Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

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/onlin...html#wp1012455

Copyright © 1995–2008

[Pahu]

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/onlin...html#wp1009086

Copyright © 1995–2008

[Pahu]

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/onlin...html#wp1009086

Copyright © 1995–2008

[FurthurBB]

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]

Originally Posted by FurthurBB

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

Originally Posted by FurthurBB

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]

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.

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]

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.

[Pahu]

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/onlin...html#wp1012558

Copyright © 1995–2008

[IcyLogic]

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]

Originally Posted by blues_cat

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]

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

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by IcyLogic

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/onlin...tml#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/onlin...tml#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.

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by blues_cat

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/onlin...html#wp1136899

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by blues_cat

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/onlin...html#wp1060587

[Pahu]

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/onlin...html#wp1009156

[lunchlady]

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]

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

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by lunchlady

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.

[Pahu]

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/onlin...html#wp1049019

[LisaM22]

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]

Originally Posted by Pahu

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

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]

Originally Posted by Tennessean

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]

Originally Posted by Tennessean

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]

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]

Originally Posted by LisaM22

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]

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

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]

Originally Posted by Tennessean

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]

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.

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by razrbladromance

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/b...0-595-12387-2]

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

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.

[Pahu]

Originally Posted by LisaM22

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?

[Pahu]

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/onlin...html#wp1049019

[lunchlady]

Originally Posted by Pahu

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]

Originally Posted by Pahu

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]

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

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]

Originally Posted by LisaM22

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.