citizenship.
Cross References:
Luke 10:20—Exodus 32:32; Isaiah 4:3; Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5
LUKE 10:18, 19
Jesus may have been looking ahead to his victory over Satan at the cross. John 12:31, 32 indicates that Satan would be judged and driven out at the time of Jesus’ death. On the other hand, Jesus may have been warning his disciples against pride. Perhaps he was referring to Isaiah 14:12-17, which begins, “How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning!” Some interpreters identify this verse with Satan and explain that Satan’s pride led to all the evil we see on earth today. To Jesus’ disciples, who were thrilled with their power over evil spirits (“snakes and scorpions”), he may have been giving this stern warning: “Yours is the kind of pride that led to Satan’s downfall. Be careful!”
Cross References:
Luke 10:18—John 12:31; Revelation 12:8-9
Luke 10:19—Acts 28:3-5
Out-of-Place Fossils 3
Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock (g). Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina (h). Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed (i). In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian (j) rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian (k) rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.
g. Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1985, p. 8.
Carol Armstrong, “Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198–199.
Pat Shipman, “Dumping on Science,” Discover, December 1987, p. 64.
h. Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the “Great Carolina Marl Bed” (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes’ Book House, 1870).
Edward J. Nolan, “Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80–81.
John Watson did extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.
i. A. C. Noé, “A Paleozoic Angiosperm,” Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, May–June 1923, pp. 344–347.
j. R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294.
A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796–797.
A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,” Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.
J. Coates et al., pp. 266–267.
k. George F. Howe et al., “A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173–182.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html
FurthurBB
05-29-2009, 10:51 PM
Out-of-Place Fossils 3
Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock (g). (h). Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed (i). In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian (j) rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian (k) rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.
g. Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1985, p. 8.
Carol Armstrong, “Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198–199.
Pat Shipman, “Dumping on Science,” Discover, December 1987, p. 64.
h. Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the “Great Carolina Marl Bed” (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes’ Book House, 1870).
Edward J. Nolan, “Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80–81.
John Watson did extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.
i. A. C. Noé, “A Paleozoic Angiosperm,” Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, May–June 1923, pp. 344–347.
j. R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294.
A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796–797.
A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,” Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.
J. Coates et al., pp. 266–267.
k. George F. Howe et al., “A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173–182.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html
There were never any human tools found in phosphate beds in NC, there was a hammer that wasn't very old that was incased in calcium carbonite (petrified) found near by Cretaceous fossils in London, Texas. That was the most substantial find of any human tool that was confusing for about a second. As far as pollen goes, come on, it does not take a 5th grader to figure out how modern pollen might get into older rocks, does it? The rest are just rummors that people like you keep passing along because you have nothing better.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm
FurthurBB
05-29-2009, 11:30 PM
Out-of-Place Fossils 2
In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs (b). Hoofprints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia (c). A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years (d). Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan (e) and Arizona (f).
b. Y. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, “A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?” Moskovskaya Pravda [Moscow Truth], 5 February 1984.
c. Richard Monastersky, “A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style,” Science News, Vol. 136, 8 July 1989, p. 21.
d. Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93–96, 100.
e. Alexander Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10. [For an alternate but equivalent translation published by an anti-creationist organization, see Frank Zindler, “Man—A Contemporary of the Dinosaurs?” Creation/Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1986, pp. 28–29.]
f. Paul O. Rosnau et al., “Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona?” Parts I and II, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 26, September 1989, pp. 41–48 and December 1989, pp. 77–98.
Jeremy Auldaney et al., “More Human-Like Track Impressions Found with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta Formation at Tuba City Arizona,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 34, December 1997, pp. 133–146 and back cover.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html
Let us hope that since it was proven in 1987 that no human footprints were found near dinosaur tracks that people only use this nonsense when they want to mislead others. There have been instances of strange tracks that look like gigantic human footprints, but, closer study and some cleaning quickly reveal that they are dinosaur footprints. Do creationists really believe there were dinosaur sized humans once?
Hastings, Ronnie J., 1987. New observations on Paluxy Tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin. Journal of Geological Education 35(1): 4-15.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/color.htm
The Uzbekistan horse tracks are a known case of folding strata.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761588020
You have really yet to provide any new information. It has all already been debunked. IMO
Brentwood
06-08-2009, 01:58 AM
Carbon dating and other science prove the op wrong.
Carbon dating and other science prove the op wrong.
The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (such as the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to “blind tests.” In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error—indicating major errors in methodology and understanding. One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error.
A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This is a huge and critical assumption that few have questioned. Several lines of evidence show that radioactive decay rates were once much faster than they are today. A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood.
“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ ” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.
“For some inexplicable reason, the nuclei of certain elements become unstable and spontaneously release energy and/or particles.” Stansfield, p. 82.
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences25.html#wp2569480]
FurthurBB
06-10-2009, 02:24 AM
The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (such as the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to “blind tests.” In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error—indicating major errors in methodology and understanding. One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error.
A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This is a huge and critical assumption that few have questioned. Several lines of evidence show that radioactive decay rates were once much faster than they are today. A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood.
“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ ” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.
“For some inexplicable reason, the nuclei of certain elements become unstable and spontaneously release energy and/or particles.” Stansfield, p. 82.
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences25.html#wp2569480]
That is why one technique is never used. Scientists know the strengths and weaknesses of dating techniques and also how to avoid erroneous dates. Stop relying on other people's outdated ideas. IMO
Ape-Men? 1
For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin (a). Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent (b).
Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated (c).
It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).
a. “... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.” Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.
b. “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.” Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
c. Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.” Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.
Bowden, pp. 56–246.
Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2, editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 193–200, 298–305.
d. Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:
“How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.”
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274
FurthurBB
06-11-2009, 11:57 AM
Ape-Men? 1
For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin (a). Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent (b).
Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated (c).
It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).
a. “... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.” Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.
b. “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.” Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
c. Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.” Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.
Bowden, pp. 56–246.
Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2, editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 193–200, 298–305.
d. Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:
“How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.”
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274
Sure Piltdown was a hoax and although it took 40 years for scientists to correct this mistaken belief that it was a real British "ape-man", it was corrected. If you want to put christianity and thier history against science and its history I do not think you would like the outcome. Does that mean either is truly bad? IMO
Ape-Men? 2
Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.
The hoaxer now appears to have been Martin A. C. Hinton, who had a reputation as a practical joker and worked in the British Museum (Natural History) when Piltdown man was discovered. In the mid-1970s, an old trunk, marked with Hinton’s initials, was found in the museum’s attic. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same detailed way as the Piltdown bones. [For details, see Henry Gee, “Box of Bones ‘Clinches’ Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer,” Nature, Vol. 381, 23 May 1996, pp. 261–262.]
Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey (e) and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw (f). Ramapithecus was just an ape (g). Some textbooks still claim that Ramapithecus is man’s ancestor, an intermediate between man and some apelike ancestor. This mistaken belief resulted from piecing together, in 1932, fragments of upper teeth and bones into the two large pieces. This was done so the shape of the jaw resembled the parabolic arch of man. In 1977, a complete lower jaw of Ramapithecus was found. The true shape of the jaw was not parabolic, but rather U-shaped, distinctive of apes.
Artists’ drawings, even those based on speculation, powerfully influence the public. Nebraska man was mistakenly based on one tooth of an extinct pig. Yet in 1922, The Illustrated London News published a picture showing our supposed ancestors. Of course, it is highly unlikely that any fossil evidence could support the image conveyed of a naked man carrying a club.
e. Allen L. Hammond, “Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,” Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37, 43.
f. Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, “False Start of the Human Parade,” Natural History, Vol. 88, August–September 1979, pp. 86–91.
g. Hammond, p. 43.
“The dethroning of Ramapithecus—from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982—is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 86.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274
LisaM22
06-19-2009, 03:48 PM
Ape-Men? 2
Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.
The hoaxer now appears to have been Martin A. C. Hinton, who had a reputation as a practical joker and worked in the British Museum (Natural History) when Piltdown man was discovered. In the mid-1970s, an old trunk, marked with Hinton’s initials, was found in the museum’s attic. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same detailed way as the Piltdown bones. [For details, see Henry Gee, “Box of Bones ‘Clinches’ Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer,” Nature, Vol. 381, 23 May 1996, pp. 261–262.]
Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey (e) and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw (f). Ramapithecus was just an ape (g). Some textbooks still claim that Ramapithecus is man’s ancestor, an intermediate between man and some apelike ancestor. This mistaken belief resulted from piecing together, in 1932, fragments of upper teeth and bones into the two large pieces. This was done so the shape of the jaw resembled the parabolic arch of man. In 1977, a complete lower jaw of Ramapithecus was found. The true shape of the jaw was not parabolic, but rather U-shaped, distinctive of apes.
Artists’ drawings, even those based on speculation, powerfully influence the public. Nebraska man was mistakenly based on one tooth of an extinct pig. Yet in 1922, The Illustrated London News published a picture showing our supposed ancestors. Of course, it is highly unlikely that any fossil evidence could support the image conveyed of a naked man carrying a club.
e. Allen L. Hammond, “Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,” Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37, 43.
f. Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, “False Start of the Human Parade,” Natural History, Vol. 88, August–September 1979, pp. 86–91.
g. Hammond, p. 43.
“The dethroning of Ramapithecus—from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982—is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 86.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274
I think science has proved genesis is a hoax as described in the bible, does that disprove Christianity or just one story in the bible?
I think science has proved genesis is a hoax as described in the bible, does that disprove Christianity or just one story in the bible?
How has Genesis been proved as a hoax by science?
LisaM22
06-19-2009, 11:06 PM
"Genesis Chapter 1 is a Myth"
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/257018/genesis_chapter_1_is_a_myth.html?cat=38
"Yes, there's no doubt about it: Genesis chapter two explicitly contradicts the chapter immediately before it. In the first Creation account, God makes man absolutely last, but in the second, God makes man before everything else. Here, a Christian can do one of two things: cash in their chips and convert to atheism or some other religion because the Bible is obviously wrong, or make the simple statement that not everything in the Bible was intended to be read literally. "
Details
06-19-2009, 11:11 PM
How has Genesis been proved as a hoax by science?More by logic than by science - but when the Bible says two contradictory things, obviously not every word in the Bible is true.
LisaM22
06-20-2009, 03:21 AM
If you are confident that you are right, what does it gain you to try to convince other people that they are wrong?
sure they said the same thing to the guy who said the world wasn't flat or that the earth was not the center of the Universe too, the truth wants to be free
Doc Holliday
06-20-2009, 03:26 PM
If you are confident that you are right, what does it gain you to try to convince other people that they are wrong?
Churches are a good example of this error. That’s why there are so many that believe different contradictory things based on the same source. I’ve been kicked out of a few of them trying to convince them they are wrong. It’s like trying to reason with a brick wall, or an evolutionist, or an atheist.
It doesn't seem to me that it's Details who is trying hard to convince anybody of anything.
Streetdreamer
06-22-2009, 01:39 AM
"Genesis Chapter 1 is a Myth"
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/257018/genesis_chapter_1_is_a_myth.html?cat=38
"Yes, there's no doubt about it: Genesis chapter two explicitly contradicts the chapter immediately before it. In the first Creation account, God makes man absolutely last, but in the second, God makes man before everything else. Here, a Christian can do one of two things: cash in their chips and convert to atheism or some other religion because the Bible is obviously wrong, or make the simple statement that not everything in the Bible was intended to be read literally. "
1 is chronological, 2 is an explanatory and not meant to follow in chronological order of chapter 1. This is actually an attempt by bible critics to do a "fox news" on the bible. You have explained things this way many times. Its like saying I bought a minivan to put all my kids and groceries in when you already know you had those kids before you bought the minivan and your groceries came after the minivan. Its really sensible but not chronological. Chapter 2 is an explaination of what happened in the garden of eden, its not meant for an explaination of creation.
BTW, I have a theory on chapter 1, it hasn't been completed. God has yet to say "it was good". What we see as time, he sees like an artist sees a picture... the finished product. So I believe he has yet to come to his final rest.
Ape-Men? 3
Forty years after he discovered Java “man,” Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thighbones of apes found in the same area (h).
h. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skullcap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed that the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolution—a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.
Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java “man” to Java “gibbon.” Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.
“Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude.” Eugene Dubois, “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,” Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.
“Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes.” Ibid., p. 5.
“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human.” W. R. Thompson, p. 17.
W. R. Thompson, in his “Introduction to The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, refers to Dubois’ discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java “man” at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293–294.] Dubois’ claims of finding “the missing link” would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.
C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.
Bowden, pp. 138–142, 144–148.
Hitching, pp. 208–209.
Patrick O’Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139–142.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274
LisaM22
06-26-2009, 07:07 PM
I think someone is trying to convince themselves the truth is a lie, come on pahu, give it up already, just admit evolution is fact and we do not now the exact process of which we evolved, that can ony ever be theory - what we do know is that genesis is just a story, one that contradicts itself, it is not history
I think someone is trying to convince themselves the truth is a lie, come on pahu, give it up already, just admit evolution is fact
Pahu: How can I admit evolution is a fact when all the evidence says it doesn't exist? How can you?
we do not now the exact process of which we evolved, that can ony ever be theory
Pahu: Are you admitting evolution can only always be an unproved hypothesis? If so, aren't you admitting you believe it because you want to, despite the evidence disproving it? Doesn't your belief amount to unsupported faith?
what we do know is that genesis is just a story, one that contradicts itself, it is not history
Pahu: Why are you changing the subject? What does Genesis have to do with evolution? How does Genesis contradict itself? How do you know it isn't history?
FurthurBB
06-29-2009, 06:19 PM
Pahu: How can I admit evolution is a fact when all the evidence says it doesn't exist? How can you?
Pahu: Are you admitting evolution can only always be an unproved hypothesis? If so, aren't you admitting you believe it because you want to, despite the evidence disproving it? Doesn't your belief amount to unsupported faith?
Pahu: Why are you changing the subject? What does Genesis have to do with evolution? How does Genesis contradict itself? How do you know it isn't history?
Evolution is a fact because it is a natural phenomenon that can be observed. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that all the available evidence points to and gains more and more support every single day. IMO
LisaM22
06-29-2009, 08:04 PM
lisam22 : "we do not now the exact process of which we evolved, that can only ever be theory"
Pahu: "Are you admitting evolution can only always be an unproved hypothesis? If so, aren't you admitting you believe it because you want to, despite the evidence disproving it? Doesn't your belief amount to unsupported faith?"
nope, just saying that evoloution is fact, we can see it happening, what we do not know is exactly how we evolved over time, only where we are at this point in time and that is the theory part of evolution
we have a theory of gravity, but we know without a doubt we have gravity, same thing
Evolution is a fact because it is a natural phenomenon that can be observed.
When has it been observed?
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that all the available evidence points to and gains more and more support every single day. IMO
What is that evidence?
lisam22 : "we do not now the exact process of which we evolved, that can only ever be theory"
Pahu: "Are you admitting evolution can only always be an unproved hypothesis? If so, aren't you admitting you believe it because you want to, despite the evidence disproving it? Doesn't your belief amount to unsupported faith?"
nope, just saying that evoloution is fact, we can see it happening, what we do not know is exactly how we evolved over time, only where we are at this point in time and that is the theory part of evolution
When/where do we see it happening?
we have a theory of gravity, but we know without a doubt we have gravity, same thing
We can demonstrate gravity. Where can we demonstrate evolution?
FurthurBB
06-29-2009, 10:35 PM
When has it been observed?
What is that evidence?
You can directly observe the HIV virus mutating in one generation. You can observe birds on an island evolving in a few generations. You can observe bacteria evolving in a hospital environment. You can conduct experiments with insects and observe evolution. You can do genetic testing on human populations and observe evolution. Gene frequencies change and we see it everyday, all the time. Evolution is a change in gene frequency in a population over time. That is a fact that no religion can overcome. Now you could say that it is caused by god or santa for all I care.
As to your second question, you are going to have to pay for an education or rely on the internet because you could not afford my tutoring. Sorry. IMO
FurthurBB
06-29-2009, 10:36 PM
When/where do we see it happening?
We can demonstrate gravity. Where can we demonstrate evolution?
You can demonstrate evolution in your kitchen sink with some bleach. IMO
Doc Holliday
06-29-2009, 11:42 PM
I've seen this before. In a movie. No, wait. It was on message boards....
I know exactly what Pahu is going to say.
You can directly observe the HIV virus mutating in one generation. You can observe birds on an island evolving in a few generations. You can observe bacteria evolving in a hospital environment. You can conduct experiments with insects and observe evolution. You can do genetic testing on human populations and observe evolution. Gene frequencies change and we see it everyday, all the time. Evolution is a change in gene frequency in a population over time. That is a fact that no religion can overcome. Now you could say that it is caused by god or santa for all I care.
Your list is not evolution. What you are describing is the built in ability of every life form to adapt to changes in its environment. None of the life forms you mention have changed into a different life form, which evolution requires. Viruses and bacteria are still viruses and bacteria. Birds are still birds. Humans are still humans, etc.
Regarding genes, you may find the following enlightening:
Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family. [See Figure 3 on page 5.] A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation.a Breeding experimentsb and common observationsc also confirm these boundaries.
When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve. They call this convergent evolution.
For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of supposedly convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptile’s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twicea—but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years?b Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease.
Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.
Furthermore, it is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor;c such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genesd or are developed from different parts of embryos,e a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.
The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books.a Even if matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero.b It would be analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4,000 books were produced:c
a. Start with a meaningful phrase.
b. Retype it, but make some errors and insert a few letters.
c. See if the new phrase is meaningful.
d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.
e. Return to step “b.”
To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10^40,000 trials.d (To begin to understand how large 10^40,000 is, realize that the visible universe has fewer than 10^80 atoms in it.)
Since 1970, evolutionists have referred to large segments of DNA as “junk DNA,” because it supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. We now know this “junk” explains much of the complexity of organisms. Use of the term “junk DNA” reflected past ignorance.e
How could immune systems of animals and plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize the best defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.
If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense.a Obviously, for each organism to have survived, all this information must have been there from the beginning. Again, creation.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
FurthurBB
06-30-2009, 05:43 PM
Your list is not evolution. What you are describing is the built in ability of every life form to adapt to changes in its environment. None of the life forms you mention have changed into a different life form, which evolution requires. Viruses and bacteria are still viruses and bacteria. Birds are still birds. Humans are still humans, etc.
Cut for utter nonsense.
Evolution= a change in gene frequency in a population over time. Period, that is all there is nothing more. So what I wrote was only about evolution. Changing species? Did you really just say that? You need to educate yourself. It is really sad to see someone so blinded by others opinions about a subject when you do not even have the basics down. Think for yourself. IMO
Cut for utter nonsense.
Evolution= a change in gene frequency in a population over time. Period, that is all there is nothing more. So what I wrote was only about evolution. Changing species? Did you really just say that? You need to educate yourself. It is really sad to see someone so blinded by others opinions about a subject when you do not even have the basics down. Think for yourself. IMO
Regardless of how loud you scream, evolution requires the change from a species to a different species. That has never been observed in nature, the fossil record, the lab, or anywhere. Denial of the facts I shared does not change the reality!
Ape-Men? 4
Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man” to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man (i). Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created (j).
The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportions (k) and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo) (l).
i. Bowden, pp. 90–137.
Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p. 145.
j. “[The reanalysis of Narmada Man] puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon.” Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, as quoted in “Homo Erectus Never Existed?” Geotimes, October 1992, p. 11.
k. Donald C. Johanson et al., “New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,” Nature, Vol. 327, 21 May 1987, pp. 205–209.
l. “We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus [Homo].” Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, “The Human Genus,” Science, Vol. 284, 2 April 1999, p. 65.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274
LisaM22
06-30-2009, 09:36 PM
because the gene code is for example so similar between humans and mice, you can see it doesn't take many changes to change a species, but it does take a large amount of time for nature to spin the wheel and produce a different species that will survive and of course as they get more advance, the changes are less noticeable, though they are still happened, and will continue to hapin as long as we have cosmic radiation that can cause changes to the life on this planets dna strands
LisaM22
06-30-2009, 11:13 PM
Regardless of how loud you scream, evolution requires the change from a species to a different species. That has never been observed in nature, the fossil record, the lab, or anywhere. Denial of the facts I shared does not change the reality!
you need to do some more research, you do not seem to understand what evolution is
FurthurBB
07-01-2009, 02:23 PM
Regardless of how loud you scream, evolution requires the change from a species to a different species. That has never been observed in nature, the fossil record, the lab, or anywhere. Denial of the facts I shared does not change the reality!
I am sorry, but, you are wrong. Not only wrong, but, ridiculously wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with changing species, that is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. I am a biologist. I definitely know what evolution is. You have stated no facts, just wrong opinions that are not even your own. You could not possibly form your own opinion on evolution since you have no idea what it is. IMO
FurthurBB
07-01-2009, 02:31 PM
because the gene code is for example so similar between humans and mice, you can see it doesn't take many changes to change a species, but it does take a large amount of time for nature to spin the wheel and produce a different species that will survive and of course as they get more advance, the changes are less noticeable, though they are still happened, and will continue to hapin as long as we have cosmic radiation that can cause changes to the life on this planets dna strands
Oh yeah, speaking of the gene code, there is definite clear evidence that of a fusion event in human chromosome 2, it perfectly matches the chimpanzee chromosomes 2 & 3 and has four telomeres (ends) and two centromeres (middles), it is actually very interesting and exciting new evidence of a recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
IMO
Doc Holliday
07-01-2009, 03:20 PM
I am sorry, but, you are wrong. Not only wrong, but, ridiculously wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with changing species, that is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. I am a biologist. I definitely know what evolution is. You have stated no facts, just wrong opinions that are not even your own. You could not possibly form your own opinion on evolution since you have no idea what it is. IMO
You haven't heard that before? I hear it -or something similar - in every one of these debates. Usually it's phrased in terms of 'micro evolution' vs. 'macro evolution', with 'macro evolution' having to do with the development of new species.
I am sorry, but, you are wrong. Not only wrong, but, ridiculously wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with changing species, that is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. I am a biologist. I definitely know what evolution is. You have stated no facts, just wrong opinions that are not even your own. You could not possibly form your own opinion on evolution since you have no idea what it is. IMO
Here is the dictionary definition of evolution: "The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
"The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment, but he was unable to explain a mechanism for this. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages [There is evidence this is erroneous]. This helped Darwin toward a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology."
In looking at some of those modifications, I notice Darwin's idea of transitions has been changed to similarities, probably because no transitions have been found in the fossil record or anywhere else, so now we are told that everything is evolving because, after all, we all share some similarities with every other life form.
What is ignored by this neo-evolution is the vast differences between life forms, especially human. While we are flying, driving, boating, going to the moon and beyond, etc., apes are still swinging from branches. Two white pills may be similar in size and shape, but the difference could be fatal if one is aspirin and the other is cyanide!
FurthurBB
07-01-2009, 08:22 PM
You haven't heard that before? I hear it -or something similar - in every one of these debates. Usually it's phrased in terms of 'micro evolution' vs. 'macro evolution', with 'macro evolution' having to do with the development of new species.
Well, macro-evolution is just a term that evolution critics use to try and confuse the issue. It is all micro-evolution. If we were to assign an arbitrary macro-evolution name to something it would be to mutations because those are big changes. If you think of birds, bats, dogs, and fish the difference between fins, birds wings, bats wings, and legs would be micro-evolution because it is so small. IMO
FurthurBB
07-01-2009, 08:29 PM
Here is the dictionary definition of evolution: "The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
"The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment, but he was unable to explain a mechanism for this. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages [There is evidence this is erroneous]. This helped Darwin toward a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology."
In looking at some of those modifications, I notice Darwin's idea of transitions has been changed to similarities, probably because no transitions have been found in the fossil record or anywhere else, so now we are told that everything is evolving because, after all, we all share some similarities with every other life form.
What is ignored by this neo-evolution is the vast differences between life forms, especially human. While we are flying, driving, boating, going to the moon and beyond, etc., apes are still swinging from branches. Two white pills may be similar in size and shape, but the difference could be fatal if one is aspirin and the other is cyanide!
Look, I do not have to look in the dictionary for a definition of evolution. Just because you found a definition that was wrong, I do not know what to tell you, but, I am not surprised. Here.
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution
In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Look, I do not have to look in the dictionary for a definition of evolution. Just because you found a definition that was wrong, I do not know what to tell you, but, I am not surprised. Here.
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution
In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
So you admit there are no transitions from one species to a different species? Evolution is merely change? From what to what? Speaking of genes, you may find the following interesting:
The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books.a Even if matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero.b It would be analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4,000 books were produced:c
a. Start with a meaningful phrase.
b. Retype it, but make some errors and insert a few letters.
c. See if the new phrase is meaningful.
d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.
e. Return to step “b.”
To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10^40,000 trials.d (To begin to understand how large 10^40,000 is, realize that the visible universe has fewer than 10^80 atoms in it.)
Since 1970, evolutionists have referred to large segments of DNA as “junk DNA,” because it supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. We now know this “junk” explains much of the complexity of organisms. Use of the term “junk DNA” reflected past ignorance.e
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html#wp1009517
How could immune systems of animals and plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize the best defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.
If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense.a Obviously, for each organism to have survived, all this information must have been there from the beginning. Again, creation.
Consider the capabilities and associated equipment the white blood cell must have to do its job. It must identify friend and foe. Once a foe is detected, the white blood cell must rapidly locate and overtake the invader. Then the white blood cell must engulf the bacterium, destroy it, and have the endurance to repeat this many times. Miniaturization, fuel efficiency, and compatibility with other parts of the body are also key requirements. The equipment for each function requires careful design. Unless all this worked well from the beginning of life, a requirement that rules out evolution, bacteria and other agents of disease would have won, and we would not be here to marvel at these hidden abilities in our bodies.
A few “stem cells” in your bone marrow produce more than 100 billion of these and other types of blood cells every day. Each white blood cell moves on its own at up to 30 microns (almost half the diameter of a human hair) each minute. So many white blood cells are in your body that their total distance traveled in one day would circle the earth twice.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences45.html#wp2747138
Ape-Men? 5
The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between those of man and living apes (m).
m. Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred to below, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis technique. A computer simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. To my knowledge, this technique has not been applied to the most famous australopithecine, commonly known as “Lucy.”
“... the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” Zuckerman, p. 78.
“Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ...” Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973 to 1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May 1979, p. 273.
Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?” Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389–395.
“For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable.” Zuckerman, p. 93.
“His Lordship’s [Sir Solly Zuckerman’s] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. ‘They are just bloody apes,’ he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, [i] pp. 164–165.
[i] “This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the ‘knuckle-walker’ condition, not unlike the extant African apes.” Richard E. F. Leakey, “Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya,” Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274
Brentwood
07-02-2009, 07:20 PM
While I was channel surfing yesterday, I came across a show about creationism. I thought I would watch it so I could understand how some people believe it. I couldn't take watching it after about 5 minutes when they started preaching the "false religion of evolution."
Evolution...a religion? How can people believe this carp.
Carbon dating and other science is proven. The world is not 7000 years old, it is not flat, the sun does not orbit the earth, period!
Patriot
07-02-2009, 08:09 PM
While I was channel surfing yesterday, I came across a show about creationism. I thought I would watch it so I could understand how some people believe it. I couldn't take watching it after about 5 minutes when they started preaching the "false religion of evolution."
Evolution...a religion? How can people believe this carp.
Carbon dating and other science is proven. The world is not 7000 years old, it is not flat, the sun does not orbit the earth, period!
They said that the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth? How ridiculous. What channel was that? Maybe they'll show it again, I'd like to see it.
While I was channel surfing yesterday, I came across a show about creationism. I thought I would watch it so I could understand how some people believe it. I couldn't take watching it after about 5 minutes when they started preaching the "false religion of evolution."
Evolution...a religion? How can people believe this carp.
Carbon dating and other science is proven. The world is not 7000 years old, it is not flat, the sun does not orbit the earth, period!
Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years old are probably accurate. However, before accepting any radiocarbon date, one should know how the technique works, its limitations, and its assumptions. One limitation is that the radiocarbon technique dates only material that was once part of an animal or plant, such as bones, flesh, or wood. It cannot date rocks directly. To understand the other capabilities and limitations of radiocarbon dating, we must understand how it works and consider the flood.
Most carbon atoms weigh 12 atomic mass units. However, roughly one in a trillion carbon atoms weighs 14 atomic mass units. This carbon is called carbon-14. It is also called radiocarbon because it is radioactive (but not dangerous). Half of it will decay in about 5,730 years to form nitrogen. The other half will decay in another 5,730 years, and so on.
Cosmic radiation striking the upper atmosphere converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen each year into radiocarbon (carbon-14). Most carbon-14 quickly combines with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which then spreads throughout the atmosphere. Plants take in carbon dioxide, incorporating in their tissues both carbon-14 (unstable) and normal carbon-12 (stable) in the same proportion as they occur in the atmosphere. Carbon-14 then moves up the various food chains to enter animal tissue—again, in about the same ratio carbon-14 has with carbon-12 in the atmosphere.
When a living thing dies, its radiocarbon loss (decay) is no longer balanced by intake, so its radiocarbon steadily decreases with a half-life of 5,730 years. If we knew the amount of carbon-14 in an organism when it died, we could attempt to date the time of death. The key questions then are: “Has the atmospheric ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 changed in the past, and if so, why and how much?” The assumption usually made, but rarely acknowledged, is that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution1 has always been the same—about one in a trillion. Actually, that ratio may have been quite different.
For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available to enter the atmosphere from decaying vegetation. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere would increase. If the atmosphere’s ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things that lived soon after the flood would appear to be one half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages. If that ratio quadrupled, organic remains would appear 11,460 (2 × 5,730) years older, etc. Therefore, a “radiocarbon year” would not correspond to an actual year.2
As explained in Figure 177, recent measurements show that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has been building up in the atmosphere.3 However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio has been extremely slight.
Radiocarbon dating of vertical sequences of organic-rich layers at 714 locations worldwide has consistently shown a surprising result.4 Radiocarbon ages do not increase steadily with depth, as one might expect. Instead, they increase at an accelerating rate. In other words, the concentration of carbon-14 is unexpectedly low in the lower organic layers. As one moves to higher and higher layers, this concentration increases, but at a decreasing rate.
Tree-ring dating allows us to infer how the atmospheric concentration of carbon-14 changed in the past. Some types of trees growing at high elevations with a steady supply of moisture will reliably add only one ring each year. In other environments, multiple rings can be added in a year.5 A tree ring’s thickness depends on the tree’s growing conditions, which vary from year to year. Some rings may show frost or fire damage. By comparing sequences of ring thicknesses in two different trees, a correspondence can sometimes be shown. Trees of the same species that simultaneously grew within a few hundred miles of each other may have similar patterns. Trees of different species or trees growing in different environments have less similar patterns.
Claims are frequently made that tree-ring thickness patterns of wood growing today can be matched up with those of some scattered pieces of dead wood, so that tree-ring counts can be extended back more than 8,600 years. This may not be correct. These claimed “long chronologies” begin with either living trees or dead wood that can be accurately dated by historical methods.6 This carries the chronology back perhaps 3,500 years. Then, the more questionable links are made based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Sometimes “missing” rings are added.7 Each tree ring’s width varies greatly around the tree’s circumference. Also, parts of a ring may be dead wood. Standard statistical techniques could show how well the dozen supposedly overlapping tree-ring thickness patterns fit. However, tree-ring specialists have refused to subject their judgments to these statistical tests and would not release their data, so others can do these statistical tests.8 Even less reliable techniques claim to be able to calibrate carbon-14 dating back 26,000 years or more.
Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much improved radiocarbon dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, a specimen’s carbon-14 atoms can now be actually counted, giving a more precise radiocarbon date with even smaller samples. The standard, but less accurate, radiocarbon dating technique counts only the rare disintegrations of carbon-14 atoms, which are sometimes confused with other types of disintegrations.
This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen—even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new “accelerator mass spectrometer” technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less!10
Radiocarbon dating of supposedly very ancient bones should provide valuable information. Why is such testing rare? Researchers naturally do not waste money on a technique that destroys their specimen and provides no specific age. Therefore, most researchers do not radiocarbon date any organic specimen they think is older than 100,000 years, even if it still contains carbon. All carbon-14 that was once in anything older than 100,000 radiocarbon years would have decayed; its age could not be determined. However, if a bone that an evolutionist thinks is a million years old contains any detectable carbon-14, the bone is probably less than 100,000 radiocarbon years. Figure 177, shows why those “radiocarbon years” correspond to a much younger true age.)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ22.html
FurthurBB
07-02-2009, 09:20 PM
So you admit there are no transitions from one species to a different species? Evolution is merely change? From what to what?
Cut all the nonsense.
Evolution is not merely change and I never said anything about transitions from one species to another. Evolution is an observable natural phenomenon where there is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Everything else is the theory of evolution. Until you understand that, you cannot understand anything else. IMO
Ape-Men? 6
Another study, which examined the inner ear bone of australopithecine, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans (n). Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans (o). Claims were made—based on one australopithecine fossil (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)—that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees (p) and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees (q). The australopithecines are probably extinct apes (r).
n. “Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions.” Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]
o. “The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees.” Bruce Bower, “Evolution’s Youth Movement,” Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.
p. William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676–678.
Jeremy Cherfas, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172–178.
Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279–317.
q. Adrienne Zihlman, “Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39–40.
r. “At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... [T]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.” Matt Cartmill et al., “One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,” American Scientist, Vol. 74, July–August 1986, p. 417.
“The proportions calculated for africanus turned out to be amazingly close to those of a chimpanzee, with big arms and small legs. ... ‘One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree,’ says Berger.” James Shreeve, “New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,” Science, Vol. 272, 3 May 1996, p. 654.
“There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape—so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.” Solly Zuckerman, “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,” Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.
“We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.” Ibid., pp. 348–349.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274
Streetdreamer
07-06-2009, 08:38 PM
While I was channel surfing yesterday, I came across a show about creationism. I thought I would watch it so I could understand how some people believe it. I couldn't take watching it after about 5 minutes when they started preaching the "false religion of evolution."
Evolution...a religion? How can people believe this carp.
Carbon dating and other science is proven. The world is not 7000 years old, it is not flat, the sun does not orbit the earth, period!
I think its a farce to call evolution a religion. At least in religions the people that preach it to you believe its true instead of trying to sell an imaginative theory they aren't sure is a fact themselves, but it just simply sounds good.
Streetdreamer
07-06-2009, 08:47 PM
They said that the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth? How ridiculous. What channel was that? Maybe they'll show it again, I'd like to see it.
Well, till evolution comes up with a fact that hasn't been disproven, I'd say we're all on an even playing field. The whole premise of evolution from Darwin's age on to history, was based on unproven and unobserved concepts. All of which has evolved to a complex mess without accepted standards that can be agreed upon.
FurthurBB
07-07-2009, 12:14 AM
I think its a farce to call evolution a religion. At least in religions the people that preach it to you believe its true instead of trying to sell an imaginative theory they aren't sure is a fact themselves, but it just simply sounds good.
So, you truly believe that your child will have the exact same genes as you, and the rest of us too since there is no change in gene frequency in a population over time. No, evolution is not a religion because it only takes seeing, not faith. I teach evolution and I not only believe it, but, know for a fact that it is true. IMO
FurthurBB
07-07-2009, 12:15 AM
Well, till evolution comes up with a fact that hasn't been disproven, I'd say we're all on an even playing field. The whole premise of evolution from Darwin's age on to history, was based on unproven and unobserved concepts. All of which has evolved to a complex mess without accepted standards that can be agreed upon.
Sorry, blatant lies are not impressive to me. IMO
Streetdreamer
07-07-2009, 12:52 AM
Sorry, blatant lies are not impressive to me. IMO
Refute it by showing me a Darwin theory that has been proven or better yet, has not been disproven.
Streetdreamer
07-07-2009, 02:05 AM
So, you truly believe that your child will have the exact same genes as you, and the rest of us too since there is no change in gene frequency in a population over time. No, evolution is not a religion because it only takes seeing, not faith. I teach evolution and I not only believe it, but, know for a fact that it is true. IMO
I don't believe Genetic drift will change or eliminate alleles as much as I believe they will sink in the gene pool much like hundreds of heavy rocks in the Pacific Ocean. I contend they were already there. Hence, a canine will always be a canine. A human will always be a human. A change in species has yet to occur. I do believe natural selection is not an evolutionary concept but it does effect changes due to enviromental variances. Bears mate with bears but you're going to have polar bears mate with polar bears and if they see it as a survival necessity a few will mate with grizzlies making a hybrid. But they're still bears. I don't beleive they can adopt a genetic trait they dont already have deep in the mysterious gene pool, otherwise they would be incompatible. So a grizzly bear has polar bear in his gene pool but its just not on the surface.
Just IMO by the way which changes by the hour. Go easy on me...
Part 2, I'm not referring to evolution itself but the theories within. Such as the theoretical arguments between incremental changes and sudden changes in evolutionary biology especially regarding humans. No one is slamming the books down and saying this is or that is the way it happened. I don't believe anyone is sure what happened given the current fossil record.
Ape-Men? 7
For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets (s). Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today (t). Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence (u).
Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable.
s. Francis Ivanhoe, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577–578.
William L. Straus Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, “Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32, December, 1957, pp. 348–363.
Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, “Oldest Bone Disease,” Nature, Vol. 349, 24 January 1991, p. 288.
t. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).
Jack Cuozzo, “Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,” The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33–40.
u. Boyce Rensberger, “Facing the Past,” Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274
Fossil Man
Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull (a), the Castenedolo skeletons (b), Reck’s skeleton (c), and others (d). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (e). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.
a. J. D. Whitney, “The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California,” Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard College, Vol. 6, 1880, pp. 258–288.
Bowden, pp. 76–78.
Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Emsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50–52, 82, 83.
W. H. B., “Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.
Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, “The Case for the Calaveras Skull,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248–256.
For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks the hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava. See, for example:
Whitney, pp. 262–264, 266, 274–276.
G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294–301.
George F. Becker, “Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189–200.
b. Bowden, pp. 78–79.
Cousins, pp. 48–50, 81.
Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons:
“As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the “Castenedolo” find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs.” Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.
However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the unfossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.
c. Bowden, pp. 183–193.
d. Ibid., pp. 79–88.
e. Fix, pp. 98–105.
J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp. 316–318.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences31.html#wp1009380
Are you teaching a class here :laugh: I'm flunking but I do have a question.
Is there any theory that humans were found under rocks?
FurthurBB
07-16-2009, 08:53 AM
Are you teaching a class here :laugh: I'm flunking but I do have a question.
Is there any theory that humans were found under rocks?
Could you find so many lies and half-truths under a rock? IMO
Chemical Elements of Life 1
The chemical evolution of life is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen [a]. However, the closer one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.
Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon {b}. One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, today’s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on the earth’s surface since the first fossils formed.
Oxygen. No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earth’s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many substances should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth [c]. Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation [d]. But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life [e]. The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously—in other words, by creation.
a. The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%).
b. Carbon is only the 18th most abundant element, by weight, in the earth’s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite.
c. “The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem.” Leigh Van Valen, “The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen,” Science, Vol. 171, 5 February 1971, p. 442.
d. Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen. If no oxygen was in the atmosphere as life evolved, how did the atmosphere get its oxygen?
Cyanobacteria break down carbon dioxide and water and release oxygen. In 1987, William J. Schopf claimed that he and his graduate student had discovered fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cyanobacteria. This, he said, is how the atmosphere gained its oxygen after these bacteria—shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiation—evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved.
Schopf’s former graduate student and other experts have now charged Schopf with withholding evidence that those fossils were not cyanobacteria. Most experts feel betrayed by Schopf, who now accepts that his “specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all.” [See Rex Dalton, “Squaring Up over Ancient Life,” Nature, Vol. 417, 20 June 2002, pp. 782–784.] A foundational building block in the evolution story—that had become academic orthodoxy—has crumbled.
e . Hitching, p. 65.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences33.html#wp1009402
LisaM22
07-21-2009, 02:37 PM
Pahu, are you gonna post that whole copyrighted web site one post at a time?
Pahu, are you gonna post that whole copyrighted web site one post at a time?
No, only the information directly dealing with evolution.
LisaM22
07-21-2009, 03:45 PM
No, only the information directly dealing with evolution.
ah so you gonna omit a couple parts, but basically post the whole web site on this one thread, one post at a time :shrug:
FurthurBB
07-22-2009, 09:43 AM
No, only the information directly dealing with evolution.
You should really try to think for yourself. IMO
LisaM22
07-22-2009, 12:38 PM
You should really try to think for yourself. IMO
I would not mind if Pahu quoted a link from time to time, but trying to get around the TOS by slowly posting the same link over and over with new quotes from the same website, look how much of that site Pahu has already copied to this thread, it is unreal
FurthurBB
07-23-2009, 11:58 AM
I would not mind if Pahu quoted a link from time to time, but trying to get around the TOS by slowly posting the same link over and over with new quotes from the same website, look how much of that site Pahu has already copied to this thread, it is unreal
Well, quoting a link is different from only posting what is on the website. I would not mind if it related to her own thoughts. IMO
LisaM22
07-23-2009, 12:20 PM
Well, quoting a link is different from only posting what is on the website. I would not mind if it related to her own thoughts. IMO
yep, exactly, that is what I mean, this is not just quoting a website, this is copying it over to this thread piece by piece, one post at a time
yep, exactly, that is what I mean, this is not just quoting a website, this is copying it over to this thread piece by piece, one post at a time
You have expressed disapproval of my sharing information contained in a website. The information I am sharing reflects my understanding of reality and confirms it with scientific facts that the website can express far better than I can. Why is that a problem?
By the way, do you disagree with the information contained in the website? If so, why?
Chemical Elements of Life 2
Nitrogen. Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments [f].
Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life [g].
f. “If there ever was a primitive soup [to provide the chemical compounds for evolving life] , then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. Indeed to the contrary, the very oldest of sediments ... are extremely short of nitrogen.” J. Brooks and G. Shaw, Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 359.
“No evidence exists that such a soup ever existed.” Abel and Trevors, p. 3.
g. “The acceptance of this theory [life’s evolution on earth] and its promulgation by many workers [scientists and researchers] who have certainly not always considered all the facts in great detail has in our opinion reached proportions which could be regarded as dangerous.” Ibid., p. 355.
Certainly, ignoring indisputable, basic evidence in most scientific fields is expensive and wasteful. Failure to explain the evidence to students betrays a trust and misleads future teachers and leaders.
Readers should consider why, despite the improbabilities and lack of proper chemistry, many educators and the media have taught for a century that life evolved on earth. Abandoning or questioning that belief leaves only one strong contender—creation. Questioning evolution in some circles invites ostracism, much like stating that the proverbial emperor “has no clothes.”
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences33.html#wp1009402
LisaM22
07-23-2009, 04:20 PM
You have expressed disapproval of my sharing information contained in a website. The information I am sharing reflects my understanding of reality and confirms it with scientific facts that the website can express far better than I can. Why is that a problem?
By the way, do you disagree with the information contained in the website? If so, why?
I just know what cw has said on the subject... it seems to be pushing copyright limitations to me, but what do I know, I just post here
Brentwood
07-23-2009, 10:44 PM
Hominid fossils are indisputable, hard evidence that ancestral hominids existed. Period.
Chimps and human’s share 98% of dna. That is greater than what a zebra & horse share. The difference in our genes can be measured and Guess What….the estimate matches the date when early hominids appeared.
Why do we have an appendix, which was once used for digesting cellulose by our ancestors but is no longer needed?
How can creationists explain all of the evidence w/o evolution? They can’t. Creationists ignore all evidence of human evolution because it threatens their worldview.
Time to wake up creationists. WE EVOLVED. I suspect you know the world is not flat, it is time to take another step. Science is real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GEh1u5fF4M&feature=fvw
There is abundant, conclusive evidence that the earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old. Would those who believe in creationism, please post how old you think the world is, if you want to that is.
FurthurBB
07-23-2009, 10:47 PM
You have expressed disapproval of my sharing information contained in a website. The information I am sharing reflects my understanding of reality and confirms it with scientific facts that the website can express far better than I can. Why is that a problem?
By the way, do you disagree with the information contained in the website? If so, why?
I disagree and have already told you why. There are no scientific facts on that site, only lies, half-truths, and quotes taken completely out of context. IMO
LisaM22
07-23-2009, 11:24 PM
I think its a farce to call evolution a religion. At least in religions the people that preach it to you believe its true instead of trying to sell an imaginative theory they aren't sure is a fact themselves, but it just simply sounds good.
evolution is fact, there is also a theory on how we evolved, but evolution itself is fact - creationism is a myth that some believe... I agree with you that evolution is not a religion, anymore then believing the earth is round is a religion
LisaM22
07-24-2009, 10:32 PM
I disagree and have already told you why. There are no scientific facts on that site, only lies, half-truths, and quotes taken completely out of context. IMO
lol, well that site is almost this site, a few more posts by Pahu and most of the site will be posted here on In Session
Proteins 1
Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link up if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earth’s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed [a]. Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen [b].
a. An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that “imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers.” Philip Morrison, “Earth’s Earliest Biosphere,” Scientific American, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp. 30–31.
To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid [c]. However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur [d]. Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids [e].
Charles F. Davidson, “Geochemical Aspects of Atmospheric Evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 53, 15 June 1965, pp. 1194–1205.
Steven A. Austin, “Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?” ICR Impact, No. 109, July 1982.
“In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved sedimentary rocks.” Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, “Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1976, p. 1161.
“What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.” Philip H. Abelson, “Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55, June 1966, p. 1365.
b. R. T. Brinkmann, “Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No. 23, 20 October 1969, pp. 5355–5368.
c. “It is difficult to imagine how a little pond with just these components, and no others [no contaminants], could have formed on the primitive earth. Nor is it easy to see exactly how the precursors would have arisen.” Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.
d. “But when multiple biopolymers must all converge at the same place at the same time to collectively interact in a controlled biochemical cooperative manner, faith in ‘self-organization’ becomes ‘blind belief.’ No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap.” Abel and Trevors, p. 9.
e. “I believe this [the overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions to move in the direction opposite to that required for the evolution of life] to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life].” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” p. 50.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences34.html#wp1009442
doradoll
08-04-2009, 07:33 PM
Just curious about what some think about Jesus and DNA? Do you believe that he only had Mary's DNA and no other? Could a human being be composed of only one set of DNA?
Andy1
08-05-2009, 07:30 PM
Just curious about what some think about Jesus and DNA? Do you believe that he only had Mary's DNA and no other? Could a human being be composed of only one set of DNA?
IMHO Jesus came to earth to provide the perfect sacrifice, he could not have come form Mary's DNA as this was affected by the fall; the only way Jesus could be the last lamb who takes away the sin's of the world was by a supernateral conception, thats why the virgin birth is necessary.
Proteins 2
Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth’s heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed [f]. The many attempts to show how life might have arisen on earth have instead shown (a) the futility of that effort [g], (b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life [h], and (c) the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.
f. “The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.” D. E. Hull, “Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation,” Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694.
Pitman, p. 140.
Duane T. Gish, Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life, ICR Technical Monograph, No. 1 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).
g. “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Crick, p. 88.
Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize winner and the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, did not give up. He reasoned that if life could not have evolved on earth, it must have evolved somewhere else in our galaxy and been transported to earth—an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermia—that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that “it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation.” He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [See Eugene N. Parker, “Shielding Space Travelers,” Scientific American, Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40–47.]
h. Robert Shapiro, Origins (New York: Bantam Books, 1986).
The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life” can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:
These “building blocks” are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory.
Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.
Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.
Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.
Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)
All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.
“The story of the slow paralysis of research on life’s origin is quite interesting, but space precludes its retelling here. Suffice it to say that at present the field of origin-of-life studies has dissolved into a cacophony of conflicting models, each unconvincing, seriously incomplete, and incompatible with competing models. In private even most evolutionary biologists will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life.” Behe, “Molecular Machines,” pp. 30–31.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences34.html#wp1009442
FurthurBB
08-05-2009, 10:27 PM
Just curious about what some think about Jesus and DNA? Do you believe that he only had Mary's DNA and no other? Could a human being be composed of only one set of DNA?
Someone with the exact same DNA as you would either be your identical twin or a clone. Jesus could not have had only Mary's DNA or he would have been a female. IMO
The First Cell 1
If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell (a).
a . “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.
Yet, after such acknowledgments, Dawkins, an avowed atheist and perhaps the world’s leading Darwinian, tries to show that life came about by chance without an intelligent designer. Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life.
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.” Denton, p. 264.
“Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.” Ibid., p. 342.
“We have seen that self-replicating systems capable of Darwinian evolution appear too complex to have arisen suddenly from a prebiotic soup. This conclusion applies both to nucleic acid systems and to hypothetical protein-based genetic systems.” Shapiro, p. 207.
“We do not understand how this gap in organization was closed, and this remains the most crucial unsolved problem concerning the origin of life.” Ibid., p. 299.
“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences35.html#wp2912804
Gary_Tibbs
08-11-2009, 12:17 AM
IMO, there is no conflict. We all have a sense of sprituallity within ourselves if we admit it or not. The problem is, that some, like the extremist muslims, think that all others do not have the line on g-d, except themselves.
Think about it.
The First Cell 2
There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins (b).
b . “The events that gave rise to that first primordial cell are totally unknown, matters for guesswork and a standing challenge to scientific imagination.” Lewis Thomas, foreword to The Incredible Machine, editor Robert M. Pool (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Book Service, 1986), p. 7.
“No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides.” Kenyon, p. A-20.
Experts in this field hardly ever discuss publicly how the first cell could have evolved. However, the world’s leading evolutionists know this problem exists. For example, on 27 July 1979, Luther D. Sunderland taped an interview with Dr. David Raup, Dean of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. This interview was later transcribed and authenticated by both parties. Sunderland told Raup, “Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum (Natural History)] nor Dr. Eldredge [of the American Museum of Natural History] could give me any explanation of the origination of the first cell.” Dr. Raup replied, “I can’t either.”
“However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.” David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights Into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406–407.
“Every time I write a paper on the origins of life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts, though I must confess that in spite of this, the subject is so fascinating that I never seem to stick to my resolve.” Crick, p. 153.
This fascination explains why the “origin of life” topic frequently arises—despite so much evidence showing that it cannot happen by natural processes. Speculations abound.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences35.html#wp2912804
Streetdreamer
08-11-2009, 07:40 PM
IMO, there is no conflict. We all have a sense of sprituallity within ourselves if we admit it or not. The problem is, that some, like the extremist muslims, think that all others do not have the line on g-d, except themselves.
Think about it.
Their is conflict. Much of what Pahu is explaining here, disproves science. It would be one thing if the claims actually paralleled science or was reinforced by science, then it would be easy to say there is no conflict. This info is a science debunker and now very few want to approach anything here.
Fact---One must believe to receive. mho
Details
08-11-2009, 09:56 PM
Fact---One must believe to receive. mhoFalse.
Disbelieve in gravity - and see where it gets you. Disbelieve in gunpowder, see if you become bulletproof. Disbelieve in electricity - computer still works.
Reality happens whether you believe or not.
FurthurBB
08-12-2009, 12:45 AM
Their is conflict. Much of what Pahu is explaining here, disproves science. It would be one thing if the claims actually paralleled science or was reinforced by science, then it would be easy to say there is no conflict. This info is a science debunker and now very few want to approach anything here.
All of what Pahu is writing here is nonsense. If only she would use her brain for more useful endeavours. IMO
Their is conflict. Much of what Pahu is explaining here, disproves science. It would be one thing if the claims actually paralleled science or was reinforced by science, then it would be easy to say there is no conflict. This info is a science debunker and now very few want to approach anything here.
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Perhaps you should review the information I have shared. You might notice it is heavily based on quotes from scientists. You may be interested to learn that the scientists quoted since 2001 include:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, . John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
Streetdreamer
08-12-2009, 08:19 PM
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Perhaps you should review the information I have shared. You might notice it is heavily based on quotes from scientists. You may be interested to learn that the scientists quoted since 2001 include:
I misspoke. I meant to say an evolution science and evolution debunker and not science debunker(I can anticipate the upcoming comments on that statement but thats what I really meant). That evolution cannot be consistant with creation or the arguement that God used evolution to create all.
LisaM22
08-12-2009, 10:09 PM
Their is conflict. Much of what Pahu is explaining here, disproves science. It would be one thing if the claims actually paralleled science or was reinforced by science, then it would be easy to say there is no conflict. This info is a science debunker and now very few want to approach anything here.
it's a copy of someone else web page to this one, I would hardly call it disproving science and I am not even sure it is not criminal, as that site is copyrighted
LisaM22
08-12-2009, 10:13 PM
All of what Pahu is writing here is nonsense. If only she would use her brain for more useful endeavours. IMO
it's not Pahu's words, they all, every quote is part of the
http://www.creationscience.com website, little by little he is copying it here
LisaM22
08-12-2009, 10:17 PM
The First Cell 1
If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell (a).
a . “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.
Yet, after such acknowledgments, Dawkins, an avowed atheist and perhaps the world’s leading Darwinian, tries to show that life came about by chance without an intelligent designer. Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life.
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.” Denton, p. 264.
“Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.” Ibid., p. 342.
“We have seen that self-replicating systems capable of Darwinian evolution appear too complex to have arisen suddenly from a prebiotic soup. This conclusion applies both to nucleic acid systems and to hypothetical protein-based genetic systems.” Shapiro, p. 207.
“We do not understand how this gap in organization was closed, and this remains the most crucial unsolved problem concerning the origin of life.” Ibid., p. 299.
“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences35.html#wp2912804
you say Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life, so it could not of just poofed into existence, yet it seems if there was a god then you must of forgotten to take into account the complexities of creating a god, do you really think it would be harder for life to evolve then for a god to poof into existence?
maybe a god evolved ages ago and create the multi-verse and we are just part of that, ever evolving, cycles of life and death
Streetdreamer
08-13-2009, 03:25 AM
you say Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life, so it could not of just poofed into existence, yet it seems if there was a god then you must of forgotten to take into account the complexities of creating a god, do you really think it would be harder for life to evolve then for a god to poof into existence?
maybe a god evolved ages ago and create the multi-verse and we are just part of that, ever evolving, cycles of life and death
Well, if we're passing around concepts I would contend that
One: God isn't composed of physical matter.
Two: All thoughts and thought processes take time due to the restrictions of neurons, synapses, and so on which take time to operate due to the fact they are composed of matter even though they seem instantaneous they are not.
Three: God is not composed of this same matter so he is not restricted by time when it comes to his thought process. Time only works for us for the sake of our mechanical operation, but not for God. He doesn't need its operation to exist because he is not made of matter. Also every idea or thought as well as gameplan he has ever had, has already occurred and ended in a split second. All that is occuring to humans are lessons for our existance in infinity, one step at a time.
Four: Consequently, God has no beginning nor will he have an end. He doesn't cycle life and death. I find it impossible to believe that all physical matter came into existance by itself or has always been here for all eternity which are the only options. In order for me to believe that, then it must be observable at this very moment as opposed to only happen one time in all infinity. That leaves me no other choice than to believe that somehow all matter appeared out of nowhere which could only occur as an act of creation by an intelligence thats not restricted by father time.
Just a theory. IMO.
LisaM22
08-13-2009, 05:56 AM
Well, if we're passing around concepts I would contend that
One: God isn't composed of physical matter.
Two: All thoughts and thought processes take time due to the restrictions of neurons, synapses, and so on which take time to operate due to the fact they are composed of matter even though they seem instantaneous they are not.
Three: God is not composed of this same matter so he is not restricted by time when it comes to his thought process. Time only works for us for the sake of our mechanical operation, but not for God. He doesn't need its operation to exist because he is not made of matter. Also every idea or thought as well as gameplan he has ever had, has already occurred and ended in a split second. All that is occuring to humans are lessons for our existance in infinity, one step at a time.
Four: Consequently, God has no beginning nor will he have an end. He doesn't cycle life and death. I find it impossible to believe that all physical matter came into existance by itself or has always been here for all eternity which are the only options. In order for me to believe that, then it must be observable at this very moment as opposed to only happen one time in all infinity. That leaves me no other choice than to believe that somehow all matter appeared out of nowhere which could only occur as an act of creation by an intelligence thats not restricted by father time.
Just a theory. IMO.
matter and energy are interchangeable - a god would either need to poof into existence or have a creator by the creator logic, I think it is more likely energy existed first, some turned into matter, then we evolved some time latter (maybe energy it timeless, has always existed, has no beginning and no end)
Streetdreamer
08-13-2009, 09:38 AM
matter and energy are interchangeable - a god would either need to poof into existence or have a creator by the creator logic, I think it is more likely energy existed first, some turned into matter, then we evolved some time latter (maybe energy it timeless, has always existed, has no beginning and no end)
Since matter can't be destroyed out of existance, it doesn't seem reasonable that only 1 time in all of infinite history did energy convert to matter. This concept should've occurred an infinite number of times by now, not just 1 time. Yet we don't see that as something observable, today.
FurthurBB
08-13-2009, 10:17 AM
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Perhaps you should review the information I have shared. You might notice it is heavily based on quotes from scientists. You may be interested to learn that the scientists quoted since 2001 include:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, . John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
All of the quotes are either taken out of context, wrong, or just made up. Nothing like lying in the name of the lord Pahu. IMO
LisaM22
08-13-2009, 02:44 PM
Since matter can't be destroyed out of existance, it doesn't seem reasonable that only 1 time in all of infinite history did energy convert to matter. This concept should've occurred an infinite number of times by now, not just 1 time. Yet we don't see that as something observable, today.
sure it can, nuclear weapons turn matter to energy
Streetdreamer
08-13-2009, 07:15 PM
All of the quotes are either taken out of context, wrong, or just made up. Nothing like lying in the name of the lord Pahu. IMO
Name one, please.
LisaM22
08-13-2009, 08:29 PM
Name one, please.
just look at the subject - "Science Disproves Evolution" - that's your one
Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways
Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, almost miraculous, events have happened for each of millions of species (a)?
All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal, if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system (b).
a. This delicate chemical balance, upon which life depends, was explained to me by biologist Terrence R. Mondy.
b. Behe, pp. 77–97.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences36.html#wp1009488
Genetic Distances 1
Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured with sophisticated genetic techniques.
Proteins. “Genetic distances” can be calculated by taking a specific protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer changes needed to convert a protein of one organism into the corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer their relationship. These studies seriously contradict the theory of evolution {a}.
An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein. For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms (all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the rattlesnake was man (b). Since this study, experts have discovered hundreds of similar contradictions (c).
a. Dr. Colin Patterson—Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History)—gave a talk on 5 November 1981 to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History. He compared the amino acid sequences in several proteins of different animals. The relationships of these animals, according to evolutionary theory, have been taught in classrooms for decades. Patterson explained to a stunned audience that this new information contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, “The theory makes a prediction; we’ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.” Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, he admitted “evolution was a faith,” he was “duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way,” and “evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics [the science of classifying different forms of life].” “Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory,” Audio Tape Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, personal communication. For other statements from Patterson’s presentation see: Tom Bethell, “Agnostic Evolutionists,” Harper’s Magazine, February 1985, pp. 49–61.
“... it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies ...” Christian Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p. 280.
“It appears that the neo-darwinian hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm [the theory of evolution] took shape….One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature.” Ibid., p. 282.
“Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.” Trisha Gura, “Bones, Molecules ... or Both?” Nature, Vol. 406, 20 July 2000, p. 230.
b. Robert Bayne Brown, Abstracts: 31st International Science and Engineering Fair (Washington D.C.: Science Service, 1980), p. 113.
Ginny Gray, “Student Project ‘Rattles’ Science Fair Judges,” Issues and Answers, December 1980, p. 3.
While the rattlesnake’s cytochrome c was most similar to man’s, man’s cytochrome c was most similar to that of the rhesus monkey. (If this seems like a contradiction, consider that City B could be the closest city to City A, but City C might be the closest city to City B.)
c. “As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.” Colin Patterson et al., p. 179.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html#wp1009494
Lyndawitha"Y
08-21-2009, 07:19 PM
I am not going to even debate Science versus evolution..as it is obvious here, that many have their own views...I tend to keep it simple..Science has evolved to prove something, alter something..but no scientists has been able to replicate "LIFE"..sure they can genetically prove existences of entity..but this is where I may differ from any here..I believe in a "Soul" which in religious terms is what enters and is hosted by a "Cellular being"..nothing more nothing less..Life is living and breathing in the eyes of science..but in religion..life is more than just living and breathing..it is something that has a soul..has a purpose..and in religion..has to answer for their ability to fulfill their purpose to who..???hummm..Something or somebody far grander than us mortals..yepp some deity that has some powers..we just cant scientifically garner those powers..however humans have been able to scientificaly learn things to help living humans..which has no doubt in history been abused by some..but who can say there isnt something much stronger out there?..
Long and short, I have been around too many who have clinically passed..no life signs for many many minutes..brought back and made some very inspiring revelations..Take or leave it...I do believe God has full knowledge..and is well aware humankind has grown in knowledge..but who is to say that God didnt already know all that and gives or imparts to some to pursue that..
Religion is personal, science is proveable hypothosesis, and life is something everybody lives, endures , emparts wisdoms, or gets caught up in evilness and deters, blames, destroys, contaminates, kills, hurts, those around them...Humming kinda like the bible stories about "Good" and Evil" in the world..The devil has his way thru some...Yepper..I think we have seen a few of them in our lifetime!!
Anyway, evolution, simply is life evolving as it was meant to do..to attempt to take a snippet in the whole lifetime of recognitions by scientist and debunk or refute isnt really necessary for God Fearing people...It is what it is..and the access to this information is a gift from God to learn something positive..in order to help humanity...however some wish to use it to life detriment..Free Will is a Bit&&..but that is the rule..
LMS
Krystal
08-21-2009, 11:05 PM
I don't really see why Evolution and Creationism have to be in conflict. Charles Darwin was a Deist, not an Atheist. And I don't think the Creationism story was meant to be taken literally.
Brentwood
08-22-2009, 05:01 PM
I think the writings of Edgar Cayce are very compelling.
Edgar Cayce on Human Origins
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/cayce03.html
Re-Poe
08-24-2009, 02:17 PM
I think the writings of Edgar Cayce are very compelling.
Edgar Cayce on Human Origins
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/cayce03.html
That was soooooo interesting. thanks for the link.
Genetic Distances 2
DNA and RNA. Comparisons can be made between the genetic material of different organisms. The list of organisms that have had all their genes sequenced and entered in databases, such as “GenBank,” is doubling each year. Computer comparisons of each gene with all other genes in the database show too many genes that are completely unrelated to any others {d}. Therefore, an evolutionary relationship between genes is highly unlikely. Furthermore, there is no trace at the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals {e}. Each category of organism appears to be almost equally isolated {f}.
{d}. Gregory J. Brewer, “The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design,” ICR Impact, No. 341, November 2001, pp. 1–4.
Field, pp. 748–753.
{e}. Denton, p. 285.
{f}. “The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins’ amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series.” Ibid., p. 289.
“Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence.” Ibid., pp. 289–290.
“Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology.” Ibid., p. 290.
“There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available one century ago it would have been seized upon with devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.” Ibid., pp. 290–291.
“In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed ‘intermediate’, ‘ancestral’ or ‘primitive’ by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status.” Ibid., p. 293.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html#wp1009494
Anastasia
08-28-2009, 08:33 AM
Pahu--just grabbing two names from your list of what I guess are supposed to be eminent scientists who reject evolution--namely, Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking--I can only ask: Are you serious?! :scared:
No, wait, I do have another question: Where on earth did you ever get the notion that Sagan and Hawking are "disbelievers" in evolution?
No, don't tell me, it's obvious.
www.creationscience.com
Why can't these creationists at least be honest and admit that their real objection to evolution has nothing whatever to do with "proof" or any kind of "evidence".
It's all about religion--not just any religion, but the most rigid, dogmatic, and anti-intellectual kind of fundamentalism.
These so-called "creation scientists" are very, very bad "scientists"--and even worse, they're very bad Christians who are willing to use any distortion, manipulation of the facts, and anything else it takes to keep their sheep--err, flocks--in line.
So why oh why don't they just drop the pretence of science and admit to being what they are--rock-ribbed fundamentalists?
Are they ashamed of what they are? :confused:
Anastasia
08-28-2009, 08:39 AM
I don't really see why Evolution and Creationism have to be in conflict. Charles Darwin was a Deist, not an Atheist. And I don't think the Creationism story was meant to be taken literally.
Thanks for that, Krystal. I totally agree. :thumbsup:
Pahu--just grabbing two names from your list of what I guess are supposed to be eminent scientists who reject evolution--namely, Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking--I can only ask: Are you serious?! :scared:
Wrong guess.
No, wait, I do have another question: Where on earth did you ever get the notion that Sagan and Hawking are "disbelievers" in evolution?
No, don't tell me, it's obvious.
www.creationscience.com
Allow me to tell you anyway. Most of the scientists on that list believe in evolution, even though they have found evidence against it. Like most evolutionists, they believe in evolution despite the evidence, not because of it.
Why can't these creationists at least be honest and admit that their real objection to evolution has nothing whatever to do with "proof" or any kind of "evidence".
It's all about religion--not just any religion, but the most rigid, dogmatic, and anti-intellectual kind of fundamentalism.
Wrong again. Religion has nothing to do with creation science. It has everything to do with comparing the scientific facts with the two models of origins and deciding which model fits the facts. Evolutionists suppress the facts, especially in schools, because they know if both sides are presented, evolution loses.
These so-called "creation scientists" are very, very bad "scientists"--and even worse, they're very bad Christians who are willing to use any distortion, manipulation of the facts, and anything else it takes to keep their sheep--err, flocks--in line.
Why do you believe that?
So why oh why don't they just drop the pretence of science and admit to being what they are--rock-ribbed fundamentalists?
Are they ashamed of what they are? :confused:
At least you admit you are confused, and you are. What pretense are you referring to? Where are the scientist wrong in the information I shared?
Genetic Distances 3
Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.
Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected (g). Those differences include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements (h).” Although it’s only 4%, a huge DNA chasm separates humans from chimpanzees.
Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic information. They conflict in major ways (i).
g. After sequencing just the first chimpanzee chromosome, surprises were apparent.
“Surprisingly, though, nearly 68,000 stretches of DNA do differ to some degree between the two species…Extra sections of about 300 nucleotides showed up primarily in the human chromosome…Extra sections of other sizes—some as long as 54,000 nucleotides—appear in both species.” Bruce Bower, “Chimp DNA Yields Complex Surprises,” Science News, Vol. 165, 12 June 2004, p. 382.
“Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences [even] at the amino acid sequence level….the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated.” H. Watanabe et al., “DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22,” Nature, Vol. 429, 27 May 2004, pp. 382, 387.
h. Tarjei S. Mikkelsen et al., “Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome,” Nature, Vol. 437, 1 September 2005, p. 69.
i. “Instead, the comparisons [using DNA] have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well.” Elizabeth Pennisi, “Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?” Science, Vol. 284, 21 May 1999, p. 1305.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html#wp1009494
Doc Holliday
08-31-2009, 08:27 PM
Actually, Pahu, somebody recently put forth the argument that orangutans are our closest living relatives: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html
I greeted this news with a bit of relief, since I always liked the orangutans on Planet of the Apes better than the chimps (although not as much as I liked the gorillas - if it was up to me, I'd much rather be a gorilla than anything else).
Genetic Information 1
The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books (a).
a. Carl Sagan showed, using straight-forward calculations, why one cell’s worth of genetic information is the equivalent of 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Sagan’s 4,000 books had 500 pages with 300 words per page. {See Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 25.}
Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 10^14 (10 to the 14th power) cells. Somewhat less than 1,000 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to its 4,000 books, it would fill the Grand Canyon 78 times.
The Moon is 240,000 miles from Earth. If the DNA in a human cell were stretched out and connected, it would be more than 7 feet long. If all this DNA in one person’s body were placed end-to-end, it would extend to the Moon 552,000 times.
The DNA in a human cell weighs 6.4 x 10^-12 (10 to the –12 power) grams. [See Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 54.] Probably less than 50 billion people have lived on earth. If so, one copy of the DNA of every human who ever lived—enough to define the physical characteristics of all those people in excruciating and microscopic detail—would weigh less than the weight of one aspirin.
“...there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over....There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116–117.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html#wp1009517
Genetic Information 2
If matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero (b). It would be analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4,000 books were produced (c):
a. Start with a meaningful phrase.
b. Retype it, but make some errors and insert a few letters.
c. See if the new phrase is meaningful.
d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.
e. Return to step “b.”
b. “Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3
“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material.” Ibid., p. 148.
Not mentioned by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe is the simple fact that even a few correct words typed by the hordes of monkeys would decay long before a complete sentence of Shakespeare was completed. Correspondingly, a few correct sequences of amino acids would decay long before a complete protein was completed, not to mention all the thousands of proteins that must be in their proper place in order to have a living cell (minus, of course, its DNA).
“From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called ‘natural’ processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet. As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed. We have argued that the requisite information came from an ‘intelligence’, the beckoning spectre.” Ibid., p. 150.
“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.” Ibid., p. 141.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe go on to say that our own intelligences must reflect some sort of vastly superior intelligence, “even to the extreme idealized limit of God. ” They believe life was created by some intelligence somewhere in outer space and later was transported to Earth. Ibid., p. 144.
“All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” Lee Spetner, Not by Chance (Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1996), p. 138.
c. Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64.
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html#wp1009517
doradoll
09-02-2009, 06:40 PM
What do Christians believe about the existance of Dinosaurs? Was this pre Adam and Eve?
R~O~S
09-02-2009, 10:20 PM
What do Christians believe about the existance of Dinosaurs? Was this pre Adam and Eve?
Twould need to be, since they were his last creations.
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/image.html
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
and cattle after their kind,
and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.
And God said,
Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle,
and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(Genesis 1:25-26)
Disclaimer: This is not my belief, just the answer to the question, although I don't think there can be any one answer to the question. Some Christians take the bible more literally than others.
Genetic Information 3
To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10^40,000 trials (d). (To begin to large 10^40,000 is, realize that the visible universe has fewer than 10^80 atoms in it.)
Since 1970, evolutionists have referred to large segments of DNA as “junk DNA,” because it supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. We now know this “junk” explains much of the complexity of organisms. Use of the term “junk DNA” reflected past ignorance (e).
d. “The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.
“Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling[/color [of evolution]. [color=blue] The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.” Ibid., p. 130.
After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Fred Hoyle, “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.
e. “The failure to recognize the importance of introns [so-called junk DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” John S. Mattick, as quoted by W. Wayt Gibbs, “The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk,” Scientific American, Vol. 289, November 2003, pp. 49–50.
“What was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity.” Ibid., p. 52.
“Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk RNA] have been found to have roles in a great variety of processes, including transcription regulation, chromosome replication, RNA processing and modification, messenger RNA stability and translation, and even protein degradation and translocation. Recent studies indicate that ncRNAs are far more abundant and important than initially imagined.” Gisela Storz, “An Expanding Universe of Noncoding RNAs,” Science, Vol. 296, 17 May 2002, p. 1260.
“The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignorance.” Gretchen Vogel, “Why Sequence the Junk?” Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.
“...non-gene sequences [what evolutionists called ‘junk DNA’] have regulatory roles.” John M. Greally, “Encyclopaedia of Humble DNA,” Nature, Vol. 447, 14 June 2007, p. 782.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html#wp1009517
Genetic Information 4
The Elephant in the Living Room
Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific “detectives,” working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.
G: “Sounds like pretty complicated work.”
S: “You can’t imagine how complicated!”
G: “Try me.”
S: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”
G: “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!”
S: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”
G: “So how do you do it?”
S: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some ‘typo’s’. It should get easier as time goes by.”
G: “How did all that information happen to get there?”
S: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”
G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”
S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He's been there!”
G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”
S: “No. It all just evolved.”
G: “What? You just told me — ?”
S: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”
G: “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”
S: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.”
G: “What elephant?”
S: “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!”
George V. Caylor, “The Biologist,” The Ledger, Vol. 2, Issue 48, No. 92, 1 December 2000, p. 2. (www.ontherightside.com) Printed with permission.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html#wp1009517
DNA Production and Repair
DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins (a) but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA (b). Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other (c). The components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.
Nor can DNA function without a system to decode it, without a system to transcribe it into messenger RNA, and without preexisting ribosomes and enzymes. Again, creation.
When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each animal and plant has machinery that identifies and corrects most errors (d); if it did not, the organism would deteriorate and become extinct. If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism? Each requires the other.
(a). Ribosomes, complex structures that assemble proteins, have about 55 different proteins. More than twenty additional proteins are required to attach the 20 different types of amino acids to transfer RNA. DNA binding proteins and other proteins, specifically enzymes, also participate in the process.
(b). Richard E. Dickerson, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 73.
“The amino acids must link together to form proteins, and the other chemicals must join up to make nucleic acids, including the vital DNA. The seemingly insurmountable obstacle is the way the two reactions are inseparably linked—one can’t happen without the other. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.” Hitching, p. 66.
(c). “The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in the nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for this machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced! This presents a paradox of the ‘chicken and egg’ variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile.” John C. Walton, (Lecturer in Chemistry, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland), “Organization and the Origin of Life,” Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30–31.
“Genes and enzymes are linked together in a living cell—two interlocked systems, each supporting the other. It is difficult to see how either could manage alone. Yet if we are to avoid invoking either a Creator or a very large improbability, we must accept that one occurred before the other in the origin of life. But which one was it? We are left with the ancient riddle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Shapiro, p. 135.
“Because DNA and proteins depend so intimately on each other for their survival, it’s hard to imagine one of them having evolved first. But it’s just as implausible for them to have emerged simultaneously out of a prebiotic soup.” Carl Zimmer, “How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?” Science, Vol. 309, 1 July 2005, p. 89.
(d). Tomas Lindahl and Richard D. Wood, “Quality Control by DNA Repair,” Science, Vol. 286, 3 December 1999, pp. 1897-1905.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences39.html#wp1362067
many lie and justify it by "believing" it is doing gods work
Many misuse the word "lie" to replace their inability to produce any evidence supporting their contrary viewpoint.
When FurthurBB said "All of the quotes are either taken out of context, wrong, or just made up. Nothing like lying in the name of the lord Pahu. IMO," he was really just making that up, and he does admit it is in his opinion. Of course the quotes from scientists disproving evolution are taken out of context, but can anyone demonstrate that the meaning of the context has been changed? Where is the evidence that the scientists are wrong?
Also, a lie is a deliberate falsification. A false statement is not a lie unless it is a deliberate falsification. I assume FurtherBB is not lying.
FurthurBB
09-16-2009, 07:22 PM
Many misuse the word "lie" to replace their inability to produce any evidence supporting their contrary viewpoint.
When FurthurBB said "All of the quotes are either taken out of context, wrong, or just made up. Nothing like lying in the name of the lord Pahu. IMO," he was really just making that up, and he does admit it is in his opinion. Of course the quotes from scientists disproving evolution are taken out of context, but can anyone demonstrate that the meaning of the context has been changed? Where is the evidence that the scientists are wrong?
Also, a lie is a deliberate falsification. A false statement is not a lie unless it is a deliberate falsification. I assume FurtherBB is not lying.
I am not a he, and I have provided actual proof not just lies from one single site that have been proven lies. I do not assume you are lying because you have not stated a single thought of your own. IMO
Handedness: Left and Right 1
Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always “right-handed.” (They are called right-handed, because a beam of polarized light passing through them rotates like a right-handed screw.) Nucleotides rarely form outside life, but when they do, half are left-handed, and half are right-handed. If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes, they would have “mixed-handedness” and therefore could not evolve life’s genetic material. In fact, “mixed” genetic material cannot even copy itself (a).
Each type of amino acid, when found in nonliving material or when synthesized in the laboratory, comes in two chemically equivalent forms. Half are right-handed, and half are left-handed—mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed (b) —except in some diseased or aging tissue (c). No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).
A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce equal proportions of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.
If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organism’s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how advantageous a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness. “Inverted” (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. “Inverted” forests would fill the continents. Other “inverted” plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don’t beneficial mutations let most carriers defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe.
(a). “Equally disappointing, we can induce copying of the original template only when we run our experiments with nucleotides having a right-handed configuration. All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.” Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.
“There is no explanation why cells use L [left-handed] amino acids to synthesize their proteins but D [right-handed] ribose or D-deoxyribose to synthesize their nucleotides or nucleic acids. In particular, the incorporation of even a single L-ribose or L-deoxyribose residue into a nucleic acid, if it should ever occur in the course of cellular syntheses, could seriously interfere with vital structure-function relationships. The well-known double helical DNA structure does not allow the presence of L-deoxyribose; the replication and transcription mechanisms generally require that any wrong sugar such as L-deoxyribose has to be eliminated, that is, the optical purity of the D-sugars units has to be 100%.” Dose, p. 352.
(b). An important exception occurs in a component in cell membranes of eubacteria. There the amino acids are right-handed. This has led many to conclude that they must have evolved separately from all other bacteria. Because evolving the first living cell is so improbable, having it happen twice, in effect, compounds the improbability. [See Adrian Barnett, “The Second Coming: Did Life Evolve on Earth More Than Once?” New Scientist, Vol. 157, No. 2121, 14 February 1998, p. 19.]
(c). Recent discoveries have found that some amino acids, most notably aspartic acid, flip (at certain locations in certain proteins) from the normal left-handed form to the right-handed form. Flipping increases with age and correlates with disease, such as Alzheimer’s disease, cataracts, and arteriosclerosis. As one ages, flipping even accumulates in facial skin, but not other skin. [See Noriko Fujii, “D-Amino Acid in Elderly Tissues,” Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Vol. 28, September 2005, pp. 1585–1589.]
If life evolved, why did this destructive tendency to flip not destroy cells long before complete organisms evolved?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.html#wp1009545
Streetdreamer
09-19-2009, 02:52 AM
Many misuse the word "lie" to replace their inability to produce any evidence supporting their contrary viewpoint.
When FurthurBB said "All of the quotes are either taken out of context, wrong, or just made up. Nothing like lying in the name of the lord Pahu. IMO," he was really just making that up, and he does admit it is in his opinion. Of course the quotes from scientists disproving evolution are taken out of context, but can anyone demonstrate that the meaning of the context has been changed? Where is the evidence that the scientists are wrong?
Also, a lie is a deliberate falsification. A false statement is not a lie unless it is a deliberate falsification. I assume FurtherBB is not lying.
I LOVE this post !! I just had to tell you that !
L4L
I LOVE this post !! I just had to tell you that !
L4L
Thanks. This is indeed a rare moment in history when I am complimented. Don't stop. All compliments cheerfully accepted and appreciated.
Handedness: Left and Right 2
No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).
A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce equal proportions of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.
If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organism’s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how advantageous a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness. “Inverted” (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. “Inverted” forests would fill the continents. Other “inverted” plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don’t beneficial mutations let most carriers defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe.
d. Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.” Kenyon, p. A-23.
Evolutionists who work in this field are continually seeking a solution. From time to time someone claims that it has been solved, but only after checking the details does one find that the problem remains. In Germany, in 1994, a doctoral candidate, Guido Zadel, claimed he had solved the problem. Supposedly, a strong magnetic field will bias a reaction toward either the left-handed or right-handed form. Origin-of-life researchers were excited. Zadel’s doctorate was awarded. At least 20 groups then tried to duplicate the results, always unsuccessfully. Later, Zadel admitted that he had dishonestly manipulated his data. [See Daniel Clery and David Bradley, “Underhanded ‘Breakthrough’ Revealed,” Science, Vol. 265, 1 July 1994, p. 21.]
James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 71–79.
A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1981), pp. 15–32, 154–160.
Dickerson, p. 76.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.html#wp1009545
Improbabilities
To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that even one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zero (a)—far less than 1 in 10^450.To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.
From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible universe with a “simple” form of life, such as bacteria. Next, suppose we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all their atoms, then let them form new links.If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would one bacterium of any type reemerge? The chances (b) are much less than one in 10^99,999,999,873. Your chances of randomly drawing one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms are about one chance in 10^112—much better.
(a) Coppedge, pp. 71–72.
“Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Even if we take the simplest large protein molecule that can reproduce itself if immersed in a bath of nutrients, the odds against this developing by chance range from one in 10^450 (engineer Marcel Goulay in Analytical Chemistry) to one in 10^600 (Frank Salisbury in American Biology Teacher).” Fix, p. 196.
“I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ‘others’ are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles.” Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist, Vol. 92, 19 November 1981, p. 526.
“The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability. ... A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance.” Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 257.
(b) Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology: Biological Organization as a Problem in Thermal Physics (New York: Academic Press, 1968), pp. 2–12, 44–75.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences41.html#wp1542892
JohnA
09-30-2009, 02:22 AM
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.
[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2]
We have a lot of assumptions here .
because first its hasnt been proven there was no universe ( or anything else) before the universe ?
you said there was nothing nothing is nothing you are correct.
so what created a supernatural being from nothing, he ,she or it had to start from *something* to according to your theory nothing means nothing no earth no air no space , nothing ...... even how could he create him/her self from nothing , nothing is nothing including supernatural entities
cus we dont understand the * cause* of the beginning of life doesnt mean there is such a thing as supernatural entities no evidence to support that .
thiest have just inserted * god * into the mystery of lifes beginning for convenience to suit there beliefs and continue to control.
one might just as well* assume * there was a god or gods and they distroyed each other or the one god blow himself up ( by the big bang or whatever ) and the energy from that act caused the universe to start and evolution started from there .
Even if athiest concede that in the beginning there was a god /creater nothing since then has happened or discovered to prove the assumption there is a live god watching who planned everything and there is a after life ,why assume that is so .. just because some human wrote it in a book ?
By what sign or action has god revealed himsellf to be omnipotent , omnipresent &omniniscient ??
. the bible was written by humans gods words are in the third party as best the writers of each and every book in the bible are human they penned those words to discribe god NOT god himself , cus its written doesnt make it true
even then believing in a *god * who created the universe dont mean he is competent,active or even still in existance or cares at all what happens to his creation . more assumptions
another assumption maybe there is a supernatual power in one of the other planets who caused all this activity on planet earth ( maybe earth is just waste d9iscared by this superiou planet
god is a very convenient tool used for centuries to control the masses .
remember civillisation in the middle ages and before thought that the sun was god . and the earth was flat .and used similar arguments to explain the beginning of life .
we have learnt differantly since then the time will come when the secrets of how the world /universe started will be known.
until then as in centuries before us its just assumption
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.