Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu78]

Proteins 2


Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earthâ??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. â??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.â?� D. E. Hull, â??Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation,â?� 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. â??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.â?� 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 earthâ??an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermiaâ??that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that â??it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation.â?� He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [See Eugene N. Parker, â??Shielding Space Travelers,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40â??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 â??building blocks of lifeâ?� can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:

These â??building blocksâ?� 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 Millerâ??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.

â??The story of the slow paralysis of research on lifeâ??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.â?� [/i] Behe, â??Molecular Machines,â?� pp. 30â??31.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 29. Proteins (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences34.html#wp1009442)

[Pahu78]

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 . â??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 â??designedâ?? to have come into existence by chance.â?� Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.

Yet, after such acknowledgments, Dawkins, an avowed atheist and perhaps the worldâ??s leading Darwinian, tries to show that life came about by chance without an intelligent designer. Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life.

â??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.â?� Denton, p. 264.

â??Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of whichâ??a functional protein or geneâ??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.â?� Ibid., p. 342.

â??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.â?� Shapiro, p. 207.

â??We do not understand how this gap in organization was closed, and this remains the most crucial unsolved problem concerning the origin of life.â?� Ibid., p. 299.

â??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.â?� Klaus Dose, â??The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,â?� Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 30. The First Cell (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences35.html#wp2912804)

[Pahu78]

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 happenedâ??even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins (b).

b . â??The events that gave rise to that first primordial cell are totally unknown, matters for guesswork and a standing challenge to scientific imagination.â?� Lewis Thomas, foreword to The Incredible Machine, editor Robert M. Pool (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Book Service, 1986), p. 7.

â??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.â?� Kenyon, p. A-20.

Experts in this field hardly ever discuss publicly how the first cell could have evolved. However, the worldâ??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, â??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.â?� Dr. Raup replied, â??I canâ??t either.â?�

â??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.â?� David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights Into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406â??407.

â??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.â?� Crick, p. 153.

This fascination explains why the â??origin of lifeâ?� topic frequently arisesâ??despite so much evidence showing that it cannot happen by natural processes. Speculations abound.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 30. The First Cell (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences35.html#wp2912804)

[Pahu78]

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 evolvedâ??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 20â??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. 77â??97.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 31. Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences36.html#wp1009488)

[Pahu78]

Genetic Distances 1


Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured with sophisticated genetic techniques.

Proteins. â??Genetic distancesâ?� 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 Pattersonâ??Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History)â??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, â??The theory makes a prediction; weâ??ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.â?� Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, he admitted â??evolution was a faith,â?� he was â??duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way,â?� and â??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].â?� â??Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory,â?� Audio Tape Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, personal communication. For other statements from Pattersonâ??s presentation see: Tom Bethell, â??Agnostic Evolutionists,â?� Harperâ??s Magazine, February 1985, pp. 49â??61.

â??... it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies ...â?� Christian Schwabe, â??On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,â?� Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p. 280.

â??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 shapeâ?¦.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.â?� Ibid., p. 282.

â??Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often donâ??t resemble those drawn up from morphology.â?� Trisha Gura, â??Bones, Molecules ... or Both?â?� 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, â??Student Project â??Rattlesâ?? Science Fair Judges,â?� Issues and Answers, December 1980, p. 3.

While the rattlesnakeâ??s cytochrome c was most similar to manâ??s, manâ??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. â??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.â?� Colin Patterson et al., p. 179.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32. Genetic Distances (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html#wp1009494)

[yokinazu]

it seems pahus science was around at the time of creation. everythings dated in the mid 80s. did we settle this argument?

[Pahu78]

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 â??GenBank,â?� 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, â??The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design,â?� ICR Impact, No. 341, November 2001, pp. 1â??4.
Field, pp. 748â??753.

{e}. Denton, p. 285.

{f}. â??The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteinsâ?? amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series.â?� Ibid., p. 289.

â??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.â?� Ibid., pp. 289â??290.

â??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.â?� Ibid., p. 290.

â??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.â?� Ibid., pp. 290â??291.

â??In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed â??intermediateâ??, â??ancestralâ?? or â??primitiveâ?? by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status.â?� Ibid., p. 293.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32. Genetic Distances (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html#wp1009494)

[Pahu78]

Genetic Distances 3


Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984â??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 â??thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements (h).â?� Although itâ??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 organismsâ?? genetic information. They conflict in major ways (i).

g. After sequencing just the first chimpanzee chromosome, surprises were apparent.

â??Surprisingly, though, nearly 68,000 stretches of DNA do differ to some degree between the two speciesâ?¦Extra sections of about 300 nucleotides showed up primarily in the human chromosomeâ?¦Extra sections of other sizesâ??some as long as 54,000 nucleotidesâ??appear in both species.â?� Bruce Bower, â??Chimp DNA Yields Complex Surprises,â?� Science News, Vol. 165, 12 June 2004, p. 382.

â??Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences [even] at the amino acid sequence levelâ?¦.the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated.â?� H. Watanabe et al., â??DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22,â?� Nature, Vol. 429, 27 May 2004, pp. 382, 387.

h. Tarjei S. Mikkelsen et al., â??Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome,â?� Nature, Vol. 437, 1 September 2005, p. 69.

i. â??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.â?� Elizabeth Pennisi, â??Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?â?� Science, Vol. 284, 21 May 1999, p. 1305.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32. Genetic Distances (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html#wp1009494)

[Pahu78]

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 cellâ??s worth of genetic information is the equivalent of 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Saganâ??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 humanâ??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 personâ??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 personâ??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 â??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 livedâ??enough to define the physical characteristics of all those people in excruciating and microscopic detailâ??would weigh less than the weight of one aspirin.

â??...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 â??primitiveâ?? amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.â?� Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116â??117.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html#wp1009517)

[Pahu78]

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 â??b.â?�

b. â??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.â?� Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3

â??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.â?� 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).

â??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 â??naturalâ?? 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 â??intelligenceâ??, the beckoning spectre.â?� Ibid., p. 150.

â??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.â?� [/color][/i] Ibid., p. 141.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe go on to say that our own intelligences must reflect some sort of vastly superior intelligence, â??even to the extreme idealized limit of God. â?� They believe life was created by some intelligence somewhere in outer space and later was transported to Earth. Ibid., p. 144.

[color=blue][i] â??All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.â?� Lee Spetner, Not by Chance (Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1996), p. 138.

c. Murray Eden, as reported in â??Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,â?� Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64.

â??It is our contention that if â??randomâ?? 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 lawsâ??physical, physico-chemical, and biological.â?� Murray Eden, â??Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,â?� Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html#wp1009517)

[Pahu78]

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 â??junk DNA,â?� because it supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. We now know this â??junkâ?� explains much of the complexity of organisms. Use of the term â??junk DNAâ?� reflected past ignorance (e).

d. â??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.â?� Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

â??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 [of evolution]. 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.â?� Ibid., p. 130.

After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that â??a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.â?� Fred Hoyle, â??Hoyle on Evolution,â?� Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.

e. â??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.â?� John S. Mattick, as quoted by W. Wayt Gibbs, â??The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 289, November 2003, pp. 49â??50.

â??What was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity.â?� Ibid., p. 52.

â??Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk RNA] [color=blue][i] 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.â?� Gisela Storz, â??An Expanding Universe of Noncoding RNAs,â?� Science, Vol. 296, 17 May 2002, p. 1260.

â??The term â??junk DNAâ?? is a reflection of our ignorance.â?� Gretchen Vogel, â??Why Sequence the Junk?â?� Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.

â??...non-gene sequences [what evolutionists called â??junk DNAâ??] have regulatory roles.â?� John M. Greally, â??Encyclopaedia of Humble DNA,â?� Nature, Vol. 447, 14 June 2007, p. 782.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html#wp1009517)

[Pahu78]

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 â??detectives,â?� working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.

G: â??Sounds like pretty complicated work.â?�
S: â??You canâ??t imagine how complicated!â?�
G: â??Try me.â?�
S: â??Iâ??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.â?�
G: â??With the computer power, you can just use â??spell checkâ??!â?�
S: â??There is no â??spell checkâ?? because we donâ??t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We donâ??t even know for sure which language. And itâ??s not just the â??spelling errorâ?? weâ??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.â?�
G: â??So how do you do it?â?�
S: â??We are learning as we go. We have already â??readâ?? over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some â??typoâ??sâ??. It should get easier as time goes by.â?�
G: â??How did all that information happen to get there?â?�
S: â??Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?â?�
G: â??Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?â?�
S: â??George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by â??genius beyond genius,â?? 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!â?�
G: â??Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?â?�
S: â??No. It all just evolved.â?�
G: â??What? You just told me â?? ?â?�
S: â??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 donâ??t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lecturesâ??everything would stop. Iâ??d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldnâ??t earn a decent living.â?�
G: â??I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.â?�
S: â??The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankindâ??s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the â??elephant in the living roomâ??.â?�
G: â??What elephant?â?�
S: â??Design. Itâ??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 isnâ??t there!â?�
George V. Caylor, â??The Biologist,â?� The Ledger, Vol. 2, Issue 48, No. 92, 1 December 2000, p. 2. (On The Right Side with George Caylor (http://www.ontherightside.com)) Printed with permission.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences38.html#wp1009517)

[Coelho]

d. â??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.â?� Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

â??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 [of evolution]. 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.â?� Ibid., p. 130.

After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that â??a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.â?� Fred Hoyle, â??Hoyle on Evolution,â?� Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.

I think this argument is enough to prove that life could NOT appear by itself just by chance.

Even if we suppose that all life evolved from a single virus, which is way simpler than the simplest cell, still the probability of it being formed by pure chance is still way too small.

The smallest known virus has like 3000 DNA-units, and so the chance of it appearing by chance is 1 in 4^3000 or 1 in 10^1800, which is still an awesomely small probability, which can be considered null for all the practical purposes.

As it is said above:

"such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident."

Anyway... i wonder what kind of absurd arguments the hard-headed evolutionists would use to reply this...

[Delta9 UK]

Anyway... i wonder what kind of absurd arguments the hard-headed evolutionists would use to reply this...

They wouldn't need ANY arguments, Abiogenesis has nothing to with evolution especially natural selection - this is comparing Apples & Skyscrapers.

This thread would actually be funny if it wasn't so redundantly stupid.

[Delta9 UK]

Most of this thread unfortunately is being supported by people not even remotely qualified to discuss it. Pahu doesn't even know what he's copy-pasting and although that makes it sort of funny at the same time it gets a bit tiring that this isn't actually a discussion.

I won't add the whole article here but two can certainly play the copy-paste game. You can read the whole page (and you really should, dear reader) over on Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html). As we have now branched off into Astronomy (Fred Hoyle wasn't a biologist) and Abiogenesis I figured why the hell not...

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

[Delta9 UK]

I think this argument is enough to prove that life could NOT appear by itself just by chance.


Coelho - you might want to read this article:
Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers (http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html)

It's all about self-replicating molecules & this isn't even new science.

Granted it gets rejected by creationists but then again they usually leave common sense at the door anyway - but I know you are a Physics dude so you should be able to get your head around it no problemo. For more information rty searching for "aminoadenosine triacid ester" - that should give you plenty of references.

This isn't 'absolute proof' of anything, especially abiogenesis but it is a bloody good start and imho a lot better than the usual 'goddidit' argument peddled by creation "science" (an oxymoron if I ever saw one) or ID or whatever-the-fuck they have rebadged it into this week.

[Esoteric416]

Delta, you're doing it wrong. If you want to play the copy-paste game you have to have the overwhealming bulk of your post be stuff you didn't write, and you have to make like six posts in a row like that.
You over-thought it methinks. :P

[Pahu78]

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, â??Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 73.

â??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 linkedâ??one canâ??t happen without the other. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.â?� Hitching, p. 66.

(c). â??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 â??chicken and eggâ?? variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile.â?� John C. Walton, (Lecturer in Chemistry, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland), â??Organization and the Origin of Life,â?� Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30â??31.

â??Genes and enzymes are linked together in a living cellâ??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?â?� Shapiro, p. 135.

â??Because DNA and proteins depend so intimately on each other for their survival, itâ??s hard to imagine one of them having evolved first. But itâ??s just as implausible for them to have emerged simultaneously out of a prebiotic soup.â?� Carl Zimmer, â??How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?â?� Science, Vol. 309, 1 July 2005, p. 89.

(d). Tomas Lindahl and Richard D. Wood, â??Quality Control by DNA Repair,â?� Science, Vol. 286, 3 December 1999, pp. 1897-1905.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 34. DNA Production and Repair (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences39.html#wp1362067)

[Delta9 UK]

Delta, you're doing it wrong. If you want to play the copy-paste game you have to have the overwhealming bulk of your post be stuff you didn't write, and you have to make like six posts in a row like that.
You over-thought it methinks. :P

Lulzy! :thumbsup:

I think I need to use more Blue too...

[Pahu78]

Handedness: Left and Right 1


Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always â??right-handed.â?� (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 â??mixed-handednessâ?� and therefore could not evolve lifeâ??s genetic material. In fact, â??mixedâ?� 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-handedâ??mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed (b) â??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 organismâ??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 plantâ??s handedness. â??Invertedâ?� (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. â??Invertedâ?� forests would fill the continents. Other â??invertedâ?� 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 donâ??t beneficial mutations let most carriers defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe.

(a). â??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.â?� Leslie E. Orgel, â??The Origin of Life on the Earth,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.

â??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%.â?� 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, â??The Second Coming: Did Life Evolve on Earth More Than Once?â?� 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 Alzheimerâ??s disease, cataracts, and arteriosclerosis. As one ages, flipping even accumulates in facial skin, but not other skin. [See Noriko Fujii, â??D-Amino Acid in Elderly Tissues,â?� Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Vol. 28, September 2005, pp. 1585â??1589.]

If life evolved, why did this destructive tendency to flip not destroy cells long before complete organisms evolved?

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 35. Handedness: Left and Right (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.html#wp1009545)

[Delta9 UK]

1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).

2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.

4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).

[Delta9 UK]

Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Creationism however has ZERO evidence to support it.

[Pahu78]

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 organismâ??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 plantâ??s handedness. â??Invertedâ?� (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. â??Invertedâ?� forests would fill the continents. Other â??invertedâ?� 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 donâ??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.â?� 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. Zadelâ??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, â??Underhanded â??Breakthroughâ?? Revealed,â?� Science, Vol. 265, 1 July 1994, p. 21.]

James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 71â??79.

A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1981), pp. 15â??32, 154â??160.

Dickerson, p. 76.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 35. Handedness: Left and Right (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.html#wp1009545)

[Pahu78]

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)â??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 â??simpleâ?� 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 10^112â??much better.

(a) Coppedge, pp. 71â??72.

â??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).â?� Fix, p. 196.

â??I donâ??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 â??othersâ?? 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.â?� Fred Hoyle, â??The Big Bang in Astronomy,â?� New Scientist, Vol. 92, 19 November 1981, p. 526.

â??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 didnâ??t happen by chance.â?� 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. 2â??12, 44â??75.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 36. Improbabilities (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences41.html#wp1542892)

[bhouncy]

pahu78... yer a nutter

[Pahu78]

Metamorphosis 1


Many animals experience an amazing transformation that refutes evolution. One example is the monarch butterfly. As a 2-week-old caterpillar, it builds a chrysalis around itself. Then its complex organs disintegrate. From an evolution perspective, this should cause its extinctionâ??a thousand times over. Two weeks later, a beautiful butterfly emerges with different and even more remarkable capabilities. Some people might believe that a complex machine, such as an automobile, evolved by natural processes, but if they saw that machine disintegrate and quickly reemerge as an airplane, only the most naive and unscientific would still believe that natural processes could produce such marvelous designs.

Most insects (87%) undergo complete metamorphosis. It begins when a larva (such as a caterpillar) builds a cocoon around itself. Then its body inside disintegrates into a thick, pulp-like liquid. Days, weeks, or months later, the adult insect emergesâ??one that is dramatically different, amazingly capable, and often beautiful, such as a butterfly. Food, habitat, and behavior of the larva also differ drastically from the adult.
Evolution claims that:

Mutations slightly alter an organismâ??s genetic material which later generations inherit. On rare occasions the alterations are beneficial, enabling the offspring to reproduce more of themselves and the improved genetic material. [Supposedly] after many generations, dramatic changes, even new organs, accumulate.

If this were true, each organism must be able to reproduce and must be superior, in some sense, to its ancestors. How then could metamorphosis evolve in many stages (a)?

a. â??Certainly it [metamorphosis] demonstrates the absurdity of invoking natural selection by successive mutation to explain such an obviously, yet subtly programmed, process. Why on that basis, should the ancestral insect have survived the mutations that projected it into the chrysalid stage, from which it could not yet develop into an adult? Where was natural selection then? How could pre-programmed metamorphosis, in insect, amphibian or crustacean, ever have evolved by chance? Indeed, how could development have evolved piece-meal? The ball is in the evolutionistâ??s court, tangled in a net of inexplicability.â?� Michael Pitman, â??Adam and Evolutionâ?� (London: Rider & Company, 1984), p. 71.

â??Apart from the many difficulties in understanding how such a radical change [as metamorphosis] comes about, there is the larger question of why it should happen? Can there really be an evolutionary advantage in constructing one sort of organism and then throwing it away and starting again?â?� Taylor, p. 177.

â??There is no evidence of how such a remarkable plan of life [metamorphosis] ever came about ...â?� Peter Farb, â??The Insects,â?� Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), p. 56.

â??Does any one really believe that the ancestors of butterflies were as adults just masses of pulp enveloped in cases, having no means of procuring external nourishment? If not, it is for the evolutionist to explain how the process of metamorphosis became intercalated in the life-history of the caterpillar.â?� Douglas Dewar, â??The Transformist Illusionâ?� (Murfreesboro, Tennessee: DeHoff Publications, 1957), p. 213.

Finding how metamorphosis evolved in one species, genus, family, order, or class is just the first question. Because many different larva-to-adult patterns exist, many other explanations are also needed.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 37. Metamorphosis (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html#wp2927793)

[Pahu78]

Metamorphosis 2


What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as â??mush.â?� From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards. As Michael Pitman wryly noted:

â??Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process pre-programmed from the first â??production runâ?�? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot? (b)â?�

The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pinhead (c)? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce (d)?

Charles Darwin wrote:

â??If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (e).â?�
Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution â??breaks down.â?�

Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larvaâ??s and an adultâ??s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation.


b. Pitman, pp. 193â??194.

c. Jules H. Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarchâ??the Miracle Butterfly (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1995).

d. An evolutionist might claim that larvae once reproduced, but then lost that capability. If so, why is there no sign of any remnant reproductive equipment in any of the hundreds of thousands of larva types?

e. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 179.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 37. Metamorphosis (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html#wp2927793)

[bhouncy]

Please stop this spam.

[dejayou30]

Please stop this spam.

No doubt. Creationism is whack.

[carinia]

For real. Which came first, the larva or the fly?

Everyones been asking chicken or egg for years yo. Do you get out of the house n socialize with others at all?

As far as your improbabilities arguement - yes, life is extremely improbable. Intelligent life even more so. However I think the probability of having an 'intelligent creator' is WAY WAY WAYYY more remote.

I find that the bird flu is a pretty good example of evolution. It started in birds, mutated enough that it EVOLVED into a form that could be transfered to humans. It is now a new strain, but it is also a transitional strain - because sooner or later it will mutate so it can be passed between humans without a bird source.

I dunno, creationism has no place with evolution. Sure, Ill give you creationist a break and say maybe a creator threw down a bacteria to start the whole mess we call life. We have no evidence for how life got started. But to say evolution has everything wrong is just silly!

[carinia]

While i was checking out the creationist site posted by Pahlu, I found this video, and its hilarious:
http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/graphics/creation/fonte23.mov

My goodness, everything is explained! :)

[Pahu78]

For real. Which came first, the larva or the fly?

Everyones been asking chicken or egg for years yo. Do you get out of the house n socialize with others at all?

As far as your improbabilities arguement - yes, life is extremely improbable. Intelligent life even more so. However I think the probability of having an 'intelligent creator' is WAY WAY WAYYY more remote.

I find that the bird flu is a pretty good example of evolution. It started in birds, mutated enough that it EVOLVED into a form that could be transfered to humans. It is now a new strain, but it is also a transitional strain - because sooner or later it will mutate so it can be passed between humans without a bird source.

I dunno, creationism has no place with evolution. Sure, Ill give you creationist a break and say maybe a creator threw down a bacteria to start the whole mess we call life. We have no evidence for how life got started. But to say evolution has everything wrong is just silly!

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 â??Evolutionâ?� to itemize here, but letâ??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. â??Evolutionâ?� 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 exampleâ??one Darwin himself usedâ??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-evolutionâ??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 animalsâ??even fruit flies â??there simply isnâ??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. Yetâ??and this the producers donâ??t tell usâ??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 â??150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.â?�

The producers of â??Evolutionâ?� 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) andâ??voila!â??the HIV returns to its original â??wild-type.â?� Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.

On other issues, â??Evolutionâ?� mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwinâ??s mechanism and â??change over timeâ?� which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the â??Cambrian Explosion,â?� 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.

[dejayou30]

If transition from species to species has never been observed, how do you explain the fossil evidence that tracks the exact process? (Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html))

The supposed "difference" between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a farce put forth by creationists. Both micro and macro evolution work on the same principles, the only difference is time. To say that micro evolution is possible and macro is not, is like saying it is possible to walk to the end of your block, but it is not possible to walk to Chicago. One just takes longer than the other.

Please learn something about evolution if you really want to try to refute it, and quit posting your pseudoscience lies and bullshit here. There are millions of transitional forms that map the transition from birds to reptiles to mammals if you would close the Bible and look elsewhere for your information.

Also, the Cambrian explosion was not an appearance of all animal groups. There were no dogs, bunnies, cats, horses, etc. in the Cambrian explosion. Please learn real information instead of regurgitating the same tired creationist claims that have already been debunked by credible sources.

[carinia]

If you count Alan H Linton saying that 'recently', as in 1979, then I guess its recent.

I just gave you an example of evolution - bird flu. Oh and swine flu I suppose too. Another good example is quick rise yeast used in bread making. It was developed by a natural selection process - the fastest yeast covered the petri dish the fastest over numerous generations. It is a seperate species. We observed it. It is documented. And just as Dejayou30 said, how can you have micro without macro?


Im not sure how Evolutionists "omit" information and creationists do not. The fossil record is not complete, thats a given. You cant expect every species that ever walked the face of the earth to be perfectly preserved. That actually puts the burden of proof on your side, why didn't the almighty put little signs next to the fossils that told us where they came from? The Cambrian explosion is an intensely interesting event that needs more explanation, but it in no way disproves evolution. Im not sure what 'execptions' to DNA you are talking about, other than as more species genomes are mapped, the more links we can find between species.

I am always amazed that a creationists arguement centers on either blatant disregard for facts that are painfully obvious and documented, or focuses on questions that havent been fully answered yet but have a pretty good hypothesis. Not to mention all your research is INCREDIBLY outdated, like nothing has changed since the 70's.

[Pahu78]

If transition from species to species has never been observed, how do you explain the fossil evidence that tracks the exact process? (Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html))

Have you read that article? There is no fossil evidence that tracks the exact process of evolution. Instead, there are many examples of similarities between supposed links, but no evidence that one evolved into another.

[quote]The supposed "difference" between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a farce put forth by creationists. Both micro and macro evolution work on the same principles, the only difference is time. To say that micro evolution is possible and macro is not, is like saying it is possible to walk to the end of your block, but it is not possible to walk to Chicago. One just takes longer than the other.

Nonsense. Micro is another way of saying life forms adapt to their environment within their designed limits. Some examples are numerous breeds of dogs, cats, roses, etc. But a cat never became a dog, a rose never became a cucumber, etc. Macro is the notion that is possible, given enough time and the right conditions. Such changes from one kind to another has never been observed or made to happen in the lab.


Please learn something about evolution if you really want to try to refute it, and quit posting your pseudoscience lies and bullshit here. There are millions of transitional forms that map the transition from birds to reptiles to mammals if you would close the Bible and look elsewhere for your information.

Where are those millions of transitional forms? Where is one? When did I ever refer to the Bible in sharing information disproving evolution?


Also, the Cambrian explosion was not an appearance of all animal groups. There were no dogs, bunnies, cats, horses, etc. in the Cambrian explosion. Please learn real information instead of regurgitating the same tired creationist claims that have already been debunked by credible sources.

You are in denial and pathetically deceived.In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that oneâ??s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by oneâ??s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

â??Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.â?� [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), â??Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.â?� Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil recordâ??where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):

â??Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.â?� [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.]

If that werenâ??t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

â??The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.â?� [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.â?� [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:

â??Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesnâ??t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.â?� [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:

â??Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.â?� [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:

â??At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the â??officialâ?� position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).â?� [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

â??The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... 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 â??fully formed.â??â?� [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to â??severalâ?� superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesâ??â??more than enoughâ?� (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these â??superb examplesâ?� were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanationâ??not unheard of among evolutionistsâ??would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]

In spite of the agreement among many prominent evolutionist leaders that the fossil record does little to provide evidence of evolutionary transition, the likes of Mark Isaak somehow feel justified in declaring that, â??Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils ... there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist.â?�

What a complete contradiction to both the above leading evolutionistsâ?? own words, and the actual fossil record itself! If Isaakâ??s claims were true, why would the leading authorities of evolutionary thought so plainly disagree with this â??spokespersonâ?�?

Isaak even goes so far as to claim that, â??notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.â?� Yet these same alleged â??transitional sequencesâ?� remain no less equivocal and transitory (i.e., subject to continual dispute and re-evaluation among the â??expertsâ?�) than any other. Isaak declares them â??notable examples,â?� apparently based on his personal confidence more than on any tangible, empirical data.

One well-documented treatment of this subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation) may be found in Dr. Duane Gishâ??s recently updated book:

Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN 0-89051-112-8

Isaak, on the other hand, directs us to the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) in the talk.origins archive for â??proofâ?� of transitional fossils. A careful perusal of this source is well worthwhile, as it exemplifies the methods used by evolutionary â??spokespersonsâ?� to defend their beliefs by blurring the line between dogma and science, touting so much theoretical speculation as if it were unequivocal, empirical data, so as to convince any willing disciple that they canâ??t possibly be wrong.

[dejayou30]

Macro is the notion that is possible, given enough time and the right conditions. Such changes from one kind to another has never been observed or made to happen in the lab.

That's because evolution from species to species takes billions of years. Human existence is the tiniest of tiniest speck on the geological timeline of the earth. Of course it has not been observed, it takes longer for something to evolve from species to species than humans have even been on this earth.

Please learn about evolution and stop posting this nonsense. The stuff you are quoting is mostly at least 40 years old. Do you really think the evidence has not been solidified since then? Hell, the human genome wasn't mapped until 6 years ago. Science has evolved since those archaic quotes were made. There is an abundance of evidence in paleontology, biology, chemistry, etc. that clearly supports evolution.

Also if evolution is false, what do you think is the correct way to explain the diversity of life on our planet, and where is your evidence?

Lastly, Duane Gish is totally retarded, and doesn't know anything about science. He may be credentialed, but his evidence and understanding of even basic scientific principles is severely lacking.

From Wikipedia:


Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop" and criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[7][8]

Gish has also been criticised for using a standardized presentation during debates. While undertaking research for a debate with Gish, Michael Shermer noted that for several debates Gish's opening, assumptions about his opponent, slides and even jokes remained identical. In the debate itself, Shermer has written that while he stated he was not an atheist and willing to accept the existence of a divine creator, Gish's rebuttal concerned itself primarily with proving that Shermer was an atheist and therefore immoral.[9]

Massimo Pigliucci, who has debated Gish five times, noted that Gish ignores evidence contrary to his religious beliefs.[10] Others have accused Gish of stonewalling arguments with fabricated facts or figures.[11]

Ian Plimer, head of the Geology department at the University of Newcastle, Australia, debated Gish in 1988. Plimer considered the debate to be political rather than scientific, and thus refused to argue genteelly about scientific minutiae. Instead, Plimer debated Gish in a street-fighting style which a Sydney Morning Herald reporter described as going in "boots and all, aiming for the opponents kneecaps". "Professor Plimer mocked, ridiculed and challenged every tenet that the movement holds dear, and made a string of blunt personal accusations about some of its more prominent members."[12]

[Pahu78]

That's because evolution from species to species takes billions of years. Human existence is the tiniest of tiniest speck on the geological timeline of the earth. Of course it has not been observed, it takes longer for something to evolve from species to species than humans have even been on this earth.

If we cannot see evolution happening and we cannot reproduce it in the lab, doesnâ??t that suggest it doesnâ??t exist? Surely that would be the conclusion of scientists about any other hypothesis.

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 â??Evolutionâ?� to itemize here, but letâ??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. â??Evolutionâ?� 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 exampleâ??one Darwin himself usedâ??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-evolutionâ??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 animalsâ??even fruit flies â??there simply isnâ??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. Yetâ??and this the producers donâ??t tell usâ??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 â??150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.â?�

The producers of â??Evolutionâ?� 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) andâ??voila!â??the HIV returns to its original â??wild-type.â?� Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.

On other issues, â??Evolutionâ?� mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwinâ??s mechanism and â??change over timeâ?� which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the â??Cambrian Explosion,â?� 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.


Please learn about evolution and stop posting this nonsense. The stuff you are quoting is mostly at least 40 years old. Do you really think the evidence has not been solidified since then? Hell, the human genome wasn't mapped until 6 years ago. Science has evolved since those archaic quotes were made. There is an abundance of evidence in paleontology, biology, chemistry, etc. that clearly supports evolution.

Can you give some examples of that evidence?


Also if evolution is false, what do you think is the correct way to explain the diversity of life on our planet, and where is your evidence?

Since science disproves evolution, the creation model remains the only valid explanation.


Lastly, Duane Gish is totally retarded, and doesn't know anything about science. He may be credentialed, but his evidence and understanding of even basic scientific principles is severely lacking.

From Wikipedia:

Since you only focus on Gish being unreliable, are we to assume you agree with Ronald R. West, Steven Stanley, George Gaylord Simpson, David B. Kitts, E.R. Leach, S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge?

[ThaRaven7]

If we cannot see evolution happening and we cannot reproduce it in the lab, doesnâ??t that suggest it doesnâ??t exist? Surely that would be the conclusion of scientists about any other hypothesis.

If we cannot see creation happening and we cannot reproduce it in the lab, doesn't that suggest it doesn't exist? Surely that would be the conclusion of scientists about any other hypothesis.

(Cloning is not a reproduction of creationism)

I'm just using your logic... basically you're saying no one can PROVE evolution... you can't PROVE creationism.

[dejayou30]

Since science disproves evolution, the creation model remains the only valid explanation.

OK, so where is the evidence of creation that would support your claim? Or are we just supposed to "believe" without any evidence?



Since you only focus on Gish being unreliable, are we to assume you agree with Ronald R. West, Steven Stanley, George Gaylord Simpson, David B. Kitts, E.R. Leach, S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge?

The quotes you used from the legitimate scientists are 30-40 years old, and are therefore, mostly irrelevant. Given all the discoveries and the mountain of evidence that has been discovered since those claims have been made that wholly support the theory of evolution and not a single one contradicting it, do you think they would still stand by those quotes themselves? I really doubt it.

[Pahu78]

If we cannot see creation happening and we cannot reproduce it in the lab, doesn't that suggest it doesn't exist? Surely that would be the conclusion of scientists about any other hypothesis.

(Cloning is not a reproduction of creationism)

I'm just using your logic... basically you're saying no one can PROVE evolution... you can't PROVE creationism.

Sure I can:

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.

â??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 processesâ?� (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, â??Evidence that Demands a Verdictâ?� by Josh McDowell.

[From â??Reincarnation in the Bible?â?� ]Book Details (http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000005147#)

[Pahu78]

OK, so where is the evidence of creation that would support your claim? Or are we just supposed to "believe" without any evidence?

All of the information I am sharing gives evidence of creation and disproves evolution.


The quotes you used from the legitimate scientists are 30-40 years old, and are therefore, mostly irrelevant. Given all the discoveries and the mountain of evidence that has been discovered since those claims have been made that wholly support the theory of evolution and not a single one contradicting it, do you think they would still stand by those quotes themselves? I really doubt it.

Where is that "mountain of evidence" supporting evolution? In the last 50 years, science has added to the evidence disproving evolution and supporting creation.

[Pahu78]

Symbiotic Relationships


Different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. At the broadest level, the animal kingdom depends on the oxygen produced by the plant kingdom. Plants, in turn, depend on the carbon dioxide produced by the animal kingdom.

More local and specific examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp (a), the yucca plant and the yucca moth (b), many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. In other words, creation.

a. Oscar L. Brauer, â??The Smyrna Fig Requires God for Its Production,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 9, September 1972, pp. 129â??131.

Bob Devine, Mr. Baggy-Skin Lizard (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), pp. 29â??32.

b. Jerry A. Powell and Richard A. Mackie, Biological Interrelationships of Moths and Yucca Whipplei (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966).

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 38. Symbiotic Relationships (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences43.html#wp2853657)

[carinia]

Oh now I get it. Youre just posting the same arguement over and over to different questions, using the same outdated data. The circular logic is very nice as well. Normally, between steps 9, 10, and 11 in your little work through of how life got started, a real scientist would ask why and how, instead of jumping to conclusions. I think that means I'm done banging my head against a wall in this silly argument. :)

[dejayou30]

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.


:S2::S2::S2::S2::S2:

Someone please lock this thread. Everything this guy says is nonsense, and has no relevance in modern science. It is all just creationist :spam3:!!!!

[Pahu78]

Sexual Reproduction 1


If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

[a.] The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

[b.] The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).

[c.] The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

[d.] The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precisionâ??processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)

[e.] The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also â??accidentallyâ?� evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

[f.] This remarkable string of â??accidentsâ?� must have been repeated for millions of species.

a. In humans and in all mammals, a motherâ??s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn babyâ??half of whom is a â??foreign bodyâ?� from the father. If these immune systems functioned â??properly,â?� mammalsâ??including each of usâ??would not exist.

â??The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged.â?� [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

b. N. W. Pixie, â??Boring Sperm,â?� Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.

c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, â??Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,â?� Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654â??1656.

d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 39. Sexual Reproduction (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#wp1861111)

[carinia]

Dangit, I cant help myself :)


[a.] The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

Cross breeding of different species is possible (ligers, mules being an example). This proves that conditions can be different than expected, but still work. Also, altho sexual reproduction is complex, it is getting to be relatively easy to reproduce the results (test tube babies, cloning dogs) through todays technology.


[b.] The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a). I believe thats covered in [a.]


[c.] The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
again, a. Same idea stated 3 different times enough?


[d.] The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precisionâ??processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
As far as my logic takes me, if you can clone an animal, you should know how all those systems work. I also remember the 8th grade science class where all those fun words, meiosis, prophase, mitosis, anaphase were drilled into my little skull. Those are the processes at work, and they get really technical in college biology classes. Not general.


[e.] The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also â??accidentallyâ?� evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
Controlled, or just the right circumstances? I believe evolution would make a great case for this example, if the resulting animal didnt survive, or was incapable of reproducing, then the species would not last. Basically you just made an argument for natural selection.


[f.] This remarkable string of â??accidentsâ?� must have been repeated for millions of species.
Again, evolution describes this as well. If it happened in the original generation (f1), then f2 would harbor the same traits and characteristics. There for, the same type of sexual reproduction would be passed down through generations, following the minor genetic differences that could eventually foster a new species.


a. In humans and in all mammals, a motherâ??s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn babyâ??half of whom is a â??foreign bodyâ?� from the father. If these immune systems functioned â??properly,â?� mammalsâ??including each of usâ??would not exist.
Actually, in humans up to 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriages (this includes unrecognized pregnancies - such as a miscarriage before the first missed period). Many of these are due to immune system problems, where the egg is rejected. This includes the RH factor which can cause major problems in pregnancies. Rh is a marker on the surface of blood cells, and is either positive or negative. If the fetus is positive, the mothers immune system will attack the fetus.
If the immune system is functioning PROPERLY, it allows a fetus to develop to full term. Then it confirms your Law of Biogenesis.


d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
It is the next logical step. Take yeast for example. In good conditions, it will reproduce asexually. In bad conditions, it has sex. Why? Because in bad conditions the exchange of DNA from one organism to the other might result in an advantageous mutation in the resulting offspring. Which carried down in the genetic line to the yeast cells we have today.

Ok thats it for now. ;)

[Pahu78]

Sexual Reproduction 2


Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity ariseâ??or survive?

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).

e. â??But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.â?� Jean Marx, â??Tracing How the Sexes Develop,â?� Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

f. â??This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.â?� George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

â??So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insightsâ??just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newtonâ??s celestial mechanics.â?� Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

â??The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.â?� Michael Rose, â??Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,â?� New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.

â??Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.â?� Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, â??Why Sex?â?� Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

â??Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.â?� Kathleen McAuliffe, â??Why We Have Sex,â?� Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

â??From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?â?� Nilsson, p. 1225.

â??One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.â?� [According to evolution, it should not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, â??Why Is Sex?â?� Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.

g. â??In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one pointâ??a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.â?� Pitman, p. 135.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 39. Sexual Reproduction (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#wp1861111)

[carinia]

e. Research that was completed way, way before the genomes were sequenced. Of course they are going to be unrelated, there is a different sequence of events that happen. It does not change the fact that sexual reproduction evolved in these animals.

f. The George C Williams quote about his book is often misquoted. His meaning was to state the book's purpose is to explain some mechanics of sex in biology. He is saying he has answers to questions people have, not that there are no answers. This is even more apparent by your second quote, where he states that GC Williams has ingenous answers.

g. Dont know what point your trying to make, but evolution is a long process of tiny, tiny steps. You dont make a pie out of thin air, first you have the crust, then you make the filling, and you put it all together. If you add one cherry at a time, eventually you will get the filling. Makes sense? You don't just go to your cupboard and find a can of filling and say, Gee, someone miraculously put that there!

[Pahu78]

e. Research that was completed way, way before the genomes were sequenced. Of course they are going to be unrelated, there is a different sequence of events that happen. It does not change the fact that sexual reproduction evolved in these animals.

What evidence is there that sexual reproduction evolved in these animals?


f. The George C Williams quote about his book is often misquoted. His meaning was to state the book's purpose is to explain some mechanics of sex in biology. He is saying he has answers to questions people have, not that there are no answers. This is even more apparent by your second quote, where he states that GC Williams has ingenous answers.

It seems this statement is not misquoted: â??This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.â?� What evidence do you have showing that to be a misquote? How does the second quote confirm your first assertion?


g. Dont know what point your trying to make, but evolution is a long process of tiny, tiny steps.

What evidence is there to support your assertion?


You dont make a pie out of thin air, first you have the crust, then you make the filling, and you put it all together. If you add one cherry at a time, eventually you will get the filling. Makes sense? You don't just go to your cupboard and find a can of filling and say, Gee, someone miraculously put that there!

You are comparing evolution with pies? It is true that pies are not made from thin air and cans of filling donâ??t appear as the result of natural causes. The pie and the can are evidence of intelligent design. Why do you think the universe and life on earth can appear out of thin air as the result of natural causes but pies and cans must be the result of intelligent design?

I suspect the answer is you have the unsupported and unsupportable preconception that a supernatural Creator is impossible.

[dejayou30]

Can someone PLEASE lock this thread and ban this nutjob? The guy has only posted in this thread with his illogical creationist spam. It would be like someone joining only to post advertisements for something. He is advertising for his creationist nonsense and is not interested in the cannabis community. Look at his posts, 100% of them are all in this thread. Ban this spammer!

[Pahu78]

Can someone PLEASE lock this thread and ban this nutjob? The guy has only posted in this thread with his illogical creationist spam. It would be like someone joining only to post advertisements for something. He is advertising for his creationist nonsense and is not interested in the cannabis community. Look at his posts, 100% of them are all in this thread. Ban this spammer!

I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, thatâ??s fine. I believe the free exchange of facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with the scientists being quoted, not me.

The mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the kingâ??s idol.

Daniel was thrown into the lionâ??s den for worshipping God, contrary to the kingâ??s decree.

Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.

His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.

Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church during the inquisition.

Hitler murdered millions of Jews, Christians and others because he disagreed with them.

Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.

Muslims murder everyone who disagrees with them.

So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your worldview.

You are not interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. You don't want God to exist so you deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. You deny conventions of logic. You pretend skepticism of any evidence demonstrating creation, and adhere to any and all unscientific absurdities and impossibilities as long they support your erroneous worldview.

Some of you try to explain the universe as causeless because some schools of quantum theory interpret certain phenomena as popping into existence without a cause, even though none of these phenomena are fully understood or observable, nor could any of them take place without the experiments causing them to take place.

Apparently you don't really care. Epistemological truth is inconsequential to you. Apparently your purpose here has nothing to do with any serious discussion. You only feign interest in an attempt to entrap anyone foolish enough to think you are interested in serious discussion.

Usually, all I have found here is a nauseatingly endless series of conflicting absurdities and irrational arguments, which in your own cognitive dissonance you oddly believe to be logical, clever and reasonable.

If reason truly does champion truth, whatever school of reason that belongs to is completely absent in this forum.

The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. Theyâ??ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.

[bhouncy]

I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, thatâ??s fine. I believe the free exchange of facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with the scientists being quoted, not me.

The mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the kingâ??s idol.

Daniel was thrown into the lionâ??s den for worshipping God, contrary to the kingâ??s decree.

Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.

His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.

Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church during the inquisition.

Hitler murdered millions of Jews, Christians and others because he disagreed with them.

Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.

Muslims murder everyone who disagrees with them.

So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your worldview.

You are not interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. You don't want God to exist so you deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. You deny conventions of logic. You pretend skepticism of any evidence demonstrating creation, and adhere to any and all unscientific absurdities and impossibilities as long they support your erroneous worldview.

Some of you try to explain the universe as causeless because some schools of quantum theory interpret certain phenomena as popping into existence without a cause, even though none of these phenomena are fully understood or observable, nor could any of them take place without the experiments causing them to take place.

Apparently you don't really care. Epistemological truth is inconsequential to you. Apparently your purpose here has nothing to do with any serious discussion. You only feign interest in an attempt to entrap anyone foolish enough to think you are interested in serious discussion.

Usually, all I have found here is a nauseatingly endless series of conflicting absurdities and irrational arguments, which in your own cognitive dissonance you oddly believe to be logical, clever and reasonable.

If reason truly does champion truth, whatever school of reason that belongs to is completely absent in this forum.

The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. Theyâ??ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.

You are the victim of an alien hoax. Aliens manufactured the Jesus hoax to stamp out scientific advancement. We are getting too far advanced for the aliens liking so they are sending telepathic messages to people to post illogical drivel to keep the creationist view alive. Luckily I am wearing my tinfoil hat and am immune to this psi ray. You appear to be one of the unlucky ones. Stick your fingers in the nearest AC outlet to de-program yourself. Good luck and 'god' speed.

[carinia]

Actually Pahu, you havent come up with a credible arguement yet. No recent evidence, you certaintly havent replied to any of my posts with backup evidence after I counter your view. Your latest post stinks of racism and close mindedness.

I am not impressed with your debate capabilities, but if you want to continue your fools argument no one is stopping you. Just keep the personal attacks to a minimum, and try to find some solid, RECENT evidence for what you have to say. I personally would like to see something from the last 20 years that is not taken out of context to back up what you are saying.

I am an open minded person, and I consider new facts as they come, which often change how I see the world. Its called learning. Please, teach me if you see fit. Otherwise, I think Ill stick to proven theories from the latest information I have, especially when they are proved by people much smarter than I.

[dejayou30]

What evidence is there that God, any God, exists? You are deranged. Your 40 year old quotes are irreluvant, and your "evidence" is only evidence because its formed on false pretenses. Again, if you don't understand how science works, you can't possibly try to refute it. In the end, there is a mountain of evidence to support evolution, and ZERO evidence that supports creationism. If creationism is true and evolution false, why did Judge Jones not rule in favor of the Discovery Institute in the 2006 Dover Trial? Why were they unable to present any evidence of any of their claims, and moreover, why did they consistently deny the evidence shown to them by the scientists testifying as expert witnesses on behalf of evolution? Is it just some big conspiracy? Do I just not have my tinfoil hat on tight enough? What is it? How can you explain the fact that every claim of Creationism has been completely and utterly refuted by real science?

Creationism is an intellectual dead end. If we accepted "God dun it" as an answer, we would get nowhere. Scientists and proponents of science understand this, and people like you obviously do not. It has nothing to do with atheism, and has everything to do with what is correct and what is incorrect. Sadly, creationism has been proven to be incorrect in every one of its claims. I would expect people to understand when their arguments have been thorougly defeated and accept that their information is wrong, and yet there are still dimwits like you that insist on perpetuating the nonsense.

You are the one with the preconception that "God dun it" and are twisting the "evidence" to fit your claims, like putting a square peg in a circular hole. Those of us that understand how science works understand that your information and conclusions are flawed at best. It is not worth it to us to "debate" you, as the debate has already been waged by professionals, and when it comes to legitimate, peer reviewed evidence of claims, the scientists that trust evolution always win.

I don't want to silence you because I disagree with you (which I do), I want to silence you because you are a spammer and are spreading misinformation without even understanding why it is misinformation. You have nothing to do with the cannabis community and only want to spread your creationist drivel across the internet wherever possible. The moderators should understand that you are like an advertiser, meaning that you don't contribute anything to the community except for your incorrect information regarding the origins of life, just as someone spamming replica Nike shoes is going to post about that and only that.

Your facts are not facts, no matter how badly you want them to be. I know I cannot convince you of this, but I think something needs to be done to end this nonsense spam. Someone, please ban this spammer and lock this thread, as he is contributing nothing and is actively spreading misinformation that has been thoroughly refuted by PROFESSIONALS in the field of SCIENCE.

[Pahu78]

Immune Systems


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.

Your health, and that of many animals, depends on the effectiveness of these â??search-and-destroy missions.â?� 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 â??stem cellsâ?� 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.

If the many instructions that direct an animalâ??s or plantâ??s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organismâ??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, this information must have all been there from the beginning. Again, creation.

(a.) â??We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.â?� Behe, p. 138.

â??Unfortunately, we cannot trace most of the evolutionary steps that the immune system took. Virtually all the crucial developments seem to have happened at an early stage of vertebrate evolution, which is poorly represented in the fossil record and from which few species survive. Even the most primitive extant vertebrates seem to rearrange their antigen receptor genes and possess separate T and B cells, as well as MHC molecules. Thus has the immune system sprung up fully armed.â?� Avrion Mitchison, â??Will We Survive?â?� Scientific American, Vol. 269, September 1993, p. 138.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 40. Immune Systems (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences45.html#wp1027797)

[bhouncy]

How about putting this in the spirituality board with all the other mumbo jumbo.

[Pahu78]

Living Technology 1


Most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systemsâ??including those involving electrical, acoustical, mechanical, chemical, and optical phenomena. Detailed studies of various animals also have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that the worldâ??s best designers, using the most sophisticated technologies, cannot duplicate. Examples of these designs include molecular-size motors in most living organisms (a); advanced technologies in cells (b); miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises, and whales; frequency-modulated â??radarâ?� and discrimination systems of bats (c); efficient aerodynamic capabilities of hummingbirds; control systems, internal ballistics, and the combustion chambers of bombardier beetles (d); precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds, fish, and insects (e); and especially the self-repair capabilities of almost all forms of life. No component of these complex systems could have evolved without placing the organism at a selective disadvantage until the componentâ??s evolution was complete. All evidence points to intelligent design.

a. â??Life implies movement. Most forms of movement in the living world are powered by tiny protein machines known as molecular motors.â?� Manfred Schliwa and Günther Woehlke, â??Molecular Motors,â?� Nature, Vol. 422, 17 April 2003, p. 759.

b. â??We would see [i]that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.

â??What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle.â?� Denton, p. 329.

c. â??Ounce for ounce, watt for watt, it [the bat] is millions of times more efficient and more sensitive than the radars and sonars contrived by man.â?� Pitman, p. 219.

d. Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975), pp. 2â??9.

Thomas Eisner and Daniel J. Aneshansley, â??Spray Aiming in Bombardier Beetles: Jet Deflection by the Coanda Effect,â?� Science, Vol. 215, 1 January 1982, pp. 83â??85.

Behe, pp. 31â??36.

e. Jason A. Etheredge et al., â??Monarch Butterflies (Danaus plexippus L.) Use a Magnetic Compass for Navigation,â?� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 96, No. 24, 23 November 1999, pp. 13845â??13846.

[dejayou30]

The first quote by a legitimate scientists states a known fact, but tells nothing of interest. It would appear as if you are trying to establish some kind of legitimacy for your argument by quoting them, based on their backgrounds as legitimate, respected scientists. You then go on to quote from Michael Denton, Sean Pitman, and Michael Behe, who are all creationists, and although they do have legitimate degrees in the fields of science, they have never had any of their ideas, theories, hypothesises, or evidence in relation to creationism accepted by the scientific community. Their research is full of logical fallacies, confirmation bias, misconceptions, and just plain bad information.

Michael Denton also has distanced himself from the Discovery (creationist) Instutute, and no longer stands by his creationist claims:


Denton's views have changed over the years. He was influenced by Lawrence J. Henderson (1878-1942), Paul Davies and John Barrow who argued for an Anthropic Principle in the cosmos (Denton 1998, v, Denton 2005). Thus his second book Nature's Destiny (1998) is his biological contribution on the Anthropic Principle debate which is dominated by physicists. He argues for a law-like evolutionary unfolding of life. He no longer associates with Discovery, and the Institute no longer lists him as a fellow.

Keep the bullshit coming Pahu, I'll be glad to refute it until someone locks this SPAM thread.

[bhouncy]

Pahu78 rather than posting dogma will you please try and counter the arguments and discussions that you are having levelled against you. You are showing yourself as a spammer while being ripped apart by science. Do us a favour and give us a credible comeback.

[dejayou30]

I doubt that will happen bhouncy. He stated a few posts back that he has no interest in "entering into endless quibbling over the information he is sharing," as he feels it "speaks for itself". In other words, he has no counter arguments to the facts levied against him, and refuses to consider other positions. His mind is made up despite contrary evidence, and all he is doing is spamming the members of this board with nonsense.

You cannot reason with a creationist. No amount of evidence will ever make them second guess their "Buy-bull". For the last time, can someone lock this and ban Pahu78? He has made no other posts except in this thread, and refuses to have actual discussion about the information being presented; therefore he and his posts are spam.

[Delta9 UK]

Yay! Thanks for chiming in everyone - this thread needed some sense banging into it.

I've said from the beginning this thread was spam - lookup Pahu78 in Google and you will see he posts the same lies across multiple websites. He is pretty much copy-pasting everything from creationscience.com.

That's why he can't argue - he has no idea what he's posting about in the first place.

[senorx12562]

Once again we see that arguing with someone on the interweb is like being in the special olympics; win or lose you're still a retard.

[Pahu78]

Living Technology 2


The Arctic Tern, a bird of average size, navigates across oceans with the skill normally associated with navigational equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft. A round trip for the Tern might be 22,000 miles. The Ternâ??s â??electronicsâ?� are highly miniaturized, extremely reliable, maintenance free, and easily reproduced. Furthermore, this remarkable bird needs no training. If the equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft could not have evolved, how could the Ternâ??s more amazing â??equipmentâ?� have evolved?

Equally amazing is the monarch butterfly that flies thousands of miles from breeding grounds as far north as Canada to wintering grounds as far south as Mexico. Processing information in a brain the size of a pin head, it navigates using a magnetic compass and, to a lesser extent, the Sun.

Many bacteria, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and some Streptococci, propel themselves with miniature motors at up to 15 body-lengths per second (f), equivalent to a car traveling 150 miles per hourâ??in a liquid. These extremely efficient, reversible motors rotate at up to 100,000 revolutions per minute (g). Each shaft rotates a bundle of whiplike flagella that acts as a propeller. The motors, having rotors and stators, are similar in many respects to electrical motors (h). However, their electrical charges come from a flow of protons, not electrons. The bacteria can stop, start, and change speed, direction, and even the â??propellerâ??sâ?� shape (i). They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mechanisms, and a short-term memory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit inside the circular cross section of a human hair (j).

Evolutionary theory teaches that bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolve, and, therefore, they are simple. While bacteria are small, they are not simple. They can even communicate among themselves using chemicals (k).

Some plants have motors that are one-fifth the size of bacterial motors (l). Increasing worldwide interest in nanotechnology is showing that living things are remarkably designedâ??beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

f. David H. Freedman, â??Exploiting the Nanotechnology of Life,â?� Science, Vol. 254, 29 November 1991, pp. 1308â??1310.

Tom Koppel, â??Learning How Bacteria Swim Could Set New Gears in Motion,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 265, September 1991, pp. 168â??169.

Howard C. Berg, â??How Bacteria Swim,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 233, August 1975, pp. 36â??44.

g. Y. Magariyama et al., â??Very Fast Flagellar Rotation,â?� Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, p. 752.

h. Could a conventional electrical motor be scaled down to propel a bacterium through a liquid? No. Friction would overcome almost all movement. This is because the ratio of inertial-to-viscous forces is proportional to scale. In effect, the liquid becomes stickier the smaller you get. Therefore, the efficiency of the bacterial motor itself, which approaches 100% at slow speeds, is remarkable and currently unexplainable.

i. C. Wu, â??Protein Switch Curls Bacterial Propellers,â?� Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 86.

j. Yes, you read this correctly. The molecular motors are 25 nanometers in diameter while an average human hair is about 75 microns in diameter.

k. â??Bacteria can organize into groups, they can communicate. ... How could this have evolved?â?� E. Peter Greenberg, â??Tiny Teamwork,â?� Nature, Vol. 424, 10 July 2003, p. 134.

Bonnie L. Bassler, â??How Bacteria Talk to Each Other: Regulation of Gene Expression by Quorum Sensing,â?� Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1 December 1999, pp. 582â??587.

l. â??...the smallest rotary motors in biology. The flow of protons propels the rotation...â?� Holger Seelert et al., â??Proton-Powered Turbine of a Plant Motor,â?� Nature, Vol. 405, 25 May 2000, pp. 418â??419.

â??The ATP synthase [motor] not only lays claim to being natureâ??s smallest rotary motor, but also has an extremely important role in providing most of the chemical energy that aerobic and photosynthetic organisms need to stay alive.â?� Cross, Richard L. â??Turning the ATP Motor,â?� Nature, Vol. 427, 29 January 2004, pp. 407â??408.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 41. Living Technology (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences46.html#wp2747215)

[dejayou30]

Everyone just report this post and every subsequent post as spam and hopefully someone will get the picture.

[senorx12562]

Or, for a antidote to this guy's ravings, Read "God: the failed hypothesis: how science shows that God does not exist." by Victor Stenger. I have a place reserved in hell, don't I Pahu78? All my dead friends are waiting for me there.

[FakeBoobsRule]

Pahu, I agree with the other members, your posts are mostly copy and paste more than thoughtful posts. This is close to turbo posting which is against forum rules.

Please provide more interaction and less regurgitation.

[Pahu78]

Pahu, I agree with the other members, your posts are mostly copy and paste more than thoughtful posts. This is close to turbo posting which is against forum rules.

Please provide more interaction and less regurgitation.

You may have noticed the complaints concerning the facts I am sharing are from those who read them. Are they forced to read information that they find so distasteful because it disproves their preconceived worldview?

I consider the information I am sharing to be far more thoughtful than the replies demanding I engage in endless quibbling about what? Rarely do I see any real attempt to discuss the information I am sharing. Instead I get assertions that I am stupid, etc. and that the information is "bullshit", etc. Do they prefer I share my ignorant opinions rather than the facts of science? I think the answer is probably "yes" because ignorance is easier to refute than facts. We can quibble forever over our opinions.

I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, thatâ??s fine. I believe the free exchange of facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with the scientists being quoted, not me.

The mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the kingâ??s idol.

Daniel was thrown into the lionâ??s den for worshipping God, contrary to the kingâ??s decree.

Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.

His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.

Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church during the inquisition.

Hitler murdered six millions of Jews, Christians and others because he disagreed with them.

Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.

Muslims murder everyone who disagrees with them.

So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your worldview.

You are not interested in logic, reason, or even evidence for that matter. You don't want God to exist so you deny any evidence, or logical deduction that might support creation. You deny conventions of logic. You pretend skepticism of any evidence demonstrating creation, and adhere to any and all unscientific absurdities and impossibilities as long they support your erroneous worldview.

Apparently you don't really care. Epistemological truth is inconsequential to you. Apparently your purpose here has nothing to do with any serious discussion. You only feign interest in an attempt to entrap anyone foolish enough to think you are interested in serious discussion.

Usually, all I have found here is a nauseatingly endless series of conflicting absurdities and irrational arguments, which in your own cognitive dissonance you oddly believe to be logical, clever and reasonable.

If reason truly does champion truth, whatever school of reason that belongs to is completely absent in this forum.

The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. Theyâ??ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.

[Pahu78]

The Validity of Thought 1


If life is ultimately the result of natural processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughtsâ??including what you are thinking nowâ??would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of irrational causes. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance or natural processes (a).

a. â??But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.â?� Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 313.

â??For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.â?� J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds (London: Chatto & Windus, 1927), p. 209.

â??If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidentsâ??the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone elseâ??s. But if their thoughtsâ??i. e. of Materialism and Astronomyâ??are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.â?� C. S. Lewis, God In the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 52â??53.

â??Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense. But Naturalism [evolution], as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort.â?� C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1947), p. 21.

C. S. Lewis, â??The Funeral of a Great Myth,â?� Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), p. 89.

â??If the universe is a universe of thought, then its creation must have been an act of thought.â?� James H. Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, new revised edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1932), p. 181.

â??A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that produced the theory. The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit.â?� Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), p. 62.
â??One of the absurdities of materialism [the belief that nothing exists except the material] is that it assumes that the world can be rationally comprehensible only if it is entirely the product of irrational, unguided mechanisms.â?� Phillip E. Johnson, â??The Wedge in Evolutionary Ideology: Itâ??s History, Strategy, and Agenda,â?� Theology Matters, Vol. 5, No. 2, March/April 1999, p. 5.

Phillip E. Johnson has also made the point that intelligence might produce intelligence. However, for lifeless, inorganic matter to produce intelligence, as the theory of evolution claims, would be an astounding miracle.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 42. The Validity of Thought (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences47.html#wp1082496)

[bombdiggity]

Admit it, you are hesitant to enter into a debate here not because you believe your information speaks for itself, more-so because you do not have the knowledge and understanding of your copy-and-pasted paragraphs to defend against rational arguments backed by facts.

You are embellishing your writing (if you actually wrote ANY of that) with complex verbiage - to a ridiculous point. This makes me think you are trying to LOOK smart OR you are just copy and pasting EVERYTHING including responses to this forum thread.

Lets see the REAL Pahu, you FaFOO!

hahaha :rastasmoke:

[Delta9 UK]

This makes me think you are trying to LOOK smart OR you are just copy and pasting EVERYTHING including responses to this forum thread.


100% correct his 'responses' can be found all over the intertubes - he even made the same response twice with a slightly altered intro on the previous page FFS!.

Here are some fun links where Pahu is running into the same trouble on other forums and is in fact pasting almost the exact same cookie-cutter responses:

Atheist Network • View topic - Science Disproves Evolution (http://www.atheistnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=23280&start=80)
Science Disproves Evolution - talk.religion.pantheism | Google Groups (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.pantheism/browse_thread/thread/473c1dde9536b3bb/9313cdbd0596e13d?lnk=raot)
Science Disproves Evolution | A Board Post on the Forum & Chat Room about I Am An Atheist | Message Board & Chat Rooms to Post & Talk in (http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Am-An-Atheist/forum/Science-Disproves-Evolution/25275)

Do I even need to go on?

Especially this part:


If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. Theyâ??ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.


Oh the irony! Keywords: Pot, Kettle, Black

The exact same response can also be found here:
Science Disproves Evolution - Monster Topics - Atheism chat - Wasteland Of Wonders Atheism - Message Board - Yuku (http://wastelandofwonders.yuku.com/topic/4118/t/Science-Disproves-Evolution.html?page=14)

I don't know if he's spamming for his own amusement or actually doing it on the request of a higher power (I mean someone like AiG) but either way one thing is for sure - the only thing disproven in this thread is the OP.

[dejayou30]

Hahaha, he copied and pasted 90% of that reply from another reply of his like 3 pages back! Ban this douche and lock this thread. He is nothing but a spammer.

[Pahu78]

100% correct his 'responses' can be found all over the intertubes - he even made the same response twice with a slightly altered intro on the previous page FFS!.

Here are some fun links where Pahu is running into the same trouble on other forums and is in fact pasting almost the exact same cookie-cutter responses:

Atheist Network • View topic - Science Disproves Evolution (http://www.atheistnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=23280&start=80)
Science Disproves Evolution - talk.religion.pantheism | Google Groups (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.pantheism/browse_thread/thread/473c1dde9536b3bb/9313cdbd0596e13d?lnk=raot)
Science Disproves Evolution | A Board Post on the Forum & Chat Room about I Am An Atheist | Message Board & Chat Rooms to Post & Talk in (http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Am-An-Atheist/forum/Science-Disproves-Evolution/25275)

Do I even need to go on?

Especially this part:


Oh the irony! Keywords: Pot, Kettle, Black

The exact same response can also be found here:
Science Disproves Evolution - Monster Topics - Atheism chat - Wasteland Of Wonders Atheism - Message Board - Yuku (http://wastelandofwonders.yuku.com/topic/4118/t/Science-Disproves-Evolution.html?page=14)

I don't know if he's spamming for his own amusement or actually doing it on the request of a higher power (I mean someone like AiG) but either way one thing is for sure - the only thing disproven in this thread is the OP.

Make the same assertions, get the same reply!

[bhouncy]

Make the same assertions, get the same reply!

You're going to hell.

[Pahu78]

The Validity of Thought 2


By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution. â??Science itself makes no sense if the scientific mind is itself no more than the product of irrational material forcesâ?� (b).

A related issue is the flexibility and redundancy of the human brain, which evolution or natural selection would not produce. For example, every year brain surgeons successfully remove up to half of a personâ??s brain. The remaining half gradually takes over functions of the removed half. Also, brain functions are often regained after portions of the brain are accidently destroyed. Had humans evolved, such accidents would have been fatal before these amazing capabilities developed. Darwin recognized an aspect of this phenomenal capability of the brain (c).

b. Phillip Johnson, â??The Demise of Naturalism,â?� World, 3 April 2004, p. 38.

c. â??Behind Darwinâ??s discomfiture [on how the human brain evolved] was the dawning realization that the evolution of the brain vastly exceeded the needs of prehistoric man. This is, in fact, the only example in existence where a species was provided with an organ that it still has not learned how to use.â?� Richard M. Restak, The Brain: The Last Frontier (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979), p. 59.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 42. The Validity of Thought (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences47.html#wp1082496)