Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu78]

Compatible Senders and Receivers

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences. Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatoryâ??something nature cannot do.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 16.   Compatible Senders and Receivers (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences19.html#wp1821409)

[zeitgeist]

Evolutionism does not apply to everything such as humans but there are many instances when it is true though

[Esoteric416]

So given that my CNS has cannabinoid receptors that means that the creator intended for me to be high all the time. :D

[TurnyBright]

Haven't you ever heard of self-organizing systems? Complex organizations of what you've called "senders and receivers" that crystallize into shape without foresight or planning.

[LanSLIde]

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I).
Only intelligence recognizes codes, programs and information as codes, programs and information.

[420_24/7]

Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences.

Even if every single thing you said in your post was proven true, which I really don't believe, this one line, I am absolutely sure, is not proven or even able to be proven.

[Esoteric416]

We are all just physical manifestations of electricity signals.

We are the physical result of interacting psychokinetic signals.
At least thats how i see it. :thumbsup:

[Pahu78]

Haven't you ever heard of self-organizing systems? Complex organizations of what you've called "senders and receivers" that crystallize into shape without foresight or planning.

The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.

What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

[Pahu78]

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1

When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve. They call this convergent evolution.

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptileâ??s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)â??but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survivalâ??and reptile-to-mammal evolutionâ??would cease.

Concluding that a miracleâ??or any extremely unlikely eventâ??happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar â??miracleâ?� happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

a. â??... the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).â?� Thomas H. Rich et al., â??Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,â?� Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

â??Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just onceâ??in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.â?� Sid Perkins, â??Groovy Bones,â?� Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex â??wiringâ?� in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 17.   Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design?  (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences21.html#wp1612912)

[psychocat]

Another religion versus evolution argument that neither side can ever prove beyond all doubt.

[sonic titan]

Infinity indeed can be crossed. There are shortcuts through infinity, everywhere. Time is only a mind barrier, an illusion. At least in my opinion. What is all this talk of impossibilities? Any/every thing is possible, it just takes the right perspective.

"Anything is possible
Believe in a wish and it'll come true

Everything is delightful
There's nothing frightful
In a piece of the world where we make our own rules"

[Delta9 UK]

Here we go again.... This post is so ill-informed I could cry.

Why do Creationists sorry, ID supporters keep copying and pasting rubbish that they don't even understand themselves?

This is a science forum, for - well y'know - Science.

Read all about the Transition you claim never happened...

"Although Archaeopteryx is by far the best-known of the transitional fossils, it is not the only one, or even the best. The fossil transition from reptile to mammal is one of the most extensive and well-studied of all the transitions, and detailed series of fossils demonstrate how this transition was accomplished. It is not, therefore, surprising that the creationists do not talk much about the reptile-mammal series, and when they do, most of what they say is demonstrably untrue."

Read the whole thing:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm

[Delta9 UK]

Another religion versus evolution argument that neither side can ever prove beyond all doubt.

I don't know about that! to be honest, pretty much everything this guy posted was Horseshit and readily disproven tbh.

The thing is, like most of the ID crowd he doesn't even understand what he's copy-pasting. That's what makes these arguments so bloody annoying.

Once you start to get somewhere they go and get themselves banned or just vanish once you prove everything they said/posted is toss.

[psychocat]

I don't know about that! to be honest, pretty much everything this guy posted was Horseshit and readily disproven tbh.

The thing is, like most of the ID crowd he doesn't even understand what he's copy-pasting. That's what makes these arguments so bloody annoying.

Once you start to get somewhere they go and get themselves banned or just vanish once you prove everything they said/posted is toss.

Can you prove either beyond any doubt ?
I would be interested to see anyone try.
The man who thinks he has found the truth will seek no further.

[Delta9 UK]

Can you prove either beyond any doubt ?
I would be interested to see anyone try.
The man who thinks he has found the truth will seek no further.

I can prove everything this guy posted is pseudo-science and not true - so, erm - YES!

in fact it looks like posted the same crap here:
Science Disproves Evolution - sci.physics | Google Groups (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4b5b90cac862e41e)

and was rightly WTFPWNED

[psychocat]

I can prove everything this guy posted is pseudo-science and not true - so, erm - YES!

in fact it looks like posted the same crap here:
Science Disproves Evolution - sci.physics | Google Groups (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4b5b90cac862e41e)

and was rightly WTFPWNED

Disproving anothers theory does not prove your own.

[Delta9 UK]

Disproving anothers theory does not prove your own.

Which is EXACTLY what he was trying to do.

I'm not trying to disprove his theory - he doesn't have one, he's just attacking evolution and doing a poor job to boot.

[psychocat]

Which is EXACTLY what he was trying to do.

I'm not trying to disprove his theory - he doesn't have one, he's just attacking evolution and doing a poor job to boot.

You're kind of missing the point.
I asked "can you prove the theory of evolution beyond doubt" ?
You claimed that by disproving his theory you were proving your own.

[daihashi]

You're kind of missing the point.
I asked "can you prove the theory of evolution beyond doubt" ?
You claimed that by disproving his theory you were proving your own.

I'm having a similar discussion in politics.

I personally don't believe in creationism but I don't deny the possibility. People are either going to be open minded and say "it may be possible" or staunchly say no that it's wrong.

meh, really when it comes down to it no one with all certainty can prove 100% that either side is right.

It just so happens though that science is winning the battle.

[Delta9 UK]

You're kind of missing the point.
I asked "can you prove the theory of evolution beyond doubt" ?
You claimed that by disproving his theory you were proving your own.

No I'm not missing the point, carefully read my posts - at no point did I say disproving ID proved evolution. I said everything he copy-pasted was inaccurate or lies and easily proved false. He is making claims with no basis in fact.

There are mountains of evidence but unfortunately you usually need to study Biology or even have a degree in Genetics to fully comprehend all of it - the ID crowd utilise this situation rather well by spewing pseudo science that the average person can't distinguish from real science.

This isn't just semantics either, creationists lie, deceive and distort - and they do it a lot.

Evolution is a scientific theory - it is falsifiable, makes predictions, and yes I can happily prove it to be true - beyond doubt. Where would you like me to start? Microevolution or Macroevolution? Transitional fossils or Endogenous retroviruses?

Non scientists arguing about science is a recipe for disaster :thumbsup:

[psychocat]

You presume far too much Delta.
Your so called proof is simply an understanding limited by what we think we know. The beauty of any knowledge is that it can expand our understanding of something and in many cases it can destroy our preconceptions.
Science has not got all the answers .

If we start believing we have all the answers we stop asking questions , only by questioning everything will we ever truly grow and learn , take nothing for granted and never accept anything at face value.

[Delta9 UK]

You presume far too much Delta.
Your so called proof is simply an understanding limited by what we think we know. The beauty of any knowledge is that it can expand our understanding of something and in many cases it can destroy our preconceptions.
Science has not got all the answers .

If we start believing we have all the answers we stop asking questions , only by questioning everything will we ever truly grow and learn , take nothing for granted and never accept anything at face value.

You are now missing the point my friend.

I'm not presuming anything and to be frank your response is insulting and it makes it obvious you don't understand the theory and are not equipped to discuss it beyond your own opinion of science and knowledge as a whole.

I haven't stopped asking questions - but I have actually studied evolution (along with Genetics and Microbiology). If I had a better idea of how everything works I would have won a Nobel prize by now. Scientists would fall over themselves to prove a theory wrong - that's sort of the whole point of science.

Its the ID / Creationists who have stopped asking questions - go figure.

Evolution is a well understood mechanism - it is beyond doubt. Science does actually have all the answers here. Everything in biology has confirmed this - nothing has disputed it. I really thing we are arguing Apples and Oranges here as I suspect your point is more a philosophical approach to human understanding rather than you diagreeing specifically with the theory of evolution - which would be a fallacy.

[Delta9 UK]

I realise that last post came off a bit strong, I don't mean to be so confrontational but I do grow tired of these arguments and "discussions" around evolution which is deeply misunderstood at times.

If I had a joint I would pass it - be sure :thumbsup:

[TurnyBright]

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

You're making an assumption about the nature of the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to a maximum. Usually the universe is assumed to be an isolated thermodynamic system, but this is a circumstantially ratified assumption and carries no connotation of "correct."

So it could also be assumed, just as rationally, that the universe is not thermodynamically isolated, and by the second law, the entropy of a system that isn't isolated may decrease.

The universe could be infinitely old and be doing nothing but gaining usable energy.


It [the universe] could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present.

Again, you're making assumption. You've got an image of time as a flat linear form, with the possibility of "infinity" in either direction of the line.

Yet you claim that it can be "crossed," which infers that you believe it to have dimensional form. Any shape with dimensional form (of any order of magnitude) cannot be infinite. It must have borders, and if a higher dimensional form upon which the shape in question lies is posited to exist, then it must have limits. Time is referred to as a fourth dimensional shape, not a "line" by which we measure the order of our three dimensional movements, so it must have a border and a fifth dimensional plane upon which to lie.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

You're making an assumption about the nature of the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to a maximum. Usually the universe is assumed to be an isolated thermodynamic system, but this is a circumstantially ratified assumption and carries no connotation of "correct."

So it could also be assumed, just as rationally, that the universe is not thermodynamically isolated, and by the second law, the entropy of a system that isn't isolated may decrease.

The universe could be infinitely old and be doing nothing but gaining usable energy.



Again, you're making assumption. You've got an image of time as a flat linear form, with the possibility of "infinity" in either direction of the line.

Yet you claim that it can be "crossed," which infers that you believe it to have dimensional form. Any shape with dimensional form (of any order of magnitude) cannot be infinite. It must have borders, and if a higher dimensional form upon which the shape in question lies is posited to exist, then it must have limits. Time is referred to as a fourth dimensional shape, not a "line" by which we measure the order of our three dimensional movements, so it must have a border and a fifth dimensional plane upon which to lie.



You and i define infinite VASTLY DIFFERENTLY if you believe that ANYTHING AT ALL can NOT be infinite.


there is only one non-infinite "thing" in my opinion and understanding of infinity, and that is nothing. but even nothingness can be infinite, for it cannot be quantifiable as there are no "things" to occupy the empty nothingness.



how i conceive all things to be infinite:

endless micro/macroscopic "spiral" of "time". the smallest known "building block" of the universe is nothing more than the smallest KNOWN building block. i do not believe there is an ultimately smallest component, that the components are all (always) made up of even smaller components. Likewise, all components are constantly and actively being used to build increasingly larger components, indefinitely.

so how does time play into this? why a spiral?

let's start off simple. what IS time? it is our conception of movement through space, our way of gauging it. it's basis is relative; without another object in motion to compare, there would be no concept of time.

so "time" is merely the rate of movement of objects in space.

why a spiral? because spirals start from the center, as tiny singularities, and warp their way outward until they are eventually behemoth circular pictures. at the center of the spiral is the smallest components, and at the perimeter of the spiral are the largest components.

however, because time is infinite, there are no "smallest" or "largest" components, just gradually smaller and larger ones.


Now, the next bit is more complex. for every action there exists an equal but opposite reaction, however there are also cases of multiple equal-but-opposite possible reactions.
If every possible reaction DOES exist, "spiral" time is multifaceted... in other words, spirals spiraling off of spirals.

If time and space are infinite, then there is no reason not to think that all possible realities co-exist in the same time-space as their counter parts, but on different vibrational frequencies so that even though they overlap and occupy the same space, they will never collide. because the infinite implies no bounds, every infinite possible (alternate) reality is on such an infinitely unique frequency they are incapable of colliding.



if the pattern were two realities, it would be an even reality and an odd reality, both existing in the frame where the other is absent.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


while reality one looks like 13579 and reality 2 looks like 2468, they exist in the same time and space, but on opposite frequencies. like a computer monitor acts in "flashes" of frames, for example 60 frames per second, this theory operates on "frames". we only see and experience the "frames" of our reality's frequencies. when our reality's frequencies are "off" another reality's frequencies are "on".

Infinite, paradoxical, crazy even, but it makes more sense to me than anything else... how can anything NOT be infinite?





and for the sake of bringing this tangent on-topic:

Not all things can stimulate evolution in all other things, but anything that holds influence on anything is ultimately changing the other thing's destiny or fate, is ultimately changing the other thing's experiences, is ultimately changing, ever so subtly, the other thing.


While throwing rocks into the water i'snt going to change the water or the rocks much in the long term, our diets+lifestyles have been changing our physiology since the dawn of time.


i find it impossible to conceive of a fat lethargic neanderthal sitting on his ass all day.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

^'Nothing' is a human concept.

There is no such thing as 'nothing' if you ask me.


"nothing" and infinity occupy the exact same space. hell, they are arguably the same "thing".


i mean... look at it this way: what is absolutely all 100% of all of infinity?

essentially, i would say, that it is nothing at all.




or look at it this way: the void of space is nothing(ness) and all energy and matter are infinity itself, or at least infinite unto themselves as per my weirdo explanation of infinity.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

that's all it really is, all anything really is; what it IS and the human conception thereof.

That said, yeah, there is such a thing as time, but our perceptions and measurements of it are completely artificial.


likewise, i cannot NOT believe in infinity, but i also cannot believe that i KNOW it either. i simply conceive of it in my own human understanding of the idea(s) thereof.

I like my concept of infinity, and it likes me back :jointsmile:



plus it makes getting stoned a much wilder trip to think of everything as infinite; consider the flame and the heat and the bud and the ash, and all of the interactions they exchange between the flick of the bic to the coughing.

THEN to consider all the sub-interactions going on between subatomic particles in the process!


and then, of course, there's the matter of brain cells and neurological activity...




getting high makes infinity much more interesting :D

[TurnyBright]

I didn't say that I don't believe anything can be infinite. I just said that anything with the properties of a dimensionally spatial shape cannot be infinite, because for a human to recognize any phenomena as spatial it logically must have borders that separate it from the higher dimensional plane upon which it exists.

Thus, I believe that the spatial world is made up of an infinite succession of dimensional planes, each of which lies on a plane of a dimension that can fit all the ones the previous plane is made of, a "right angle from everyway" sort of direction.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

I didn't say that I don't believe anything can be infinite. I just said that anything with the properties of a dimensionally spatial shape cannot be infinite, because for a human to recognize any phenomena as spatial it logically must have borders that separate it from the higher dimensional plane upon which it exists.

Thus, I believe that the spatial world is made up of an infinite succession of dimensional planes, each of which lies on a plane of a dimension that can fit all the ones the previous plane is made of, a "right angle from everyway" sort of direction.



i dont know about that, what is to say that the object has borders? what's not to say that we are actually limited in our perceptions of objects "with the properties of a dimensionally spatial shape", and they are not actually separated from the higher dimensional planes? perhaps we are the only ones who have borders separating our perceptions from the higher planes?


cant say you're wrong, cant say you're right, but i can say that it's deffenitely one valid and awesome interpretation of infinity :jointsmile:

[the image reaper]

obviously, a 'sativa' sort of thread ... :S2:

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

What higher planes exactly? And what makes you think we have these higher planes?


it's just a label for something we dont yet understand. an idea that there are other dimensions greater and lesser than our own.


a "higher plane" would just mean to say a larger dimension than where our perceptions rest.

[psychocat]

You are now missing the point my friend.

I'm not presuming anything and to be frank your response is insulting and it makes it obvious you don't understand the theory and are not equipped to discuss it beyond your own opinion of science and knowledge as a whole..
Insulting in what way ?
That comment shows a touch of arrogance.
I understand a lot more than you realise


I haven't stopped asking questions - but I have actually studied evolution (along with Genetics and Microbiology). If I had a better idea of how everything works I would have won a Nobel prize by now. Scientists would fall over themselves to prove a theory wrong - that's sort of the whole point of science.

Do you have all the answers ?
I don't think so.


Evolution is a well understood mechanism - it is beyond doubt. Science does actually have all the answers here. Everything in biology has confirmed this - nothing has disputed it. I really thing we are arguing Apples and Oranges here as I suspect your point is more a philosophical approach to human understanding rather than you diagreeing specifically with the theory of evolution - which would be a fallacy.

I disagree , science only has some of the answers , only by further investigation can we ever hope to find those missing answers.

Unanswered Questions about the Evolution of the Early Universe (http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/Research/PHOBOS/Presentations/GeneralTalks/APSNYSS102000/sld023.htm)

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

EGO FIGHT!!!

[psychocat]

EGO FIGHT!!!

LOL :cool:

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

LOL :cool:

Psychocat Wins! or something, i dunno... you have a pretty powerful ego though, but my egopenis is bigger!

[psychocat]

Psychocat Wins! or something, i dunno... you have a pretty powerful ego though, but my egopenis is bigger!

I'm not really that interested in winning anything but I do take great exception to being told I am incapable of understanding something by someone who has no idea of what I am capable of.
I know what I know and what I don't know I admit to.
There are many areas of my (limited) knowledge I would like to improve and I find open discussion to be a good way to get a different view.
I will admit to playing devils advocate purely for the hell of it sometimes. :D

At the end of the day it's all about opinions and we know that opinions are like arseholes....... we all have one. :thumbsup:

BTW
I like your humour Wolfie. :jointsmile:

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

I'm not really that interested in winning anything but I do take great exception to being told I am incapable of understanding something by someone who has no idea of what I am capable of.
I know what I know and what I don't know I admit to.
There are many areas of my (limited) knowledge I would like to improve and I find open discussion to be a good way to get a different view.
I will admit to playing devils advocate purely for the hell of it sometimes. :D

At the end of the day it's all about opinions and we know that opinions are like arseholes....... we all have one. :thumbsup:

BTW
I like your humour Wolfie. :jointsmile:

My humor likes you back... should i set up a date or something? :giggity:

haha ok nevermind, my humor doesnt want to get into a relationship just yet. :D

ok im done... lol

[Delta9 UK]

I'm not really that interested in winning anything but I do take great exception to being told I am incapable of understanding something by someone who has no idea of what I am capable of.


Bullshit - I never said that - I said I understand it. I didn't say anything about you being incapable of understanding it - I just said you obviously haven't studied it - there is a BIG difference. Careful with what you write - I get it to read it afterwards and everything...;)

I'm sure you are capable of understanding it - a 10 year old can understand it. You just don't seem able to apply any understanding of it to this 'discussion'.



I know what I know and what I don't know I admit to.
There are many areas of my (limited) knowledge I would like to improve and I find open discussion to be a good way to get a different view.
I will admit to playing devils advocate purely for the hell of it sometimes. :D


Well you have a funny idea of open discussion - playing Devils Advocate here is just stupid. Remember the OP - remember what we are even discussing? Go ahead and Play Devils Advocate - but what is your point exactly?

Is your point: Science doesn't have all the answers to everything? Well YES I couldn't agree more.

But we aren't talking about Everything are we - NO, we are talking about Biological Evolution, well I am at least. As far as that is concerned Biology really does have all the answers.



At the end of the day it's all about opinions and we know that opinions are like arseholes....... we all have one. :thumbsup:


Well I'm out of here, I couldn't give a toss if you want to argue about something that has fuck all to do with the original post. Play devils advocate all you like on your own. You can keep your opinion(s) they are a poor substitute to logic.

I'm talking about Biological evolution - what the hell has that to do with how the universe was created. That's the bit where we both departed from the same course. I was pretty sure you were moving in that direction early on, I just didn't come out and say it - hence my Apples and Oranges comment.

For example with this link:
Unanswered Questions about the Evolution of the Early Universe (http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/Research/PHOBOS/Presentations/GeneralTalks/APSNYSS102000/sld023.htm)

WTF has the above link got to do with the theory of Evolution? We aren't even on the same page Mate. I'm done with this pointless argument it sucks when I KNOW you are an intellectual and you just want to pick a fight over something.

[Delta9 UK]

Meh, 10 minute edit limit beat me...

Psychocat - I really don't want to keep this up - it detracts from the OP, which was the person I was actually disagreeing with. You are clearly an intellectual and I totally know where you are coming from on this. I agree with your standpoint on knowledge and information, especially when it comes to scientific theory. Please don't mistake my confidence for arrogance on this topic.

The key difference here is that the OP lied and tried to use pseudo-science to 'disprove' a very solid theory. Making stuff up to disprove a theory (by counting on the majority of people not being able to tell the difference) is deceptive at best, dangerous at worst and definately not science.

It's like a red rag to a bull. When I see bullshit I will call it.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Double Whammy! Delta9 takes the lead! wait i thought this was a fight, not an ego race :S oh well... TOUCHDOWN!

[Pahu78]

Even if every single thing you said in your post was proven true, which I really don't believe, this one line, I am absolutely sure, is not proven or even able to be proven.


Let me give it a try: 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?� http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2]

[Pahu78]

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2

It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c. â??By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units, ...â?� Nilsson, p. 1143.

â??But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.â?� Jonathan Wells, â??Survival of the Fakest,â?� The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d. Fix, pp. 189â??191.

Denton, pp. 142â??155.

â??Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same â??patternsâ??, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.â?� [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e. â??Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.â?� Ibid., p. 13.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 17.   Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design?  (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences21.html#wp1612912)

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

i always pegged the "supernatural" as simply nature that human kind has yet to explain with science.


and i believe that nature is unlimited, whereas science is vastly and tremendously limited.

[psychocat]

The good thing about this thread is that I get to play devils advocate for both sides of the discussion. :D

Unfortunately it will have to wait as I have more pressing matters to attend to. :rastasmoke:

[TurnyBright]

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.

This is not logic! You've made a list of claims.

Where did you logically deduce that the universe had a beginning? Where did you logically deduce that "no universe" means "nothing?" What is "nothing?" Have you heard about dark matter?

Life may exist, but can you define what it is? Viruses, infectious and reproductive, can and do arise from abiotic material.

The stuff you've written here is utterly unprovable as it relies upon undefined terms to follow "logic," and most of the claims you've made obviously based on faith, not observation (ie the universe had a beginning, before the universe there was nothing, nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause). You're pushing religion here, not science.

[Delta9 UK]

He's just another Creationist copy-paster dumping text from a website with a shit load of made up information. Even his replies are copy pasted FFS.

Same crap here:
Atheist Nation Forums | Post reply (http://www.atheistnation.net/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=1656.120;num_replies=1 27)

I doubt he will even be drawn into 'discussion' as that would involve understanding the material and running into scientists like me and we all know where that leads, rapidly downhill. This crap is only tolerated by a small bunch of Nimrods - the entire scientific community is otherwise oblivious or bemused. I for one find it frightening as these idiots seem to be gaining ground...

I'm still waiting to see how "Science Disproves Evolution" :wtf: - my guess is it will be a long wait...

[Delta9 UK]

Actually most of this points to a website trying to sell a book so - its actually SPAM

[psychocat]

This is not logic! You've made a list of claims.

Where did you logically deduce that the universe had a beginning? Where did you logically deduce that "no universe" means "nothing?" What is "nothing?" Have you heard about dark matter?

Life may exist, but can you define what it is? Viruses, infectious and reproductive, can and do arise from abiotic material.

The stuff you've written here is utterly unprovable as it relies upon undefined terms to follow "logic," and most of the claims you've made obviously based on faith, not observation (ie the universe had a beginning, before the universe there was nothing, nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause). You're pushing religion here, not science.

Faith is an alien concept to me and I agree 100% that all creationists are guilty of attempting to convince us of the "if you have faith" BS.

Supernatural is a vague word at best, it implies something that is superior to nature and therefore un-natural , I however am of the belief that "if it is possible then it must be natural". I don't believe it is possible for anything to exist that defies the laws of nature.

[Coelho]

Well... i wont enter in more one endless discussion about creationism versus evolution... i think both may be right (and wrong) in some aspects. Like, creationism and evolution would be two opposite extremes of the real thing, and while both seems contradictory when one looks only at each one, i think the real thing is a blend of both, a thing between them.
Once i thought about one way to reconcile them... its only one way, among many other possible ones... anyway, anyone interested in it, look at:

http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/129466-link-between-creationism-evolutionism-very-long.html

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Faith is an alien concept to me

same here.


supernatural is a vague word at best, it implies something that is superior to nature, and therefore "unnatural", I however am of the belief that "if it is possible then it must be natural". I dont believe it is possible for anything to exist that defies the laws of nature

i agree whole heartedly

[Delta9 UK]

Faith is an alien concept to me and I agree 100% that all creationists are guilty of attempting to convince us of the "if you have faith" BS.

Supernatural is a vague word at best, it implies something that is superior to nature and therefore un-natural , I however am of the belief that "if it is possible then it must be natural". I don't believe it is possible for anything to exist that defies the laws of nature.

I couldn't agree more.

The burden of proof is actually resting with the creationists on this one. Evolution has oodles of evidence from many different disciplines (biochemistry, paleoentomology, geology to name a few) but the Creationism / ID theory is even older than Darwin's theory of evolution and has nothing but its own lack of worth to blame for its failure.

[andruejaysin]

Want to see proof of evolution? Just look at the little dog in those taco bell commercials. You do realize that's a wolf, right?

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Want to see proof of evolution? Just look at the little dog in those taco bell commercials. You do realize that's a wolf, right?


Wolf >>evo>lves>> Chihuahua ?? ew... poor wolves!!!

[PlainJane]

click me:

[attachment=o202501]

just a little something. ;) (intended to make you smile, in case, sadly, I need to clarify)

[Pahu78]

Vestigial Organs

Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths (c). Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

a. â??The existence of functionless â??vestigial organsâ?? was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution. ... An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that â??vestigial organsâ?? provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.â?� S. R. Scadding, â??Do â??Vestigial Organsâ?? Provide Evidence for Evolution?â?� Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe, â??Vestigial Organsâ?� Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).

c. â??The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.â?� Gordon McHardy, â??The Appendix,â?� Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.

â??Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the bodyâ??s immune system.â?� N. Roberts, â??Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?â?� Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 18. Vestigial Organs (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences22.html#wp1616566)

[Coelho]

Well... i think the problem with the evolution is that both sides are way too extremists. The ones who believes in evolution says that it was enough to create all the life in the Earth (or even in the universe), and the ones who disbelieves it says its complete BS.

There is a lot of experimental evidence that supports evolution, so discarding it is foolish. BUT, nothing, absolutely nothing ensures that evolution is the only and sole cause of the existence of life here in Earth. Evolution shows how live beings can evolve into complexer ones, but does not explain in a satisfatory manner how the simpler live beings (which evolved afterwards) appeared.

So, as everything else in this life, the middle way seems to be the best one. Dont discard evolution, but dont worship it also. Its a good theory, explains a lot, but it isnt the "Theory of Everything". (As nothing else is either).

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

i had my appendix removed... i tend to be pretty healthy, i almost never get sick...

how important could it... OW MY SPLEEN!!!


:D just kidding...

[psychocat]

Well... i think the problem with the evolution is that both sides are way too extremists. The ones who believes in evolution says that it was enough to create all the life in the Earth (or even in the universe), and the ones who disbelieves it says its complete BS.

There is a lot of experimental evidence that supports evolution, so discarding it is foolish. BUT, nothing, absolutely nothing ensures that evolution is the only and sole cause of the existence of life here in Earth. Evolution shows how live beings can evolve into complexer ones, but does not explain in a satisfatory manner how the simpler live beings (which evolved afterwards) appeared.

So, as everything else in this life, the middle way seems to be the best one. Dont discard evolution, but dont worship it also. Its a good theory, explains a lot, but it isnt the "Theory of Everything". (As nothing else is either).

I am in agreement with you in this respect.

[elskeetro]

I'm not well read. I don't have facts to spew.

I don't believe in creation...it seems like lazy smoke and mirrors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bk4_SRcwE

I understand evolution. it is tangible and familiar. But it is solely based on human understanding. Science is human discovery. While it has worked out pretty well for us so far...we should all be open to the idea that someone may have fucked up somewhere along the way, and that could skew everything we have ever known. the beginning of the universe, the dark matter...whatever your question is...the answer may be something unfathomable. I, for one, have other things to attend to and limitless universal mysteries are not on my to do list.

Both have huge gaps and seem like they will never be totally solved.

I will say that I like the way science carries itself. Doesn't feel the need to make a big deal out of this. It seems to be Creation that's always making a big fuss and trying to get noticed.

just 2 cents from an ignorant ol' bloke.
skeet.

[Pahu78]

MODERN SCIENCE AND CREATION

The ancient Greeks viewed science as a philosophical matter. Reason was the chief tool of science rather than experimentation. Much of this attitude came from their belief that the world was a corruption of perfection. The world was to them an uncreated, unknowable, yet necessary evil, which God directed but did not really control. Only when the theistic view of Creation took over did science begin to study the world experimentally. It was the thought that God had created matter that made it a thing worth studying. In this view, matter was real, good, and knowable. By seeing God the Creator in complete control, science could make the assumption that the universe made sense. Most of the scientists who formulated the studies of modern science were creationists. Without this basis, modem science would probably never have gotten started.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[RobPA]

Disproving anothers theory does not prove your own.

Isint that the truth.

[Pahu78]

QUESTIONS ABOUT SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION

Two men were walking through the forest and happened across a glass ball lying on the carpet of twigs and fir needles. There were hardly any sounds other than the pair's own footsteps and certainly no signs of other people. But the very obvious inference from the evidence of the ball was that someone had put it there. Now one of these men was a scientist, trained in the modern view of origins, and the other a layman. The layman said, "What if the ball were larger, say ten feet around, would you still say that someone put it there?" Naturally, the scientist agreed that a larger ball would not affect his judgment. "Well, what if the ball were huge--a mile in diameter?" probed the layman. His friend responded that not only would someone have put it there, but that there should be an investigation to find out what caused the ball to be there. The layman then pursued one more question, ''What if the ball were as big as the whole universe? If little balls need causes, and bigger balls need causes, doesn't the biggest ball of all need a cause too?"

The Bible's views on the origins of the universe, first life, and new life forms, have caused many to falter in their acceptance of the Scriptures as truth. Modern science claims to have proven them wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. The theory of evolution is now posited as fact. Who is right, the Bible or science?

This problem will be dealt with by stating a basic argument, then applying that argument to the three areas of origins: the universe, first life, and new life forms. But before we embark, let's be sure that we understand what evolution is and how modern evolutionists view origins.

Most of us think of evolution as an invention of Charles Darwin in 1859, but it is really a very old view that has naturalistic philosophical roots. Non-theists say the universe is uncausedâ??it just always was and will be. All matter (if it exists in any sense) carries in it the principles of life. The idea of life arising from nonliving things is not a problem with this starting point. Indeed, it would be inevitable. Equally certain would be the progress from less complex life forms to more complex ones, since all things would be ever striving toward perfection and the realization of higher states.

Modern evolution does not look very much like this picture. Since many scientists are materialistic, they hold to the basic design but without the spiritual connotations. However, without the spiritual aspects guiding the system, there is no mechanism to explain the progress of species. Enter Charles Darwin. He provided a mechanism to make evolution work beginning with matter alone. He called it natural selection. Much of what Darwin taught has been rejected and surpassed by modern evolutionists, but the doctrine of natural selection has been maintained.

As to the origin of the universe, classic evolutionists have said that the world was uncaused. Carl Sagan has expressed this in his saying, ''The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." [Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), p. 4] This view is still being taught by those who have not kept up with new discoveries in cosmology (study of the universe), Evolutionists also teach that life first began as a result of chemical reactions in what Darwin called a ''warm little pool." Research done in the last thirty years has shown that it is possible to generate some amino acids necessary for life using only a few basic gases, water, and an electrical charge. This has encouraged the view that life arose from nonliving matter. As to new life forms, these are said to have evolved through natural selection. As the conditions of the earth changed, animals adapted new characteristics to meet the new challenges. Those who adapted survived and those that did not passed into extinction. The great variety of extinct animals found in fossils and their similarities to living species are used to confirm this thesis. If virtually all scientists agree on these principles and have the evidence to prove it, can we still believe the Bible?

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

we, the people, of all of reality are the created and the creator, be we human, insect, plant, animal, or mineral, we all contribute to the reality we live in.

we constantly change, we constantly grow, we constantly create, and we constantly die.

that is what evolution is, that is what god is, that is what creation is, that is what destruction is, that is LIFE...

[Pahu78]

THE BASIC ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION

Let it first be said that we need not argue on religious grounds. We do not need to simply stand firm crying, ''The Bible said it; I believe it; that settles it!" That attitude can be good, but there are good scientific grounds to reject evolution and believe in Creation. In fact, it is all based on the whole idea of what science is.

Science is based on causality; every event has a cause. Things don't happen willy-nilly. Even if we can't know specifically what particular cause produced a certain event, we can say what kind of cause it must have been because of the kinds of effects we see today. The idea that whatever caused some effect in the past will cause the same effect in the present is called the principle of uniformity. All science is based on finding causes using these two principles: causality and uniformity.

When scientific principles were first being developed into the scientific method, scientists like Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Issac Newton, and William Kelvin made a distinction between primary and secondary causes. A primary cause was a first cause that explained singularitiesâ??events that only happened once and had no natural explanation. Secondary causes were thought of as natural causes and laws that govern the way things normally operate. Unfortunately, some scientists began using supernatural causes to explain natural irregularities like earthquakes and meteors. When the truth was learned about these things, scientists eliminated primary causes from consideration altogether and sought to explain everything in terms of natural causes. But just as it was wrong for super-naturalists to explain ordinary events using primary causes, it is also wrong for the naturalist to explain all singularities by natural causes.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Delta9 UK]

THE BASIC ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION

Oh, hang on - I don't have one. Let me copy paste some shite from a book instead.



This is getting VERY old.

I could pick it apart but, why bother - you are not actually interested having any sort of "discussion" are you Pahu? Just spamming the forum with junk.

You posted the exact same crap here
(http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/1ca1743877fa0c3d/417905b4bed5ec8c?lnk=raot) in fact you posted it a lot (http://groups.google.com/groups/search?scoring=d&filter=0&enc_author=CF9WFRAAAABeOQYV91rs78214sFmrAbD)

I like this part best:

Two men were walking through the forest

...when they happened upon a large bear. One knelt to pray, the other
knelt and tightened his Nikes. "What are you doing?" cried the
other. "You can't outrun this bear!"

"I don't have to," said the other. "I only have to outrun you."

Natural selection FTW!

Lulz :D

[psychocat]

I like this part best:

Two men were walking through the forest

...when they happened upon a large bear. One knelt to pray, the other
knelt and tightened his Nikes. "What are you doing?" cried the
other. "You can't outrun this bear!"

"I don't have to," said the other. "I only have to outrun you."

Natural selection FTW!

Lulz :D

True natural selection would be what I would do in that situation...
I would boot him in the leg just to make sure I could outrun him. :D :thumbsup:

I am a natural survivor and predator. :cool:

[IAmKowalski]

This thread amazes me. It seems like each time I click on "New Posts", it's back.... coming up tomorrow: "Science Disproves Gravity".

[MadSativa]

Even if every single thing you said in your post was proven true, which I really don't believe, this one line, I am absolutely sure, is not proven or even able to be proven.

"Only evil deals in Absolutes"-Some Jedi said this

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

True natural selection would be what I would do in that situation...
I would boot him in the leg just to make sure I could outrun him. :D :thumbsup:

I am a natural survivor and predator. :cool:


Just be sure the other guy isnt me, cuz i'd bite back and feed you to the bear... oh, excuse me, i meant fight back... ;)



then again, i might actually try to befriend the bear and hunt you down with it's help. THAT'S FOR BOOTING ME IN THE LEG MOTHAFUKKA!

[psychocat]

A bear and a wolf to deal with ..............
I'm kinda getting the feeling that I might just be toast. :wtf:

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

whaaat? you're jsut a house cat huh? just a psychotic house cat? you ought to be able to hold your own...!

[psychocat]

whaaat? you're jsut a house cat huh? just a psychotic house cat? you ought to be able to hold your own...!

I'm hoping your bear mate is as brave as this one. :D

YouTube - Cat vs. Bear (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gi7tN2rjQcc&feature=related)

[JakeMartinez]

A raven would just fly away in this situation...


Then swoop back to gouge out your eyes :)

Yay ravens.

[Chong Version 2.0]

It's simple! Godidit. Ignore the thousands of scientists and tons of evidence. They are tools of the DEVIL!!! /sarcasm

Who created God? Why did he create Satan? Why is God a "he"? What does he need a penis for? Why did he create sinners knowing that they will go to hell? Why did he create Earth? Was he bored all by his mighty self?

Why are our retinas backwards? Why can some people still move their ears? Why is 99.7% of our DNA identical to that of a chimp? Why is 65% of our DNA identical to that of a fruit fly? Why do we have appendixes? Why do we have remnants of a tail? Why can we artificially create amino acids in a lab with electricity?

Our planet has been around for 4.5 billion years. Can you comprehend that? There are about 10 billion stars in the average galaxy and there are about 10 billion galaxies that are observable. The universe is 14 billion years old. Do the math.:D

[Delta9 UK]

I do love this forum.

Where else could you see Cats chasing Bears?

If I had any weed I would roll one :jointsmile: just for you guys'n'gals

[Pahu78]

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPERATION AND ORIGIN SCIENCE

Operation science deals with the way things normally operate. It examines how the world normally works in the present. It studies things that happen over and over again in a regular and repeated way. Operation science seeks answers that are testable by repeating the experiment over and over, and falsifiable if the cause does not always yield the same effect. Its conclusions should allow one to project what will happen in future experiments. Operation science likes things to be very regular and predictable. No changes; no surprises. So the idea of a supernatural being coming around to stir things up occasionally is strongly resisted. Because of this, it usually seeks out natural (secondary) causes for the events it studies.

Origin science is not just another name for giving evidence to support creationism. It is a different kind of science. Origin science studies past singularities, rather than present normalities. It looks at how things began, not how they work. It studies things that only happened once and, by their nature, don't happen again. It is a different type of study that requires a different approach. Rather than being an empirical science like physics or biology, it is more like a forensic science. Remember the TV show about a medical examiner named Quincy? Each week he tried to find out what and/or who caused a past singularity (a person's death) by examining the effect and deciding what kind of thing could have caused that event. That is what origin science seeks to do.

Now origin science works on different principles than operation science does. Since the past events that it studies cannot be repeated today, it uses analogies between the kinds of cause/effect relationships that we see today and the kind of effect that is being studied. Also, origin science does not claim to give definitive answers, but only plausible ones. We did not observe the events of origins, and we cannot repeat them (just as Quincy could not ask the murderer to kill the victim again). So the remaining evidence must be studied and interpretations of it measured by what seems most likely to explain the evidence. And just as operation science recognizes that some events demand an intelligent cause, origin science also admits an intelligent cause when the evidence calls for it.

The first step in the basic argument against evolution. is that It has taken the wrong approach. It has applied the principles of operation science to the study of origins. It is seeking regular and repeated causes for events that occurred only once. It has forced the operations that are presently working in the world to explain how the world got here in the first place. Using this method, it is a foregone conclusion that it originated by a process. Processes are what operation science studies. But it is confusion to assume that unique and singular events, such as the beginning of the universe or first life, should be studied in terms of a regular and repeated process. To understand origins, we must use origin science, not operation science.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Pahu78]

Because origin science is not restricted to secondary causes (the natural causes that operate the universe), it sometimes finds evidence to suggest an intelligent primary cause. On the TV show, Quincy had to determine whether he was looking for a natural cause of death or a murdererâ??an intelligent cause. What kind of evidence would show that an intelligent being has intervened? Carl Sagan has said that a single message from outer space would confirm his belief that there is extraterrestrial life. In other words, some normal events, such as communication, require an intelligent cause. This is a type of order known as specified complexity.

This is more than simply design or order. It is order of a complex nature that has a clear and specific function. A chunk of quartz has order in its crystals, but it is repetitive, like the message: FACE, FACE, FACE, FACE. A chain of random polymers (called a polypeptide) is complex, but it does not give any specific function or message. It looks like this: DLAKI CHNAOR NVKOEN. But specified complexity has order that is not repetitious and communicates a message or a clear function, such as: THIS SENTENCE CARRIES A MESSAGE.

Now one of these types of design is the work of intelligent intervention, and I think you know which one it is. It is obvious that wherever we see a clear and distinct messageâ??a complex design with a specified functionâ??it was caused by some form of intelligent intervention imposing limits on the natural matter that it would not take by itself. There are natural phenomena that are orderly and awe-inspiring, but clearly caused by natural forces. We can see that the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls did not require intelligence but only the forces of wind and water to shape them. However, the same cannot be said for the faces on Mount Rushmore or a hydroelectric plant. In these there is clearly a specified message or function. For these we know there must have been intelligent intervention. Whether it be a sculpture, a name written in the sand, or a smoke signal we instantly recognize that it took some smarts to do thatâ??it just didn't happen by itself. And all of our present experience confirms this to us. It is universally true of things that we find in the world today, so it is reasonable to assume that it has always been that way.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Pahu78]

BASIC ARGUMENT STATED

Our basic argument has now made two points. First, it is valid science to look for intelligent primary causes to events that show signs of intelligence. Archeologists do it all the time. When they find pottery or arrowheads, they rightly conclude that some intelligent being produced it. Operation science is only concerned with secondary natural causes, but origin science is not so restricted and is the proper method for studying unique, past events. Second, present experience tells us that an intelligent cause should be sought wherever we find specified complexity. This gives us u criteria to show when an intelligent cause is operating and when it is not. So if it is valid for science to look for primary causes and we have some way of identifying them, the basic argument for Creation goes like this:

1. Origin science should be used to study origins.
A. There are two kinds of science: operation science and origin science; and we must use one or the other to study origins.
B. Operation science should not be used to study unique, unrepeatable past events because it is devoted to studying the normal operations of the present.
C. So, origin science is the proper method for studying origins because it studies unique, unrepeated events, which origins are by definition.

II. Origin science admits the possibility of primary intelligent causes.

III. Primary intelligent causes can be identified· when there is evidence of specified complexity

IV. Therefore, wherever there is evidence of specified complexity, origin science should posit a primary intelligent cause.

We may now apply this type of argument to the three areas of origins: the origin of the universe, the origin of first life, and the origin of new life forms.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[IAmKowalski]

BASIC ARGUMENT STATED

Our basic argument has now made two points. First, it is valid science to look for intelligent primary causes to events that show signs of intelligence. Archeologists do it all the time. When they find pottery or arrowheads, they rightly conclude that some intelligent being produced it. Operation science is only concerned with secondary natural causes, but origin science is not so restricted and is the proper method for studying unique, past events. Second, present experience tells us that an intelligent cause should be sought wherever we find specified complexity. This gives us u criteria to show when an intelligent cause is operating and when it is not. So if it is valid for science to look for primary causes and we have some way of identifying them, the basic argument for Creation goes like this:

1. Origin science should be used to study origins.
A. There are two kinds of science: operation science and origin science; and we must use one or the other to study origins.
B. Operation science should not be used to study unique, unrepeatable past events because it is devoted to studying the normal operations of the present.
C. So, origin science is the proper method for studying origins because it studies unique, unrepeated events, which origins are by definition.

II. Origin science admits the possibility of primary intelligent causes.

III. Primary intelligent causes can be identified· when there is evidence of specified complexity

IV. Therefore, wherever there is evidence of specified complexity, origin science should posit a primary intelligent cause.

We may now apply this type of argument to the three areas of origins: the origin of the universe, the origin of first life, and the origin of new life forms.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

This is just sad. :(

[Pahu78]

This is just sad. :(

Why do facts make you sad?

[IAmKowalski]

Facts don't.

[Pahu78]

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. In the case of the origin of the universe, either the universe had a beginning or it did not. If it did have a beginning, then it was either caused or uncaused. If it was caused, then what kind of cause could be responsible for bringing all things into being?

Evolutionary scientists have told us that the universe either came from nothing by nothing or that it was always here. One such theory is called the steady state theory and also calls for the universe to be constantly generating hydrogen atoms from nothing. In either case, holding to such beliefs has a high cost for the scientist, for both of these violate a fundamental law of science: the law of causality. Both views require that the scientist believe in events happening without a cause. Even the great skeptic David Hume said, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.â?� [David Hume, Letters ed. by J.Y.T. Greig (Oxford: Clarendon, 1932), vol. I, p. 187. Yet this absurd proposition is accepted by men who make their living by the law of causality. If the whole universe is uncaused, why should we believe that the parts are caused? If the parts are all caused, then what evidence could suggest that the whole is uncaused? Nothing in the principle of causality supports this conclusion. The evidence is just not there.

Rather, a great deal of evidence now supports the option that the universe had a beginning. Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has summarized the evidence in his book God and the Astronomers, saying, "Now three lines of evidenceâ??the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the starsâ??pointed to one conclusion: all indicated that the Universe had a beginning." [Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Warner Books, 1978), p. Ill.]

Now if we are speaking of a beginning of the universeâ??a movement from no matter to matterâ??then we are clearly in the realm of unrepeatable events covered by origin science.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Origin science is not just another name for giving evidence to support creationism. It is a different kind of science. Origin science studies past singularities, rather than present normalities. It looks at how things began, not how they work. It studies things that only happened once and, by their nature, don't happen again. It is a different type of study that requires a different approach.

stem cell research. stem cells: the origins of human life. we only go through the fetal stage once, and then we go through a repetitive cycle of growth until we die.

beginnings happen over and over, everything DOES happen again, it is just in cycles of life and death.

[Pahu78]

THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

The first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount or energy in the universe remains constantâ??it doesn't change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down. Now if the overall amount of energy stays the same, but we are running out of usable energy, then what we started with was not an infinite amount: You can't run out of an infinite amount. This means that the universe is and always has been finite. It could not have existed forever in the past and will not exist forever into the future. So it must have had a beginning.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

The first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount or energy in the universe remains constantâ??it doesn't change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down. Now if the overall amount of energy stays the same, but we are running out of usable energy, then what we started with was not an infinite amount: You can't run out of an infinite amount. This means that the universe is and always has been finite. It could not have existed forever in the past and will not exist forever into the future. So it must have had a beginning.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]



It's a balancing act OF infinity.


there is just less infinite usable energy right now than there is infinite energy users.


it could be said that the effect is going from a 50-50 balance to a 40-60 to a 20-80. when the balance is so far off to the extreme, it reverses polarity and heads back to the other direction. when we hit 100% matter and 0% energy, we will suddenly snap back, everyone will die, and we'll be back at ground 0 again, perfect balance of all the infinite elements.




yes, im rambling nonsense here, but think about it.

the first law of thermodynamics is true circumstance, the second law is circumstantially true.

it's not that we are losing energy so much as it is that more energy is being used. when there is no energy left to be used, the users must then convert back into energy.





let's take a life and death approach.



life is energy user, death is energy creator.


but there is never more or less than 100%, it is just where that % is balanced, and how.

[Pahu78]

THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES

Scientists argue that the universe is not simply in a holding pattern, maintaining its movement from everlasting to everlasting. It is expanding. It now appears that all of the galaxies are moving outward as if from a central point of origin, and that all things were expanding faster in the past than they are now. Remember that as we look out into space, we are also looking back in time, for we are seeing things not as they are now, but as they were when the light was given off many years ago. So the light from a star 7 million light years away tells us what it was like and where it was 7 million years ago.

â??The most complete study made thus far has been carried out on the 200-inch telescope by Allan Sandage [as of 1990]. He compiled information on 42 galaxies, ranging out in space as far as 6 billion light years from us. His measurements indicate that the Universe was expanding more rapidly in the past than it is today. This result lends further support to the belief that the Universe exploded into being.â?� [Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Warner Books, 1978), p. 95]

This explosion, sometimes called the Big Bang, was a beginning point from which the entire universe has come. Putting an expanding universe in reverse leads us back to the point where the universe gets smaller and smaller until it vanishes into nothing. So the universe, at some point in the distant past, came into being out of nothing.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Pahu78]

Evidence that the universe began is the radiation "echo" which seems to come from everything. It was first thought to be a malfunction or static on the instruments. But research has discovered that the static was coming from everywhereâ??the universe itself has low-level radiation from some past catastrophe that looks like a giant fireball.

No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the Steady State theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed. [Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Warner Books, 1978), p. 5]

Again, this evidence must lead one to conclude that there was a beginning of the universe.

The law of causality tells us that whatever happens is caused, so what caused the universe to begin? It is [speculatively] possible that this big bang is simply the latest in a series of explosions that destroy all evidence of what came before. But that only backs the question up a few steps to "What caused the first explosion?" It is also [speculatively] possible that the steady state theory is right, that the universe had no beginning and is creating hydrogen from nothing to maintain energy without running down. But this explanation is contrary to the evidence and the law of causality. Both of these answers are [speculatively] possible; neither is plausible.

Logically, if we are looking for a cause, which existed before the entirety of nature (the universe) existed, we are looking for n supernatural cause. Even ]astrow, a confirmed agnostic, has said as much: "That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." [Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Warner Books, 1978), p. 15, 18] Since he is speaking from the viewpoint of operation science, he probably means that there is no secondary cause, which can explain the origin of the universe. But with the recognition of origin science we can posit a supernatural primary cause that seems to be the most plausible answer to the question. Jastrow closes his book God and the Astronomers with these words:

â??For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.â?� [Ibid., pp. 105-106]

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Again, this evidence must lead one to conclude that there was a beginning of the universe.


[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]



to the contrary, if this is just a cycle, if this happens repeatedly, we cannot know how long this has been happening, or what initiated the cycle!


all evidence is sucked into a singularity only to explode out again, completely annihilating any evidence of the past, between the last big bang and big crunch.


also assuming there is a big crunch.

[Pahu78]

to the contrary, if this is just a cycle, if this happens repeatedly, we cannot know how long this has been happening, or what initiated the cycle!


all evidence is sucked into a singularity only to explode out again, completely annihilating any evidence of the past, between the last big bang and big crunch.


also assuming there is a big crunch.

Aren't you basing your conclusions on speculation rather that facts?

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Aren't you basing your conclusions on speculation rather that facts?

the fact is im not a scientist, nor have i any means of observing the universe as a whole, beyond my individual perspective, and what little research i've done.


but is not research speculation until one takes it upon them self to try and test their research?



on matters pertaining to the big bang/big crunch, we have only speculation based on our observations of the movement of the stars.


is that not pure speculation?

[Pahu78]

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. In the case of the origin of first life, either it came about by spontaneous chemical generation without intelligent intervention, or by the intervention of an intelligent being through special Creation.

Evolutionists believe that life began in a spontaneous way from nonliving chemicals by purely natural processes. Shortly after the earth was cooled enough to allow it, they tell us, the combination of simple gases like hydrogen, nitrogen, ammonia, and carbon dioxide reacted to form elementary amino acids, which in time developed into DNA chains and finally cells. Of course, this is said to have taken several billion years and the extra energy of the sun, volcanic activity, lightning, and cosmic rays were needed to keep the process going. Experimentation begun by Stanley Miller arid Harold Urey has attempted to reconstruct these conditions and has had success in producing various amino acids needed for life. From this, much of the scientific community has concluded that the spontaneous chemical generation of life from a pre biotic soup is the way life began.

There are, however, some very good reasons to reject this view. First, the early earth conditions necessary to produce life are just as likely to destroy it. The experimental work has shown that no oxygen can be present for the reaction to work. Also, the energy needed from the sun and cosmic radiation are damaging to the very substances produced. Under the conditions required for life to have arisen spontaneously, it is more likely that the elements would be destroyed faster than they could be produced. Even if the right chemicals could be produced, no satisfactory answer has been given for how they could have been arranged properly and been enclosed in a cell wall. This would require another set of conditions altogether.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

huh?

[Pahu78]

The geological record does not support the view that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter. Evolutionists date this origin at about 3.5 billion years ago; however, cells capable of photosynthesis have been found in rock from South Africa dated more than 3.1 billion years old, and in Australian rock dated 3.5 billion years old, five different kinds of cells have been identified. There also appears to be evidences of living cells in rocks from Greenland dated 3.8 billion years ago. There are no signs in the geologic record of pre-cellular life. But if the age of the earth is about 4.6 billion years and life seems to be abundant, complex, and diverse by 3.5 billion years, that allows only 170 million years for the earth to cool and evolution to take place. This is considerably less than the 2 bil1ion years originally estimated. Just to complicate matters further, there is growing evidence that the early earth was rich in oxygen but low in nitrogenâ??just the opposite of what evolution needs.

The experiments which support the generation of living matter from nonliving chemicals are flawed by the very interference of the intelligent scientist performing the experiment. These experiments do not really reproduce the conditions of early earth. There were no traps to collect only the amino acids produced. The chemicals used were not nearly as concentrated and not handpicked to form a better reaction. There were many sources of energy acting simultaneously on the chemicals, and not always in harmony. And the levels of energy and wavelengths of light were not controlled. In other words, the experimenters are only fooling themselves to think that they are observing a natural process. They have manipulated the process by their own [intelligent] intervention.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

there is no such thing as nonliving matter, or non-life what so ever.


that which exists is alive. that which is not alive, does not exist.



if life could come from non-life, my chair would have an I.Q. of 500 with all the internet surfing i do. my PC would, thus, have an incalculable I.Q.



If life can come from non-life, then the presumed life is not alive, but merely a combination of non-lives.



The sun is our oldest ancestor. Our Greatest Grandfather.
The Earth is our Greatest Grandmother.
The ocean is the womb of all textbook-life on Earth, but the earth itself is alive as well.

[Pahu78]

THE ORIGIN OF FIRST LIFE 3

Evolutionists have never shown any mechanism that can harness the energy to do the work of selecting amino acids and sorting which will build each gene to develop a living organism. It doesn't do any good to have a drawer full of batteries if we don't have a flashlight (a mechanism for harnessing energy) to put them in. The DNA molecule is very complex. In fact, it has the specified complexity that we spoke of earlier. The English alphabet has twenty-six letters; the Greek alphabet has twenty-four and the genetic alphabet has only four, but the method of communicating by the sequence of letters is the same. Information scientist Hubert P. Yockey insists, "It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical." [Hubert P. Yockey, "Self-Organization, Origin of Life Scenarios, and Information Theory" in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, p. 16] It turns out that a single strand of DNA carries the same amount of information as a volume of an encyclopedia. Granting that there may have been enough energy available to do the work, the only systems we know which can harness the energy to do this kind of work are either living (but these were not around before life began) or intelligent. It is easy to pump a lot of energy into a system at random if all you want to do is make it hot, but if you want to organize itâ??that is, put it in order and create informationâ??that requires intelligence.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Pahu78]

THE ORIGIN OF FIRST LIFE 4

What could explain the sudden appearance of life and also provide for the informational organization of living matter? If we apply the principle of uniformity (analogy) to the question, the only cause that we know routinely does this kind of work in the present is intelligence. The reasonable assumption is that it also required intelligence to do it in the past. Uniform experience proves this to us and, as Hume said, "As a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof from the nature of the fact" that the information inherent in living things required an intelligent cause. Since it is not possible that we are speaking of human intelligence, or even living beings in the natural sense, it had to be a supernatural intelligence. This does create a disjunction in the course of nature, which irritates most scientists; however, once it is admitted that there is a radical disjunction from nothing to something at the beginning of the universe, there can be little objection to the idea of another intervention when the evidence clearly points to it.

Other theories have been advanced to explain the origins of first life on earth. One is that new natural laws need to be discovered, but scientists can only point out the need and cannot explain how the organizing work can be done. Others suggest that life may have come to earth from somewhere else in the universe, either on a meteorite or on an ancient spaceship, but both of these solutions just push the question back one step: Where did that life come from? Still others borrow from pantheism and hold that some mind within the universe can account for the origin of life. Thermal vents in the sea floor and clay deposits are being studied as possible breeding grounds for life's beginnings, but none of these views really accounts for a way to harness the energy to make specified complexity possible. The most probable cause is a supernatural intelligence.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Esoteric416]

Hey Pahu, have you ever read "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot?
I think you would be interested by the idea of the Implicate order, and what that model has to say about evolution, especially the way you are talking about it.

Check it out even just as a pass time its a good read.

[Pahu78]

THE ORIGIN OF NEW LIFE FORMS 1

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. In the case of the origin of new life forms, they appeared either by an evolutionary process of natural selection without any intelligent intervention or by special Creation through the work of an intelligent designer.

Darwin made one of his greatest contributions to the theory of evolution with his analogy of selection by breeders to selection in nature. This principle of natural selection became the hallmark of evolution because it provided a system by which new developments of life forms could be explained without recourse to a supernatural cause. The main evidence that he put forward to support this analogy was the fossil record. Introductory biology books ever since have pictured this gradual transition of life forms from simple to complex in acceptance of this view.

Darwin himself was aware that there were serious problems with the analogy between breeders and nature, but he hoped that what humans could do in a few generations could be done by nature in several hundred generations. However, time is not the only factor, which weakens the analogy. E.S. Russell wrote:

â??It is unfortunate that Darwin ever introduced the term â??natural selection,â?? for it has given rise to much confusion of thought.

â??Conclusion: Rather than being analogous, in the most crucial aspects, natural selection and artificial selection are exact opposites.

â??He did so, of course, because he arrived at his theory through studying the effects of selection as practiced by man in the breeding of domesticated animals and cultivated plants. Here the use of the word is entirely legitimate. But the action of man in selective breeding is not analogous to the action of â??natural selectionâ?? but almost its direct opposite .... Man has an aim or an end in view; â??natural selectionâ?? can have none. Man picks out the individuals he wishes to cross, choosing them by the characteristics he seeks to perpetuate or enhance. He protects them and their issue by all means in his power, guarding them thus from the operation of natural selection, which would speedily eliminate many freaks; he continues his active and purposeful selection from generation to generation until he reaches, if possible, his goal. Nothing of this kind happens, or can happen, through the blind process of differential elimination and differential survival which we miscall â??natural Selection.â?� [E.S. Russell, The Diversity of Animals ([1915] 1962), p. 124. Cited in James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979)]

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Pahu78]

THE ORIGIN OF NEW LIFE FORMS 2


A major problem for evolution is the analogy of selective breeding being used to prove that natural processes did it all because it contains a great deal of intelligent intervention that is overlooked in the theory. Breeders manipulate according to an intelligent plan to produce specific developments. Informationally speaking, this is going from a state of complexity in the DNA code to a higher, or at least more specific, state, of complexity. It is like changing the sentence, "She had brown hair," to the more complex statement, "Her tresses were auburn and shown in the sun." This increase in information coded into the DNA requires intelligence just as surely as the original coding to produce life did. Indeed, if Darwin's analogy proves anything, it shows the need for intelligent intervention to produce new life forms. Again, the principle of uniformity leads us to this conclusion once it is realized that we are working within origin science, not operation science.

But what of the fossil evidence that has been so widely proclaimed? Darwin recognized this as a problem as well and wrote in The Origin of Species, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." [Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859), p. 280] In the 130 years since Darwin wrote, the situation has only become worse for his theory. Noted Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has written, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History May 1977, p. 14]

Eldredge and Tattersall agree, saying:

â??Expectation colored perception to such an extent that the most obvious single fact about biological evolutionâ??non-changeâ??has seldom, if ever, been incorporated into anyone's scientific notions of how life actually evolves. If ever there was a myth, it is that evolution is a process of constant change.â?� [Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 8]

What does the fossil record suggest? Evolutionists like Gould now support what creationists like Agassiz, Gish, and others have said all along:

â??The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

â??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.

â??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??" [Gould, op. cit. pp. 13-14]

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Pahu78]

THE ORIGIN OF NEW LIFE FORMS 3


The fossil evidence clearly gives a picture of mature, fully functional creatures suddenly appearing and staying very much the same. There is no real indication that one form of life transforms into a completely different form. While these two features seem to invalidate classical evolution, they are somewhat problematic to creationists also.

Some creationists say that the fossil record reflects the debris of the great Flood either because some animals were better able to escape the waters or by hydrodynamic sorting as the remains settled. These scientists are concerned with preserving a young earth on the grounds that they believe in a literal six-day, twenty-four hour period Creation with no large gaps in the early genealogies of Genesis. Others, known as old earth creationists, hold that the earth need not be only thousands of years old. This group understands the fossil record to show that Creation was accomplished in a series of stages, each new appearance in the geological strata pointing to a new moment of direct creation. Invertebrates appeared first, followed by a long period of nature balancing itself before the next burst of creation. Fish appeared next and then amphibia and so on until man was created. The latter view does agree with the fossil record, but there is no consensus between creationists about the age of the earth. This is a hotly debated issue, bur no matter which way it is resolved, they both agree that the existing fossil evidence supports Creation better than evolution.

Some evolutionists have attempted to deal with the fossil evidence by introducing the idea of punctuated equilibrium. These scientists say that the jumps in the fossil record reflect evolutionary jumps which brought on major changes in shorter times. Hence, evolution is not gradual, but punctuated by sudden leaps from one stage to the next. The theory has been criticized because they cannot produce any evidence for a mechanism of secondary causes which makes these sudden advances possible. Their theory then appears to be based solely on the absence of transitional fossils. Darwin, after all, understood suddenness to be evidence of Creation. If this is true, then it supports what Creationists said all alongâ??the sudden appearance of fully formed animals is evidence of Creation.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Pahu78]

THE ORIGIN OF NEW LIFE FORMS 4

Creationists reason that there are real limitations to genetic changes and that this indicates a special creation of each major category of life forms. Each new life form came into being by an act of intelligent intervention specifying its genetic information for its peculiar function. Just as letter sequences make up different words, DNA codes vary and produce different species. If it requires intelligence to create King Lear from selecting and sorting the words in a dictionary, then it also requires intelligence to select and sort genetic information to produce a variety of species which work together as a system in nature. The sudden appearance of these life forms only strengthens our case that a supernatural intelligence was at work to accomplish this organization. By the principle of uniformity, this is the most plausible solution to the problem.

CONCLUSION

Now that we have new evidence about the nature of the universe, the information stored in DNA molecules, and further fossil confirmation, the words of Louis Agassiz resound even more loudly than they did when first written in 1860: "[Darwin] has lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which pervades the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind, and therefore intelligible to us as thinking beings, and unaccountable on any other basis than that they owe their existence to the working of intelligence; and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature." [Louis Agassiz, "Contribution to the Natural History of the United States" in American Journal of Science, 1860]

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. The overwhelming evidence supports the Creationist view.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[TheHonorary]

What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.


You're using thinking that, let's face it came from the source you're trying to, in a way, disprove -- science. What brought the universe into existence? We don't know, and we may never find out, but what brought god into existence? Why are you implying only god can be without a creator?

Religion and superstition have no place in todays world but there are people out there who cannot accept this and go to great lengths to use any kind of argument they can fathom.

"The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. That's the message we're brought up with, isn't it? Believe or die! 'Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options.'"
- Bill Hicks

[Pahu78]

You're using thinking that, let's face it came from the source you're trying to, in a way, disprove -- science.

Where do you get the notion I am trying to disprove science? I am using the facts of science to disprove evolution.


What brought the universe into existence? We don't know, and we may never find out,

But we do know by experience, experimentation, etc. that before the universe existed, it didn't exist and therefore there was nothing. We know that nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause, therefore, the cause of the universe must be supernatural.


but what brought god into existence? Why are you implying only god can be without a creator?

A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question â??Who created God?â?? is illogical, just like â??To whom is the bachelor married?â??

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: "If the universe needs a cause, then why doesnâ??t God need a cause? And if God doesnâ??t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?" In reply, we should use the following reasoning:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Itâ??s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesnâ??t need a cause. In addition, Einsteinâ??s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. Therefore, time itself would have begun along with matter and space.

Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time â?? God is â??the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternityâ?� (Isa. 57:15). Therefore, He doesnâ??t have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever; otherwise, it would already have exhausted all usable energyâ??the â??heat deathâ?? of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.

So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? However, it is self-evident that things that begin have a causeâ??no one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement if the police didnâ??t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.

In addition, the universe cannot be self-causedâ??nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

IN SUMMARY

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
The universe therefore requires a cause, just as (Gen. 1:1) and (Rom. 1:20) teach.
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesnâ??t need a cause.


Religion and superstition have no place in todays world but there are people out there who cannot accept this and go to great lengths to use any kind of argument they can fathom.

I agree that we would be far better off if we got rid of superstition and false religions. That is why I am sharing scientific facts that disprove the superstition of evolution.


"The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. That's the message we're brought up with, isn't it? Believe or die! 'Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options.'"
- Bill Hicks

That is one of the doctrines of false religion. The Holy Bible reveals that instead of annihilating us when we decided our way was better than His, He confined us to earth with all the material we needed, and a few thousand years, to discover if we were right. History is a record of our failure to do better exercising our way contrary to His.

He took on human flesh and died a very painful death in order to open the door of forgiveness and salvation for all who repent and truly desire eternal life with Him. Those who choose to continue in sin will eventually be judged and annihilated, not confined to an eternal lake of fire and torment. But no one will experience eternal death before He makes sure they know the truth and have an opportunity to apply it.

Most people in this life have never learned the truth because of all the rampant confusion and deception, so our physical death is not the end of the story. We survive the death of our bodies and have reincarnated several times. That is also part of God's plan of salvation: to give us time to experience the fruit of our positive and negative choices down through the ages. It's part of our learning process that our loving Creator has provided.

[TheHonorary]

Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time â?? God is â??the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternityâ?� (Isa. 57:15).

You took apart my response pretty thoroughly, the problem is it all fails miserably because of an epic fallacy in your argument -- circular reasoning.

God is the creator of the universe by definition.
By who's definition?
The bible's.
How would the bible know?
Because it is gods word and he is the creator of the universe.
Oh...

[Pahu78]

You took apart my response pretty thoroughly, the problem is it all fails miserably because of an epic fallacy in your argument -- circular reasoning.

God is the creator of the universe by definition.
By who's definition?
The bible's.
How would the bible know?
Because it is gods word and he is the creator of the universe.
Oh...

Even though the Bible does confirm that God created the universe, we don't have to rely on the Bible at all. We can use the facts of science to prove it:

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?� http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2]

[TheHonorary]

Basically what you're saying is that since we cannot yet figure out what happened before the big bang, or what caused it, it must have been supernatural. Lightning, earthquakes and magnetism used to all be considered supernatural before we were able to figure out, with logic and science, what they were. Do you honestly not see the pattern?

I agree that the concept of something from nothing may be beyond our comprehension and therefore we simply default to some kind of great creator or life force of it ALL. However you cannot, with rational and logical thinking anyways, say that the god of your bible is it. And no, I will not even begin to discuss why your religion is or isn't the real religion, because that is just irrelevant.

[Pahu78]

Basically what you're saying is that since we cannot yet figure out what happened before the big bang, or what caused it, it must have been supernatural. Lightning, earthquakes and magnetism used to all be considered supernatural before we were able to figure out, with logic and science, what they were. Do you honestly not see the pattern?

Your point sounds valid, but even though it is true that many events in the past have been attributed to the supernatural, and later found to be natural, does not rule out the possibility of a supernatural cause for those things that cannot be harmonized with known scientific facts. Also, the question remains: Where did all the matter in the universe come from and the laws governing that matter? We still are left with a supernatural cause in the beginning.


I agree that the concept of something from nothing may be beyond our comprehension and therefore we simply default to some kind of great creator or life force of it ALL. However you cannot, with rational and logical thinking anyways, say that the god of your bible is it. And no, I will not even begin to discuss why your religion is or isn't the real religion, because that is just irrelevant.

In my response to which you are responding, I touched on the primary reason the Bible alone is unique among all religious writings because of the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies confirmed by non-biblical science. Also unique is the fact that archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible and has found no inaccuracy, so far.

Your position seems to begin with the belief that there can be no such thing as a supernatural cause of anything, and therefore a creator God does not exist. Do you have any evidence to support such a belief? When confronted with facts that logically demand a supernatural cause, you resort to the faith that someday in the unknown future, those facts will be demonstrated to have natural causes.

[Pahu78]

Parallel Strata


The earthâ??s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earthâ??s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rateâ??not over long periods of time.

Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. [Fossil trees are found worldwide crossing two or more strata]â?¦Had burial been slow, the treetops would have decayed. Obviously, the trees could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 22. Parallel Strata (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences26.html#wp1009156)

[animalman]

intelligent design is nothing more that creationism and had been thoroughly discredited in the court ruling Dover. its not even bad science its just bad reasoning. any theory that is based on a unstable foundation cannot be considered science. watch NOVA's judgement day intelligent design on trail, it shows that intelligent design was created by a bunch of religious zealots trying to change society. and at the end when it was ruled not to be science a fold of deaths were sent to many people involved in its disproval, what good Christians believe what i say or i'll kill you...... very Christian dont you think. evolution does in no way disprove the existence of god it only says that the bible may not be 100% accurate, after all it was written by man not the hand of god and was written to the best of our understandings at the time

[Pahu78]

intelligent design is nothing more that creationism and had been thoroughly discredited in the court ruling Dover.

You may not be aware of the whole story in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Opinion. Here are some facts:

Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures. He was an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District federal trial in 2005.

On December 20, 2005 Judge John Jones issued his opinion in the matter of Kitzmiller, in which I was the lead witness for the defense. There are many statements of the Court scattered throughout the opinion with which I disagree. However, here I will remark only on section E-4, â??Whether ID is Science.â?�

The Court finds that intelligent design (ID) is not science. In its legal analysis, the Court takes what I would call a restricted sociological view of science: â??scienceâ?� is what the consensus of the community of practicing scientists declares it to be. The word â??scienceâ?� belongs to that community and to no one else. Thus, in the Courtâ??s reasoning, since prominent science organizations have declared intelligent design to not be science, it is not science. Although at first blush that may seem reasonable, the restricted sociological view of science risks conflating the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood.

On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: â??scienceâ?� is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science. Thus there is a disconnect between the two views of what â??scienceâ?� is. Although the two views rarely conflict at all, the dissonance grows acute when the topic turns to the most fundamental matters, such as the origins of the universe, life, and mind.

Below I proceed sequentially through section E-4. Statements from the opinion are in italics, followed by my comments.

[To read the complete response, go to: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697]

Conclusion

The Courtâ??s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; an incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shopworn excuses for Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed evidence-based arguments for design.

All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On the day after the judgeâ??s opinion, December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories.


its not even bad science its just bad reasoning. any theory that is based on a unstable foundation cannot be considered science.

Precisely why evolution cannot be considered science.


watch NOVA's judgement day intelligent design on trail, it shows that intelligent design was created by a bunch of religious zealots trying to change society. and at the end when it was ruled not to be science a fold of deaths were sent to many people involved in its disproval, what good Christians believe what i say or i'll kill you...... very Christian dont you think.

Is that movie based on science and fact? Movies rarely are.


evolution does in no way disprove the existence of god it only says that the bible may not be 100% accurate, after all it was written by man not the hand of god and was written to the best of our understandings at the time

Do you understand that evolution teaches a natural undirected cause of the development of life from one cell to humans?

Do you understand the Bible teaches that God created everything and everyone?

Can the cause of life forms be both non-intelligent and intelligent?

Do you know for a fact that the Bible was authored by men rather than God? If so, can you produce evidence supporting that fact?

[Ubalubus]

Do you know for a fact that the Bible was authored by men rather than God? If so, can you produce evidence supporting that fact?

Lets turn the table (from your list):

2. The universe had a beginning.
I challenge you to produce evidence supporting this fact

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
I challenge you to produce evidence supporting this fact

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
I challenge you to produce evidence supporting this fact

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
I challenge you to produce evidence supporting this fact

[Delta9 UK]

WOW - this thread still lives!

More copy-pasting than you can shake a stick at :wtf:

Let's get at least one thing straight:

The theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, nothing to do with the formation of the sun or planets and nothing to do with the existance or lack thereof of a first cause. The theory of Evolution doesn't even deal with how life on Earth got started.

The only thing that is examined and explained by the theory of Evolution is how life on Earth developed after life began.

I'm still waiting to see how Science disproves evolution - so far this thread is full of fail.

[Delta9 UK]

Pahu is literally spamming the whole web with this BS:

Check this Google search
"pahu science disproves evolution" (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=pahu+science+disproves+evolution&btnG=Search&meta=)

Isn't this enough to get banned here? Or at least moved to the conspiracy forum :D j/k

[Pahu78]

Lets turn the table (from your list):

2. The universe had a beginning.
I challenge you to produce evidence supporting this fact

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
I challenge you to produce evidence supporting this fact

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
I challenge you to produce evidence supporting this fact

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
I challenge you to produce evidence supporting this fact

You failed to answer my question. As to your challenges, all the facts are self evident. Can you think of anything in the universe that had no beginning? The definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything existed, did it exist? If it did not exist, wouldn't there be nothing? Since the universe does exist, and it appeared from nothing, and there is no natural cause, then isn't it logical to conclude the cause of the universe is supernatural?

Aren't your challenges really an attempt to explain away your inability or unwillingness to accept facts that threaten what you want to believe?

[Pahu78]

WOW - this thread still lives!

More copy-pasting than you can shake a stick at :wtf:

Let's get at least one thing straight:

The theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, nothing to do with the formation of the sun or planets and nothing to do with the existance or lack thereof of a first cause. The theory of Evolution doesn't even deal with how life on Earth got started.

The only thing that is examined and explained by the theory of Evolution is how life on Earth developed after life began.

I'm still waiting to see how Science disproves evolution - so far this thread is full of fail.

You are referring to biological evolution. Do you disagree that the universe evolved from a Big Bang as many scientists believe?

Do you question the belief that evolution starts with a single cell that had no beginning?

Do believe everything that exists was created from nothing? If so, we agree!

[Pahu78]

Pahu is literally spamming the whole web with this BS:

Check this Google search
"pahu science disproves evolution" (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=pahu+science+disproves+evolution&btnG=Search&meta=)

Isn't this enough to get banned here? Or at least moved to the conspiracy forum :D j/k

Doe BS mean Beautiful Science? As to your suggestion I should be banned for sharing my understanding of reality (which, by the way, is what you are also doing), 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, that â??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 million Jews and seven million Christians because he disagreed with them.

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

Muslims murder anyone 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.

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 identity, are always 100 percent correct.

[Ubalubus]

You failed to answer my question.

as you did mine...

[Ubalubus]

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 million Jews and seven million Christians because he disagreed with them.

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

Muslims murder anyone who disagrees with them.




Religion is an evil invention of man to perverse and twist the beauty and pureness of spirituality to benefit himself both in wealth, power and ego.

[Pahu78]

Religion is an evil invention of man to perverse and twist the beauty and pureness of spirituality to benefit himself both in wealth, power and ego.

Why do you believe that?

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps


If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).

a. â??But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?â?� Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

â??...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].â?� Ibid., p. 323.

Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the â??imperfection of the geologic record.â?� Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[GrinKyle]

Does this fool go to every message board and spam his spams to try to get people to believe in God?

talk about throwing your life away.

[Delta9 UK]

Does this fool go to every message board and spam his spams to try to get people to believe in God?

talk about throwing your life away.

Yup - and he should be banned for spamming and linking to sites to promote them - 'tis agaist the rules methinks.

But he's also kinda funny, in a strange sad way as he doesn't really know what he's arguing about.

Science FTW! :jointsmile:

[Delta9 UK]

Fossil Gaps


If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).

a. â??But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?â?� Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

â??...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].â?� Ibid., p. 323.

Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the â??imperfection of the geologic record.â?� Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

Utter rubbish - you want me to list the transitionals for big lulz? I could link you a website.... :D

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 2a


The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:

â??Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasnâ??t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwinâ??s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed informationâ??what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwinâ??s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.â?� David M. Raup, â??Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,â?� Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

â??Surely the lack of gradualismâ??the lack of intermediatesâ??is a major problem.â?� Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

â??In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.â?� Stanley, p. 95.

â??But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.â?� David S. Woodruff, â??Evolution: The Paleobiological View,â?� Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[Breukelen advocaat]

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:
They only people that have been effectivly "silenced" have been Freethinkers, Atheists, and other Non-believers in religious nonsense.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the kingâ??s idol.
And damn well they should have been, lol!

Daniel was thrown into the lionâ??s den for worshipping God, contrary to the kingâ??s decree.
It was "God's will", lol.

Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.
If he hadn't been crucified, wouldn't that have spoiled everything for the religous? Would you rather he'd gotten off scott-free?

His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.
Again, part of the plan laid out by the "Wonderful Redeemer".

Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic church during the inquisition.
Ok, I agree, but at least the Catholic Church supported the Arts.


Hitler murdered six million Jews and seven million Christians because he disagreed with them.
Hitler was a Theist, a Catholic.

Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.
Communism, as practiced by the Soviet Union and China, was/is similar to a religion, especially of the Monotheistic variety.

Muslims murder anyone who disagrees with them.
Yeah, so what else is new?
He'll be a monkey's uncle!

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 3a


Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Pattersonâ??s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

â??I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least â??show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.â?� I will lay it on the lineâ??there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.â?� Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[Delta9 UK]

Funny how all of those sources are OVER 20 YEARS OLD lol...

There was almost no work done on transitionals until the mid 1970's - that's why your quotes are oh so carefully chosen ;)

C'mon you can copy-paste better than that! How about we agree that we are 'lucky' enough to have so many transitionals at all! Fossils are really rare and its amazing we have so many.

Shall we start with Archaeopteryx? This is a fossil I have actually seen with my own eyes, Archaeopteryx lithographica to be precise, a beautiful example that I was lucky enough to see on display in Belgium. I guess that's just made-up too.

Shall we perhaps look at:
# Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
# Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
# Transition from fishes to first amphibians
# Transitions among amphibians
# Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
# Transitions among reptiles
# Transition from reptiles to first mammals
# Transition from reptiles to first birds

Lots and lots of choices! Where to start though, hmmm.

[Delta9 UK]

Plus it is worth bearing in mind that we are all transitional forms - that's sort of the whole point :thumbsup: but I guess that buggers-up the idea of 'Kinds' doesn't it? - so that won't fly I guess (or glide from trees).

Categories are man-made and essentially artificial. Nature doesn't have to follow them - and sure enough it doesn't, these are not well-defined boundaries.

Next you'll probably tell us that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - go on, you know you want to ;)

[Pahu78]

Funny how all of those sources are OVER 20 YEARS OLD lol...

There was almost no work done on transitionals until the mid 1970's - that's why your quotes are oh so carefully chosen ;)

C'mon you can copy-paste better than that! How about we agree that we are 'lucky' enough to have so many transitionals at all! Fossils are really rare and its amazing we have so many.

Shall we start with Archaeopteryx? This is a fossil I have actually seen with my own eyes, Archaeopteryx lithographica to be precise, a beautiful example that I was lucky enough to see on display in Belgium. I guess that's just made-up too.

Shall we perhaps look at:
# Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
# Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
# Transition from fishes to first amphibians
# Transitions among amphibians
# Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
# Transitions among reptiles
# Transition from reptiles to first mammals
# Transition from reptiles to first birds

Lots and lots of choices! Where to start though, hmmm.

â??Observed Instances of Speciationâ?�, after one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the â??speciationâ?� examples given fall into one of two categories:

â??newâ?� species that are â??newâ?� to man, but whose â??newnessâ?� remains equivocal in light of observed genetic â??variationâ?� vs. genetic â??changeâ?� and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.

â??newâ?� species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new â??speciesâ?� remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.

In neither of the above examples was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally â??newâ?� trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms. In other words, these are not examples of macro-evolutionary speciationâ??they are examples of human discovery and/or genetic manipulation and/or natural genetic recombination. They serve to confirm the observable nature of genetic variation, while saying absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian â??macro-evolution,â?� which postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.

Definitions of â??speciesâ?� and (therefore) â??speciationâ?� remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as â??speciation eventsâ?�â??yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen.

Mark Isaak gives us this definition of a transitional fossil: â??A transitional fossil is one that looks like itâ??s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...â?�

In spite of such a clearly defined definition, there is much disagreement among the leaders in paleontology concerning which specimens qualify as â??transitionalâ?� and which supposed â??transitional formsâ?� fit into which lineages, and where.

What one authority defines as a â??transitional formâ?� between lineage A and lineage B can be (and often is) just as authoritatively declared not so when it is said to better fit between lineage X and lineage Y, or when a specimen is found in a position stratigraphically â??olderâ?� than the first occurrence of lineage A or â??youngerâ?� than Bâ??and all of these are common occurrences.

Other experts in morphology further complicate matters when they point out differences in physical characteristics so significant that evolutionists are forced to scrap one or another theory in phylogeny (developmental history) in spite of any existing similarities.

A very serious indictment of evolutionary â??spokespersonsâ?� (such as Isaak) thus arises, as under the guise of a â??united frontâ?� they declare the matter of transitional fossils to be no problem, while in reality the hands-on practitioners of science continue to disagree with one another on matters both great and small as they attempt to construct the very same phylogenies which the â??spokespersonsâ?� describe as firmly established and beyond dispute.

As if that were not enough, while evolutionary literature may be replete with â??just soâ?� stories about how so many organisms evolved into their supposed descendants, there remains a conspicuous lack of credible accounting for empirically viable changes beyond that of bones and teeth.

Substantial differences exist between such systems as breathing, vision, circulation, locomotion, etc., both in general configuration and in the critical details. Faced with the absence of empirical evidence for transitions in these systems, few evolutionists bother to speculate on how these systems could have successfully â??transitionedâ?� from one to the other, or how an intermediate version could possibly provide the needed functionality for either the â??originalâ?� or the â??descendantâ?� system during the alleged transition.

What do the Experts Say?

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. (emphasis added)]

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)]



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, [i] 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 fossils FAQ 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.

The â??Transitional Fossilâ?� FAQ

The above-mentioned FAQ, written by Kathleen Hunt, is in fact titled â??Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQâ?� (and does not even attempt to address the less conveniently â??explainedâ?� absence of transitional specimens among invertebrates, or between invertebrates and vertebrates). It is comprised of hundreds of references to various species and genera, citing various organisms as related and/or ancestral, based on the work of several evolutionist paleontological authorities.

To the willing disciple of evolutionary doctrine, Huntâ??s publication may seem overwhelmingly persuasive and encouraging. But an objective, critical look at the contents reveals that Hunt really does little more than perpetuate the myth of fossil transitions plainly denied by the evolutionist authorities quoted above. She seeks to accomplish this with a combination of many assertively made statements and (wherever possible) references to specific physiological similarities between certain species or genera, as suggested over the years by various phylogenic theorists.

What is missing from Huntâ??s document is any honest acknowledgment that among the phylogenies she describes, fewâ??if anyâ??are universally accepted among paleontological authorities, and many remain tentative and subject to change, if not hotly disputed among authorities with differing viewpoints.

The reader is encouraged to remember that, given the abundant variety of vertebrate organisms in both the present and the fossil worlds, coercing a selection of them into a passable phylogenic arrangement to suit evolutionary preconceptions is no difficult task. Given enough time and material, and a willingness to â??overlookâ?� any â??unsuitableâ?� facts, the desired scenario could easily be constructed, using similarities wherever they help, and ignoring them wherever they donâ??t.

- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution - (http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp)

[Pahu78]

Funny how all of those sources are OVER 20 YEARS OLD lol...

There was almost no work done on transitionals until the mid 1970's - that's why your quotes are oh so carefully chosen ;)

C'mon you can copy-paste better than that! How about we agree that we are 'lucky' enough to have so many transitionals at all! Fossils are really rare and its amazing we have so many.

Shall we start with Archaeopteryx? This is a fossil I have actually seen with my own eyes, Archaeopteryx lithographica to be precise, a beautiful example that I was lucky enough to see on display in Belgium. I guess that's just made-up too.




For a realistic treatment of Archaeopteryx go to:
- On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds - (http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp)

[Delta9 UK]

For a realistic treatment of Archaeopteryx go to:
- On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds - (http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp)

Are you remotely serious?

Archaeopteryx (spp) died out, it was an evolutionary dead-end and it wasn't the ancestor to modern birds - sheesh. It was however a great example of a Transitional form having both features.

Linking to yet another creationist website proves nothing. That's like quoting the Bible as evidence ffs.

[Delta9 UK]

As your previous post was a REALLY long copy-paste I won't bother refuting each point one by one as it would mean I would have to spend more time using my brain than you did creating some blue text.

Instead I will post a nice link to a page which explains why your previous post was full of lies and disinformation instead - which is more pleasing to our dear readers.

Often Creationists use mis-quotes and outright lies to try and suggest that the theory of evolution is in doubt within the scientific community. This is simply not true and most creationist are well out of their depth (no flood pun intended).

Anyway here is the link which proves your copy-paste was a sham:
Evolution hasn't been observed (http://www.digisys.net/users/hoppnrmt/observed.htm)

Ah screw it, let's make it 2 links:
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

If you don't understand the theory in the first place you can't expect a reasonable debate.

[Pahu78]

As your previous post was a REALLY long copy-paste I won't bother refuting each point one by one as it would mean I would have to spend more time using my brain than you did creating some blue text.

Instead I will post a nice link to a page which explains why your previous post was full of lies and disinformation instead - which is more pleasing to our dear readers.

Often Creationists use mis-quotes and outright lies to try and suggest that the theory of evolution is in doubt within the scientific community. This is simply not true and most creationist are well out of their depth (no flood pun intended).

Anyway here is the link which proves your copy-paste was a sham:
Evolution hasn't been observed (http://www.digisys.net/users/hoppnrmt/observed.htm)

Ah screw it, let's make it 2 links:
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

If you don't understand the theory in the first place you can't expect a reasonable debate.

You will find the article you suggested: "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution" by Mark Isaak, is thoroughly refuted in this article:

- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution - (http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp)

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 5a


â??This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.â?� George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.

â??...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.â?� Ibid., p. 23.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 4a


â??But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply arenâ??t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they donâ??t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isnâ??t, or might be, transitional between this group or that.â?� Hitching, p. 19.

â??There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely â??transitionalâ?? types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today.â?� Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[5thHorseMan]

a puddle of water fits so well in a hole, it swears the hole must have been created for exactly this purpose.

[ArgoSG]

I think the single most amusing ignorance that creations share in common can be found when they attempt to discuss transitional fossils. Are you a creationist and reading? Perhaps I can shed some light on this misunderstanding.. erhm.. well... you see...



EVERY... FOSSIL... WE FIND..... IS... ESSENTIALLY... TRANSITIONAL....

Yes, you read correctly. You see, they all transition from one species to another. Every new species shortens the gap between one species transitioning to another. I hope that cleared things up! Keep in mind it's possible to still believe in your Santa Claus for Adults. However, a deep critical probing will probably lead you to at the very least, not claim the wisest of our books was written in the 1st century by desert tribes.

[5thHorseMan]

and naturally of course creationists don't consider why there are gaps in the fossil record. They just see the gap and claim that such a gap shows invalidity in the entire study of evolution.

There are gaps because one, we haven't dug up every spot of land looking for fossils but are instead looking for them only where others have already been found, two not every animal that dies becomes a fossil, in fact the vast majority of these animals would be eaten and eventually decompose without leaving a trace. But creationists never take into account either of these factors when spouting the bullshit.

[5thHorseMan]

also some scientists theorize that evolution does not in fact occur in finely graduated steps, but unevenly across a a span of time. That a species will evolve more quickly under adverse conditions, increased resourse competition, resoourse scarcity, or increased or decreased predation. This means you might have a period thats very long with only minimal change occuring, and a short period with monumental change happening.

[denialisback]

Compatible Senders and Receivers

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy).

yes, its called cellular automata


Compatible Senders and Receivers Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences. Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time.


no, cellular automata starts from a simple rule n^2+1, creates a fractal pattern that is simple at first, but creates diffraction and eventually becomes very complex generations of code.. Wolfram believes the universe actually works like this. It would be described as overunity by modern scientists, put in one simple rule and the output is an advanced intelligent universe.. I not sure if superintelligence is required in a fractal evolutionary cellular automata model, what do you think??


Peace,
denial

[denialisback]

Religion is an evil invention of man to perverse and twist the beauty and pureness of spirituality to benefit himself both in wealth, power and ego.

religion was and still is the best symbol to apply to as yet unknown things that are not just beyond us but in some ways 'greater' than us.. unless science prefers "I DONT KNOW". :) In any case I find myself in agreement to both.


Peace,
denial

[5thHorseMan]

I don't know, is better than superstition because it's honest and doesn't substitute facts and informed theory for mythology.

[denialisback]

I don't know, is better than superstition because it's honest and doesn't substitute facts and informed theory for mythology.

Wisdom begins at I don't know.. wisdom ends there too? I don't know!

Please though, it's important not to mistake superstition or belief for symbology. Symbology is something that is real that exists in human culture and has done for 10's of thousands of years, like music, for some reason we require it.

I've noted that often, when human beings don't understand a concept or idea it'll be drawn as a symbol as its known in religion, also known as a model in science one is tested the other is not..

The two seem mutually exclusive, but they aren't necessarily, when you look at it informatically :) What I think I'm trying to say is when dealing with something you don't know about , or when calling something "everything" or "infinite" the model or symbol word God is used.

Anyone who thinks they know what God is or isn't is a damn right liar :) Thats WHY symbolism was created, and probably why science was ;-) heheh

admittedly, all this is based on the premise everyone sees reality different. Which at least on cannabis.com seems to be the case,


Peace,
Denial

[5thHorseMan]

religion insists it has all the answers when in fact it knows less than science.If we simply substituted god for all the things we don't or didn't know, we'd still believe that we were the center of the universe. Religion is a belief and science is a process, so while religion is stagnant and unchanging, science is viral and in constant flux, growing and altering itself with the understanding of it's practitioners.

Who needs symbols that are at best a pale and inaccurate and largely uninformed reflection of reality, when you can have empirical evidence.

God as it were is ever shrinking, existing in the ever smaller margins where science has yet to explore, and question it's relevance.

[denialisback]

religion insists it has all the answers when in fact it knows less than science.If we simply substituted god for all the things we don't or didn't know, we'd still believe that we were the center of the universe. Religion is a belief and science is a process, so while religion is stagnant and unchanging, science is viral and in constant flux, growing and altering itself with the understanding of it's practitioners.

Who needs symbols that are at best a pale and inaccurate and largely uninformed reflection of reality, when you can have empirical evidence.

God as it were is ever shrinking, existing in the ever smaller margins where science has yet to explore, and question it's relevance.

I agree.. but I'm specifically talking about God here, not what "religion" thinks as a whole, I like to concentrate on the abstractions and informatics, systemology.. when it comes to "God" its the same as expressing 'infinite' it's not a "Real" number to our 'unreal' minds. Maybe that makes it special, maybe it doesn't.

I was suggesting that no person be it you, me or anyone else, lives in the same reality, and that in fact everyone is really inside their own little world, to a greater or lesser extent. As such I feel unreal numbers or unreal ideas hold a special meaning to people so obsessed about their own unrealities.....

All I know is that constants hold an important place in my mind and God <-> infinity seem to be equivocally aggreable definitions to me :) As you said, it's PEOPLE, PEOPLE who think they have answers, but systems and definitions and symbols, GUIDES! everyone see's a different reality, MAYBE thats why symbols, models, even god model exist :-) heheheh

Peace,
Denial

[MadSativa]

Lots of good info, here............I have yet to be convinced that the evolution of man is fact. I personlay think to call us relatives of monkeys is bad for monkeys and us.

[denialisback]

You sir are a douche bag, between your made up words, and general nonsense there is vast stretch of space, this space is you, and were I to make a map of it I would label it "here be douches".



why how nice of you to say.. I prefer to at the very least remain civilised :P





You and I live in the same reality. I piss on your lawn in my reality, then your reality's lawn is also pissed upon.

you sir are a douchébag if we lived in the same reality we'd agree about this!
I suppose you are going to tell me you live in reality and i live in douchébag world, haha




God even conceptually is a do nothing go nowhere concept, devoid of real benefit.

God conceptually is a do nothing go nowhere concept? Thats pretty wishywashy also. You haven't said why, or how! At least I tried :-) cmmon.




Infinity is not the same concept at all as God, infinity serves a purpose in mathematics, logic, and philosophy, God is bullshit, the concept as well as any religion holding up it's own version of the God concept.



Infinity cannot be fully grasped by our minds, never will be, neither could something as great as god be comprehended IF it existed, it's truly beyond us.

For instance really refering to the 3rd law of thermal dynamics, entropy.. i.e. every substance has a finite positive entropy. e.g. you're mind cannot analyse more than n x models, books or ideas at any one time, at parallel or serial. Always there is bottleneck, as is the world of informatics and cellular automata... look it up! Here's my proof I have to ask though, where's yours :)

That is to say the basic informatics or cellular automata model applied to the universe says there is a finite amount of information storable in a given volume.. if god is supposed to be everything, then do you and me as individuals, not have a big problem comprehending any of this fully? As a reminder I by no means claim to have all the answers, just an out of the box take on what reality and science can do for the philosophical world..


peace,
Denial

[5thHorseMan]

God is a do nothing go nowhere concept, because it does nothing and goes nowhere. It makes no demand that a person challenge another ideas of what is and isn't, it just sits there insisting upon it's validity, while offering no reason to accept it, beyond dimwitted simplicity.

Competition amongst ideas is however, integral to science. In this way science is continuously being perfected while knowingly remaining imperfect.

And we all live in the same reality, we are merely percieving this same reality from different points of view. This reality encompassing the universe is for all intents finite being of a particular age, within an albeit poorly defined border of space.

Simply put there is no infinite anything, because infinity does not effectively exist, neither can god. Therefore the concept of god is wholly without value, and the concept of infinity is only of value in certain forms of mathematics.

[denialisback]

God is a do nothing go nowhere concept, because it does nothing and goes nowhere. It makes no demand that a person challenge another ideas of what is and isn't, it just sits there insisting upon it's validity, while offering no reason to accept it, beyond dimwitted simplicity.


heh, I think God (if this were to exist) is impossible for anyone to understand (as its definition insists this by premise, remember all knowing, etc)..

I too think its vanity to try and understand something impossible to understand. Perhaps taking note its impossible to fully comprehend anything infinite (as science/maths usually does hence imaginary number) is wisdom in itself. Some that crop up from time to time are that these "unreal/imaginary" numbers that seem to be very important to prime division and pi. Without getting too offtopic, understanding you cannot comprehend is progress in itself stopping one from wasting his or her time trying to draw a definite conclusion around an infinite fractal premise , without then running the risk of sounding like a moron when making a definitive judgement based on it




Competition amongst ideas is however, integral to science. In this way science is continuously being perfected while knowingly remaining imperfect.


:)



And we all live in the same reality, we are merely percieving this same reality from different points of view. This reality encompassing the universe is for all intents finite being of a particular age, within an albeit poorly defined border of space.

How do you know we all live in the same reality? The beginning of philosophy must be I think therefore I am, not we think therefore we are? Maybe thats a new one for me :P Perhaps the universe is finite, perhaps it will continue growing, perhaps time goes backwards. We really aren't sure, and to be honest the scientists are still 'competing' over this one as you put it. It's dangerous to draw conclusions before the scientists have finished their work, at least if you are in the pro science con god corner of things. It's more than just our opinion that changes what we see, even where we are standing can change what we perceive to occur.

You know, Darwin and many others made it distinctly clear the features available in our genetics are not particularly global or particularly general, they are particularly specialised which specifically means limitation.

We don't even see the universe, we see an interpretation of it, what you called opinion; so you've said yourself everyone mentally is inhabiting a different reality heh... physically they are not? haha well unless we want to have an argument with our bodies over it, i'll skip that? I think my brain is thinking.. that seems clear :D We don't see the full light spectrum, full sound spectrum, we can't even see out into the universe , we have to use other specialised devices to understand. We truly are limited, and that isn't necessarily bad, especially if we are willing to accept this premise, we can move onto applying it.



Simply put there is no infinite anything, because infinity does not effectively exist, neither can god. Therefore the concept of god is wholly without value, and the concept of infinity is only of value in certain forms of mathematics.

How do you know there is no infinity? I don't know, how do you? If there was infinity we certainly wouldn't be able to identify it, it's beyond the functional grasp of the math our brains do... it's 'unreal'.


Peace,
denial

[5thHorseMan]

you keep saying we all live in different realities, we do not. Experiencing a singular reality with different interpretations does not make your reality separate from mine, only your experience is separate not your reality.

And God remains a useless concept. Name one thing the concept of God, has given humanity that is beneficial to it. It's impossible to understand God, simply because it does not truly exist. If we look at the universe the universe consisting of everything however, we see that even it is not infinite, instead we see that it stretches out approximately 93 billion light years, and is roughly 13.85 billion years old. We know that it is expanding, but this still does not make it infinite, just a very big finite. Even if we consider quantum theory the infinite quantity would be the number of alternate universes, and perhaps only in theory. But the individual universe's remain finite.

Existence is possible without awareness of existence. This is the problem with I think therefore I am. A rock exists regardless of whether or not it is aware of that existence.

[denialisback]

you keep saying we all live in different realities, we do not. Experiencing a singular reality with different interpretations does not make your reality separate from mine, only your experience is separate not your reality.


How do you know we don't live in different realities? Whats the difference between interpretation and reality. HELL whats the definition of reality to you?

Well since its came down to definition here I go :-)

Here's the definition of reality to me, whats actually out there outside our minds and body

Here's what genetics gave us, not really at all whats actually there all inside us, just what we perceive, or, what we think is there, a basic representation of dimension, sound, time etc, in comparison to the availibility of information abundant in the universe, evolution may or may not see us through to a more enlightened future, I'm not judging, but what's clear is neither you or I are all knowing, neither you and I are perfect. If god was, for instance timeless you are not at all equipped to judge about anything to do with God remotely, none of us would be..




And God remains a useless concept. Name one thing the concept of God, has given humanity that is beneficial to it. It's impossible to understand God, simply because it does not truly exist. If we look at the universe the universe consisting of everything however, we see that even it is not infinite, instead we see that it stretches out approximately 93 billion light years, and is roughly 13.85 billion years old. We know that it is expanding, but this still does not make it infinite, just a very big finite.

I don't believe in any concept being useless, a lesson learnt is a lesson learnt, right? It's impossible to understand God, simply because it does not truly exist to our limited senses??? It's impossible to understand God, because we are incapable of truly understanding??? The universe may very well be finite but you're not considering our own finite limited senses, lets apply your definition of finite to us in recognition we CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE about such 'fallacies' i.e. we see time at a fixed speed, did you know different organisms experience time at a different rate? No? Well this is obviously an important fact here. A different rate of experience will change the interpretation alltogether, your opinion, AND REALITY! poof! magic, and all at once. What we see _now_ isnt necessarily CORRECT visually, auditory, informatically, let alone what IS can be or WILL BE!!!! Limited dimensional perception in an abstract aspect only..



Even if we consider quantum theory the infinite quantity would be the number of alternate universes, and perhaps only in theory. But the individual universe's remain finite.


Well that may be true ignoring time and light constants. I've actually had the pleasure of working with physicists and I'm pretty sure they can't tell how big the universe was, is or is going to be/get. What I'm sure they recognise as scientists is that we inhabit a single point in time :-) Not very useful is it.. only now never all.. and why not all? Why fear death? for instance, if energy can only be transmuted obviously we are just stuck in our own idea of holding onto our limited patterns and have no understanding or desire that goes truly beyond the self or beyond the apparent 'logic' we so fraily call our own..




Existence is possible without awareness of existence. This is the problem with I think therefore I am. A rock exists regardless of whether or not it is aware of that existence.

True, but me and you are not rocks!

yea it is, but not for us buddy.. :-) Our existance can only exist to us because of our awareness of it and also our awareness exists because of our existance.

So what this means is a rock is in reality, we aren't... lol because we are aware of reality if we weren't aware of reality we'd be in reality, weird as it sounds :)

The logic to this is simple; as soon as the universe created atoms/molecules that started (this is crude but) 'thinking for themselves' (limiting the diversity of their being in some respects whilst augmenting it in others) bits of information are lost to us, as we are seeing all existance through OUR own awareness. Abstraction in 'I' is critical to understand this!

i.e. the human brain starts to become (from awareness of reality represented as a basic unreality) the dominant factor in atomic properties/awareness and creates a 'higher level' of event/property complexity not seen before.

e.g. self controlled movement
e.g. I think therefore I am not in reality like the rock is

Peace,
Denial

[5thHorseMan]

I keep saying it, there is one reality. Reality is the state of everything as it exists, this has nothing to do with how you interpret or percieve this singular reality. If in fact we all lived in our own reality, rather than our own interpretation of it, how could one affect another's reality if in fact they are truly separate. Because going back to my earlier example if in fact our realities were truly separate and not merely separate points of view, your lawn would not smell of urine. But because we live in singular reality my actions do or at least can in fact affect you, and your actions can affect me.

The concept of God has only taught us, the pointlessness of religion, and the corruption that emerge's from unquestioned authoriy. But these lessons did not require God to be learned. Given time even in adsencse of the concept of god, these lessons would have been learned, okay maybe not the religion one, but thats the lesser of the two.

[denialisback]

I keep saying it, there is one reality. Reality is the state of everything as it exists, this has nothing to do with how you interpret or percieve this singular reality.


Yup you do but you don't provide one example why this should be believed! As you've already pointed out well what people believe is wildly different based on opinion and perception that includes all of us :)




If in fact we all lived in our own reality, rather than our own interpretation of it, how could one affect another's reality if in fact they are truly separate.


well there is still a conduit of reality isnt there :) for you to speak in, move in, act in.. nothing is stopping you from doing that heh. I just want you to know you don't see the world for what it is, none of us do! Science proven that long agoo :) Evolution proves that.



Because going back to my earlier example if in fact our realities were truly separate and not merely separate points of view, your lawn would not smell of urine. But because we live in singular reality my actions do or at least can in fact affect you, and your actions can affect me.


this is true, physical things like pooping in my front yard is gonna affect me of course I don't think I take exception to that it would indeed affect me.

What you gotta remember is the source of your physical action is in fact your unreality heh, because everyones in a constant state of unreality (opinions you call it heheheh) you unreality can seriously affect mine through a conduit of a physical reality. Intent and perception are highly linked and that really is a fact lol.



The concept of God has only taught us, the pointlessness of religion, and the corruption that emerge's from unquestioned authoriy. But these lessons did not require God to be learned. Given time even in adsencse of the concept of god, these lessons would have been learned, okay maybe not the religion one, but thats the lesser of the two.

I tend to agree, but time and time again the problem is not the ideas that man produces, it's the people that change them, misuse them, and abusing them that create corruption. Not philosophising or seeking what I'd call true enlightenment heh...

i.e. It's not the ideas men produce, its what they do with them in reality heh.

A great example would be Edington and Tesla of course everybody knows dc blows nowadays and most mains are AC now.. ;] Teslas idea was better and was safer but edington got it into production because he used influence over intelligence. Why assume religion is somehow immune to such problems as science has been??! It isn't ;]

I think just like science you have to scoot over the BS and concentrate on the tidbits that can give some true inspiration.

And hey, if accepting our own limitations isnt a move in the right direction wtf is!


peace,
Denial

[5thHorseMan]

Objective reality is singular, there is one reality, which exist regardless of whether or not it is observed. Then we have subjective reality, reality as it is perceived by individuals, and this subjective reality does exist in seaparetly for each person. But only objective reality is true, subjective reality is merely an interpretation of what is percieved, it's filtered, abridged, censored whatever you wanna call it, but only the first is reality as it is, the other is artificial.

And I wouldn't shit in your yard, there's no tp there and I ain't the sorta guy that just up and walks around widda roll o shit tissue in his pocket. If you'll read back I distinctly typed piss, not shit, get your excretions in order.

[denialisback]

Objective reality is singular, there is one reality, which exist regardless of whether or not it is observed. Then we have subjective reality, reality as it is perceived by individuals, and this subjective reality does exist in seaparetly for each person. But only objective reality is true, subjective reality is merely an interpretation of what is percieved, it's filtered, abridged, censored whatever you wanna call it, but only the first is reality as it is, the other is artificial.

Then I guess subjective reality is particularly unreal since its not a real representation of the real singular reality :P



And I wouldn't shit in your yard, there's no tp there and I ain't the sorta guy that just up and walks around widda roll o shit tissue in his pocket. If you'll read back I distinctly typed piss, not shit, get your excretions in order.
word up :) i tell you what im knackered lol




Peace,
denial

[5thHorseMan]

Yes subjective reality is unreal, because it's mutable in that it's different for each person, objective is true because it exists regardless and independant of our own wants and views.

the way a person percieves reality is fallable because they are themselves fallable, however objective reality avoids this by merely existing and nothing more.

[denialisback]

Yes subjective reality is unreal, because it's mutable in that it's different for each person, objective is true because it exists regardless and independant of our own wants and views.

the way a person percieves reality is fallable because they are themselves fallable, however objective reality avoids this by merely existing and nothing more.

hey 5th, we've just tired the crap out of eachother haven't we. lol :> I agree, I'm just not sure how this objective reality "gets past" our totally unobjective subjective reality, its sorta like as soon as it enters us its not the same anymore cause it simplified re-rendered abstracted, but heh thats close enough for me guvnor !

I'm off to sleep now ;p will keep my eye on this thread though :)

Peace,
denial

[5thHorseMan]

indeed most stimulating forum discussion I've had in awhile.

[denialisback]

indeed most stimulating forum discussion I've had in awhile.

teehee yes my friend you have given me a lot to think about


Peace,
denial

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 5a


â??This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.â?� George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.

â??...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.â?� Ibid., p. 23.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[Chong Version 2.0]

Really? A book from 1944?

Also, the reason there are gaps in the fossil record is because FOSSILS FORM UNDER VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. There would be trillions of fossils covering the planet if everything fossilized at death.

You cannot disprove god just like you cannot disprove a herd of microscopic beaver-frogs that orbit Pluto. Is that reason enough to believe in him?

Faith is for suckers. Believing something precisely BECAUSE there is no evidence for it is worthy of scorn. :wtf:

[5thHorseMan]

let us unleash some scorn then.

God is an obsolete concept, at best a place holder for gaps that have not yet been filled, and at worst and most often a simplistic justification for the evils of immoral people hiding under pretense of morality.

[Pahu78]

Really? A book from 1944?

Also, the reason there are gaps in the fossil record is because FOSSILS FORM UNDER VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. There would be trillions of fossils covering the planet if everything fossilized at death.

Like a worldwide flood?


You cannot disprove god just like you cannot disprove a herd of microscopic beaver-frogs that orbit Pluto. Is that reason enough to believe in him?

Nope. However, there is evidence based on facts proving He does exist. For example, 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?� http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2]


Faith is for suckers. Believing something precisely BECAUSE there is no evidence for it is worthy of scorn. :wtf:

I agree. Faith must be based on evidence. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning because of the evidence of the past. I believe in creation rather than evolution because the evidence supports creation and disproves evolution.

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 6a


â??...there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.â?� Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

â??Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them.â?� Ibid., p. 266.

â??All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.â?� Gould, â??The Return of Hopeful Monsters,â?� p. 23.

â??The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils....We fancy ourselves as the only true students of lifeâ??s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.â?� Stephen Jay Gould, â??Evolutionâ??s Erratic Pace,â?� Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.

â??New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.â?� Ibid., p. 12.

â??The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.â?� Stephen Jay Gould, â??Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?â?� Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[5thHorseMan]

Just because there is a gap in the record, does not mean a gap in the reality which the record exist for.

Dumbass

And it is not logical to attribute the origin of the universe to an old man in the clouds observing our every action, and supervising our every thought, and spurns us when we deviate from a plan he claims to have created billions of years before we entered existence.

All that is, is a very special kind of retardation. Known as faith.

[Pahu78]

Just because there is a gap in the record, does not mean a gap in the reality which the record exist for.

Dumbass

And it is not logical to attribute the origin of the universe to an old man in the clouds observing our every action, and supervising our every thought, and spurns us when we deviate from a plan he claims to have created billions of years before we entered existence.

All that is, is a very special kind of retardation. Known as faith.

Your special kind of retarded faith seems to be the faith that surely some day, somewhere, someone will finally find a transitional link in the fossil record to fill a gap.

[5thHorseMan]

they already have, several in fact. Perhaps if you read something besides subjective drivel put out by fat ass, over the hill mechanical engineers, and actually read something written by someone who actually knows what it is their talking about, you'd know.

You like to quote Gould, but for all those quotes Gould still believed in evolution, and contributed significantly to our current understanding of the subject. Quit cherry picking your quotes and read something worth two shits you overgrown chimp.

[denialisback]

Just because there is a gap in the record, does not mean a gap in the reality which the record exist for.


No, but I think as I was trying to say this gap in the record prevents you from making a 100% correct judgement as much as I.

As we know science requires authenticatable proof of somekind and/or physical record to even be peer reviewed, a level of patience may be our own virtue for such matters. One thing is clear even science recognises it's a mistake to draw an eminent conclusion.



the mind is like a parachute, it operates best when open.


And furthermore just because there is no record of what happened does not mean we are correct in permissing ourselves to make assumptions of what a record could be and present that as fact. Such things have been a very important part in my spiritual growth anyway, :)

Peace,
Denial

PS:

You cannot disprove god just like you cannot disprove a herd of microscopic beaver-frogs that orbit Pluto. Is that reason enough to believe in him?

no but it is enough information for me to realise it would be foolhardy to make a decision without all the information required to make an accurate decision..

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 7a


In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

â??But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is...not borne out by the facts. The search for â??missing linksâ?� between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless...because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.â?� â??Missing, Believed Nonexistent,â?� Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[5thHorseMan]

yet another quote from 30 years ago, from a guy, who despite your cherry picked little quotation, still believes in evolution.

[5thHorseMan]

in fact Eldredge makes a pretty strong argument against your baseless nonsense.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01EF93AA35750COA9629C8B63

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 8a


Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.

Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.

â??...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.â?� David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), â??The Gaps in the Fossil Record,â?� Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

â??Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of â??seeingâ?? evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of â??gapsâ?? in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.â?� David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), â??Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,â?� Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

â??In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing.â?� Goldschmidt, p. 98.

â??When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.â?� Ibid., p. 97.

â??There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.â?� Katherine G. Field et al., â??Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom,â?� Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[dejayou30]

I love this debate. Christians that argue against evolution fail to realize that their "God's word" says man was made out of dirt. That in and of itself has been disproved, as we know through a lot of evidence (fossil, DNA, endogenous retrovirii, etc.) that mankind shares a common ancestor with the great apes and was certainly not created out of dirt. You can try to disprove evolution all you want with your cut and paste garbage from sites like AnswersInGenesis.com, but the fact remains that "God's word" is wrong, and we were definitely not made of dirt. So if God's word is wrong, its probably not God's word after all.

Peace! :jointsmile::thumbsup:

[5thHorseMan]

rapid changes in evolution occur during rapid enviromental changes. The ebb and flow of the multiple ice age periods being a good example of rapid enviromental change, as well as the permian and cambrian extinctions

[denialisback]

I love this debate. Christians that argue against evolution fail to realize that their "God's word" says man was made out of dirt. That in and of itself has been disproved, as we know through a lot of evidence (fossil, DNA, endogenous retrovirii, etc.) that mankind shares a common ancestor with the great apes and was certainly not created out of dirt. You can try to disprove evolution all you want with your cut and paste garbage from sites like AnswersInGenesis.com, but the fact remains that "God's word" is wrong, and we were definitely not made of dirt. So if God's word is wrong, its probably not God's word after all.

Peace! :jointsmile::thumbsup:

hmm dejayou, long time no see :) ! hullo! some good points there, but isn't the planet and all life on the planet itself made from dust (planet formation??)..

the debate continues..


Peace,
Denial

[5thHorseMan]

that dust in silicate though, and we are carbon based, carbon being an organic molecule, therefore, we are not made of clay.

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 1b


At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that donâ??t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).

b. â??The prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) evolved from them, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go.... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable.â?� Katrin Henze and William Martin, â??Essence of Mitochondria,â?� Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 1c


Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants (c), between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects (d), between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones) (e), between fish and amphibians (f), between amphibians and reptiles (g), between reptiles and mammals (h), between reptiles and birds (i), between primates and other mammals (j), and between apes and other primates (k).

c. If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.

â??The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissueâ??that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants] â??although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record.â?� Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.

â??The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known...â?� Ibid.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[gypski]

The first fossils or living things. Evolution marches on, proving itself daily. :jointsmile:

Stromatolites (http://www.fossilmall.com/Science/About_Stromatolite.htm)

Stromatolite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite)

[Pahu78]

The first fossils or living things. Evolution marches on, proving itself daily. :jointsmile:

Stromatolites (http://www.fossilmall.com/Science/About_Stromatolite.htm)

Stromatolite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite)

How does the information in the two links you provide prove evolution. I noticed many unsupported assumptions and assertions.

[Thathighkid]

The Galapagos Islands experiments clearly proves evolution, I don't see the point in being willfully ignorant and denying it. And God isn't even real, so I don't see how he is relevant in this conversation.

[Pahu78]

The Galapagos Islands experiments clearly proves evolution,

How?


I don't see the point in being willfully ignorant and denying it.

What makes you think the Galapagos Islands experiments clearly proves evolution?


And God isn't even real, so I don't see how he is relevant in this conversation.

Since the subject is scientific discovery, research, etc. it is true that discussing God is somewhat off-subject. However, since science does disprove evolution, that does suggest creation, which requires a Creator.

How do you know God isnâ??t real? Could you provide evidence supporting your assertion? Using the facts of science, the existence of God can be proved.

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 2c


â??It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.â?� Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.

â??... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell [the death signal] of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink.â?� E. J. H. Corner, â??Evolution,â?� Contemporary Botanical Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 3c


â??The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.â?� Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.

â??The origin of angiosperms, an â??abominable mysteryâ?? to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.â?� Colin Patterson et al., â??Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,â?� Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 1d-f


d. â??The insect fossil record has many gaps.â?� â??Insects: Insect Fossil Record,â?� Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).

e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:

â??As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.â?� Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.

â??How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.â?� Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.

â??Origin of the vertebrates is obscureâ??there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.â?� Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.

f. â??...there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.â?� Taylor, p. 60.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[JaggedEdge]

The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.

What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
.
I never understood this logic. If something had do bring the universe into existence, than by the same logic, someone had to bring this superior being who created it into existence. You are dealing with an infinity regardless. I fail to see how believing in an infinite powerful being is any different than believing in an infinite universe...

Your logic conveniently ends when you came to the conclusion something had to create the universe, but it still leaves the illogical assumption that nothing created the being. It simply doesn't make sense to me.

[bigtopsfinn]

Your logic conveniently ends when you came to the conclusion something had to create the universe, but it still leaves the illogical assumption that nothing created the being. It simply doesn't make sense to me.

Remember in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where Indie had to take a "blind leap of faith" as his last challenge before finding the Holy Grail? I think this is what they were referring to.

Blind leaps of faith work very well for some people, but not everyone... to each his own :)

[Pahu78]

I never understood this logic. If something had do bring the universe into existence, than by the same logic, someone had to bring this superior being who created it into existence. You are dealing with an infinity regardless. I fail to see how believing in an infinite powerful being is any different than believing in an infinite universe...

Your confusion may be the result of equating the infinite Creator with the finite universe. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Itâ??s a simple matter of physics.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.


Your logic conveniently ends when you came to the conclusion something had to create the universe, but it still leaves the illogical assumption that nothing created the being. It simply doesn't make sense to me.

I canâ??t explain how God can exist without a beginning. There are some things we cannot understand because of our limited perspective. This is one of them. Here is another example:

Join me on an imaginary trip into the pastâ??way back into the past. Letâ??s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist, and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars out there burning with radioactive energy including our own sun. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning.

So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now, letâ??s take another step into the past. Letâ??s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well, we should expect to find nothing, shouldnâ??t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing, there is nothing but totally empty space.

But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? Space is the absence of everything. But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It canâ??t end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities, and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.

As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness, the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us nothing comes from nothing. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.

Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experiment, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, Iâ??ve never seen one that is based on observation, experience, experiment, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.

[from â??Reincarnation in the Bible?â?� http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2]

[Garrett]

In my opinion I see believing god as the easy way out. Humans can't even comprehend a thing so large with no beginning or end. It's a big mystery that I doubt we will ever figure out. I canâ??t even imagine the universe never being born or how big it is.... It scares me.

[Coelho]

Well... almost 200 posts after, and this debate still goes on and on... i think this debate only will be definitively answered if some day mankind create a time-machine, travel to the past, and do see the evolution actually happening (or God creating the live beings Himself).

Until this happens, all we have are theories. Some are more "logical", more "rational" than others, but all of them are just theories, just creations of human's minds. The universe has absolutely NO need to behave in a "logical" and "rational" way, and so the mere rationality of a theory does NOT prove its validity.

And if we are actually descendants of primitive monkeys, its even worst... cause, after all, we are just smarter monkeys. But as we completly dismiss the cosmological theories of the gorillas, apes, etc (in fact we dont even consider the fact this primates may have thoughts, much less thoughts about their origins), why our own theories shouldnt be dismissed too? Only because we are the "smarter" ones doesnt mean that we are the smartest monkeys in the universe, and the sole knowers of the truth.

(BTW, who knows what the other primates think about us? I think watching Planet of the Apes may be a very enlightening experience...)

--------------------

Other thing that hasnt much to do with the paragraphs above: as relativity says, time is just another universe's dimension, like space, and thus it only exists for those who are "inside" the universe, "inside" the 4d-spacetime. Outside the spacetime there isnt time as we know it, so talking about "before" the "creation" of the universe doesnt make any physical sense, because time (and also space) started to exist only when the universe itself started to exist.

[Pahu78]

Well... almost 200 posts after, and this debate still goes on and on... i think this debate only will be definitively answered if some day mankind create a time-machine, travel to the past, and do see the evolution actually happening (or God creating the live beings Himself).

Until this happens, all we have are theories. Some are more "logical", more "rational" than others, but all of them are just theories, just creations of human's minds. The universe has absolutely NO need to behave in a "logical" and "rational" way, and so the mere rationality of a theory does NOT prove its validity.

What we do have are facts of physics, from which we can and do draw logical conclusions. Nearly everything we enjoy is the result of those conclusions: electricity, cars, planes, computers, etc., etc.

If the universe was inconsistent, and didnâ??t behave in a "logical" and "rational" way, none of the above would be possible, would it? It is the rationality of a theory that does prove its validity.


And if we are actually descendants of primitive monkeys, its even worst... cause, after all, we are just smarter monkeys.

We are far more than just smarter monkeys. There are physical similarities, but there is no comparison with the output. While monkeys are still swinging from branches, we are going to the moon and beyond. Does DNA or genes account for this difference? I donâ??t think so. So what does this vast difference suggest? I believe it suggests a spiritual component that is lacking in all other life forms. We have a physical brain like the chimps, but we have a spiritual mind that they lack. This is in harmony with the Bible revelation that we were created in the image of God, who is spirit.


But as we completly dismiss the cosmological theories of the gorillas, apes, etc (in fact we dont even consider the fact this primates may have thoughts, much less thoughts about their origins), why our own theories shouldnt be dismissed too? Only because we are the "smarter" ones doesnt mean that we are the smartest monkeys in the universe, and the sole knowers of the truth.

You say it is a fact that monkeys may have thoughts. I would think if it were a fact, you would follow that with â??sinceâ?� rather than â??mayâ?�. Actually, it isnâ??t a fact, is it? It is just your unsupported opinion.

All the evidence shows we are indeed smarter than the apes. To doubt that is to admit ignorance of those facts.


(BTW, who knows what the other primates think about us? I think watching Planet of the Apes may be a very enlightening experience...)

Planet of the Apes was a good science fiction show, except for the one unnecessary profanity at the end. But is it wise to substitute science fiction for science? That is what evolutionists do to attempt to validate their myth.


Other thing that hasnt much to do with the paragraphs above: as relativity says, time is just another universe's dimension, like space, and thus it only exists for those who are "inside" the universe, "inside" the 4d-spacetime. Outside the spacetime there isnt time as we know it, so talking about "before" the "creation" of the universe doesnt make any physical sense, because time (and also space) started to exist only when the universe itself started to exist.

We think in terms of time for convenience. It is true that time and the universe came into existence at the same time. Space is something else.

Since the definition of â??universeâ?� is everything that exists, before the universe nothing existed, did it? If nothing existed, there must have been nothing. We donâ??t really have to use the word â??spaceâ?�. If nothing existed, there was nothing. It has been observed that nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause. Since the universe came from nothing, the cause must be supernatural.

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 1g



g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionistsâ?? own time scale, this â??transitionâ?� occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.


[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411â??415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]

It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptileâ??s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218â??219 and Pitman, pp. 199â??200.]

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[funiman111]

Cant mix science with religon... Two diffrent topics

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 1h-i


h. â??Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.â?� Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

i. â??The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.â?� W. E. Swinton, â??The Origin of Birds,â?� Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.

Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.

A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., â??Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds,â?� Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267â??1270.] In that report, â??Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.â?� [Ann Gibbons, â??Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood,â?� Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]

Bird and theropod â??handsâ?� differ. Theropods have â??fingersâ?� I, II, and III (having lost the â??ring fingerâ?� and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. â??The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds.â?� [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, â??Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand,â?� Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666â??668.] â??...this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy.â?� [Richard Hinchliffe, â??The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?â?� Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[funiman111]

Fossils do get destroyed in the rock record (Unconformities), just becuase we dont find them doesn't mean they dont exist.

[Pahu78]

Fossils do get destroyed in the rock record (Unconformities), just becuase we dont find them doesn't mean they dont exist.

True, but the fact remains that after finding millions of fossils of perfectly functioning life forms, not one transition has been found from one species to a different species as evolution requires. Doesn't that seem odd, if they really exist?

[Delta9 UK]

True, but the fact remains that after finding millions of fossils of perfectly functioning life forms, not one transition has been found from one species to a different species as evolution requires. Doesn't that seem odd, if they really exist?

Well that's an age-old creationist lie, one of the most blatant and persistant.

You mean transitions that don't exist like this list:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)

^^There are even nice little paintings to help you understand

or maybe these:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1)

I could go on.

The only place that they don't exist is in your own mind

Don't even get me started on the retroviral evidence - it'll make a monkey's uncle out of you!

More creationist double-think.

[Pahu78]

Originally Posted by Pahu78
True, but the fact remains that after finding millions of fossils of perfectly functioning life forms, not one transition has been found from one species to a different species as evolution requires. Doesn't that seem odd, if they really exist?

Well that's an age-old creationist lie, one of the most blatant and persistant.

You mean transitions that don't exist like this list:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^^There are even nice little paintings to help you understand

I read the article and found that it speaks of similarities, not transitions from one species to a different species. The pictures confirm this fact. That is why it can make the assertion that â??Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception.â?�

Since â??transitionâ?� is being substituted for â??similarities,â?� (â??An ideal list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms.â?�) that assertion is valid since all life forms share similarities.

This is what some scientists say on the subject:

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.]

"...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.]

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]

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)]


or maybe these:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

I could go on.

The only place that they don't exist is in your own mind

Don't even get me started on the retroviral evidence - it'll make a monkey's uncle out of you!

More creationist double-think.

Or, the only place where transitional fossils exist is in your imagination. If you are interested in the truth, you will find a thorough rebuttal of â??29 Evidences For Macroevolutionâ?� here: - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 - (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)

[funiman111]

The research is 30 years old. Got anything recent??? Species change to adapt to the environment, hence evolution.

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 2i-k


Theropod â??armsâ?� (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.

â??...most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx [the supposed first bird].â?� Hinchliffe, p. 597.

Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.

j. â??When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural....It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known...â?� William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25â??26.

â??The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record.â?� A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.

â??Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humansâ??of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beingsâ??is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.â?� Lyall Watson, â??The Water People,â?� Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.

k. â??At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids.â?� Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[funiman111]

An article called "Human Genome shows proof of recent evolution" was written in 2006. Again the evidence you have to support argument is old. Got anything recent?



Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html)

[Pahu78]

An article called "Human Genome shows proof of recent evolution" was written in 2006. Again the evidence you have to support argument is old. Got anything recent?



Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds [/quote]

The authors of the article have shown proof of the ability of all life forms, including human, to adapt to changes in their environment. Evolution is the change from one species to a different species. The human genes in the article did not do that, therefore evolution was not proved, but this is what the National Geographic wants the gullible to believe.

The magazine has a long track record of misinformation about evolution because the authors have a strong bias. They have been caught in the act several times. For more information, go here (http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp) and here (http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp) and here (http://www.trueorigin.org/natgeo_jw01.asp) and here (http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp).

[funiman111]

Again you still didnt answer my question. The research your have is 30 years old. Got anything recent??

[Pahu78]

Fossil Gaps 1l


In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).

l. â??It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.â?� Nilsson, p. 1212.

â??...experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting.â?� Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History), â??The Nature of the Fossil Record,â?� Adventures in Earth History, editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644â??645.

â??A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known.â?� Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 302.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019)

[funiman111]

In order for evolution to happend, species genes mutate to adapt to the environment around them (Survival of the fittest). This so called perfect transistion fossil that your are looking for will probaly not be found (because it already has). You seem to disprove evolution not science. Your opinion is based on 30 yeard old research. You should read "Origin of species" by Darwin.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Your opinion is based on 30 yeard old research. You should read "Origin of species" by Darwin.

You're criticizing Pahu for citing a source that's thirty years old, yet recommend reading a source that's over 150 years old? :wtf:

[funiman111]

You got me on that one.

[Pahu78]

Missing Trunk 1


The â??evolutionary treeâ?� has no trunk. In what evolutionists call the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified (a), and dispersedâ??worldwide (b).

a. â??There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.â?� Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348.

â??The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologistsâ??for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwickâ??as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.â?� Ibid., p. 344.

â??To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.â?� Ibid., p. 350.

â??The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.â?� Ibid., p. 351.

â??The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time...The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.â?� Stephen Jay Gould, â??An Asteroid to Die For,â?� Discover, October 1989, p. 65.

â??And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.â?� Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 229.

Richard Monastersky, â??Mysteries of the Orient,â?� Discover, April 1993, pp. 38â??48.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. Missing Trunk (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#wp1064364)

[funiman111]

From my understanding we dont have record of anything for the first two billion years (plate tectonics). I guess the way I see it is, I dont need to see something to know that it exist. Again Im sorry but the facts you are getting are from a religous website. You cant mix science with religon.

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

[Pahu78]

From my understanding we dont have record of anything for the first two billion years (plate tectonics). I guess the way I see it is, I dont need to see something to know that it exist. Again Im sorry but the facts you are getting are from a religous website. You cant mix science with religon.

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

1. Where are there fossils showing a record of change from one species to a different species as required by evolution?

2. In what way do chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms indicate a change from one species to a different species as required by evolution?

3. How does the geographic distribution of related species show a change from one species to a different species as required by evolution?

4. Where are those recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations that show a change from one species to a different species as required by evolution?

Why do you believe you canâ??t mix science with religion?

The website from which I get most of the information I am sharing is directed by Walt Brown.

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia.html#wp1024308).

[Pahu78]

Missing Trunk 2


â??One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.â?� Daniel I. Axelrod, â??Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,â?� Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7.

â??Evolutionary biologyâ??s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why havenâ??t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?â?� Jeffrey S. Levinton, â??The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.

â??Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.â?� T. Neville George (Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow), â??Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,â?� Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5.

b. Strange Cambrian fossils, thought to exist only in the Burgess Shale of western Canada, have been discovered in southern China. See:

L. Ramsköld and Hou Xianguang, â??New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans,â?� Nature, Vol. 351, 16 May 1991, pp. 225â??228.

Jun-yuan Chen et al., â??Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators,â?� Science, Vol. 264, 27 May 1994, pp. 1304â??1308.

Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in widely separated locations stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. Missing Trunk (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#wp1064364)

[Delta9 UK]

Or, the only place where transitional fossils exist is in your imagination. If you are interested in the truth, you will find a thorough rebuttal of â??29 Evidences For Macroevolutionâ?� here: - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 - (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp)

OK - if you think think a 'thorough' rebuttal is based on Straw man arguments...

I can go one better sir, here is a thorough rebuttal of your rebuttal LOL

A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html)

Your version of truth is LIES

[funiman111]

"Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science:"
Science and religon doesn't mix. One is faith and one is science. Two diffrent topics. One is based on fact the other is based on faith.

What type of fossil are you looking for? We have more evidence to support the evolution theory then evdence that goes against it.

Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations
Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community â?? organ-
isms become new species through modification over time. â??No biologist today
would think of submitting a paper entitled â??New evidence for evolution;â?? it simply has not been an issue for a centuryâ?� (Futuyma, 1986).

"Patricia H. Kelley
Paleontological Society President, 2001-2005"

[MadSativa]

very good discussion, I still gotta side with those who question the Evolution of man from ape. I like ape and I like human but I see huge if not some main piece of evidence missing to support the theory of evolution from ape.

Not to mention the primer or first steps or concepts even pieces of evidence from the very beginning were questionable in the evolution from ape theory.

On a side note, I have a strong urge to help the apes considering their current situation. I can see us being cousins of ape but not ape being our grandparents. I would really like to know as well though, if we come from ape why are they still in the trees. And if we don't come from ape, then what or where even who made us.

Also on a side note can some one educate me as to when man as human man showed up? Is it 6000 B.C. or 15000 B.C. or some other time? Also how old are the oldest known ape bones/fossils.

[Coelho]

I dont need to see something to know that it exist.

Well... i know this thread isnt about the existence/inexistence of God, and i dont want to hijack it, but i must point that, interestingly enough, skeptics, atheists and such denies the existence of God because He cant be seen...

[Delta9 UK]

very good discussion, I still gotta side with those who question the Evolution of man from ape. I like ape and I like human but I see huge if not some main piece of evidence missing to support the theory of evolution from ape.

Not to mention the primer or first steps or concepts even pieces of evidence from the very beginning were questionable in the evolution from ape theory.

On a side note, I have a strong urge to help the apes considering their current situation. I can see us being cousins of ape but not ape being our grandparents. I would really like to know as well though, if we come from ape why are they still in the trees. And if we don't come from ape, then what or where even who made us.

Also on a side note can some one educate me as to when man as human man showed up? Is it 6000 B.C. or 15000 B.C. or some other time? Also how old are the oldest known ape bones/fossils.

Hi Madsativa,

Humans didn't actually evolve from Apes - both Apes & Humans share a common ancestor and the two lineages separated between 5 and 8 Million years ago into the ancestors of Chimps and Gorilla and our own ancestoral line the Hominids.

To complicate things more you have similar hominids like Neanderthals (arguably a sub-species to homo sapiens) who were around as recently as 28,000 years ago - but co-existed at the same time as species of Homo Sapiens (modern himans like us which have been around 100,000 to 28,000 years ago).

The Cro-Magnon culture for example were around about 40,000 years ago. They were tool makers, artists and had musical instruments!

So anatomically modern humans have been around for at least 50,000 years - but maybe up to 100,000 years! even so we are a still a little different to Homo Sapiens from even 30,000 years ago - we have lighter bone structure and smaller molar teeth for example - but are generally very very similar.

Hope that helps! As we discover more fossils the tangled web of modern human evolution becomes clearer all the time, hence the very generalised numbers.

[Pahu78]

"Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science:"
Science and religon doesn't mix. One is faith and one is science. Two diffrent topics. One is based on fact the other is based on faith.

They donâ??t mix in their respective applications. It is true that while science is the study of the universe from a strictly natural perspective, it cannot be equal to a religion that depends on divine revelation from the creator of that universe to learn facts that science is not equipped to study.


What type of fossil are you looking for?

Fossils that show the gradual change of a species to an entirely different species, as evolution requires.


We have more evidence to support the evolution theory then evdence that goes against it.

Where is that evidence? So far what passes for evidence is nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking based primarily on similarities that donâ??t prove evolution.


Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations
Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community â?? organisms become new species through modification over time. â??No biologist today
would think of submitting a paper entitled â??New evidence for evolution;â?? it simply has not been an issue for a centuryâ?� (Futuyma, 1986).

"Patricia H. Kelley
Paleontological Society President, 2001-2005"

There is a lot of debate in the scientific community. The information I am sharing reflects that debate. There have been many papers claiming new evidence for evolution. That is one of the main arguments I get all the time; the claim that the information I am sharing is outdated because of all that new information.

When the two models of origins are compared with the facts of science, evolution loses and creation wins. For example, the first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount or energy in the universe remains constantâ??it doesn't change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down. Now if the overall amount of energy stays the same, but we are running out of usable energy, then what we started with was not an infinite amount. You can't run out of an infinite amount. This means that the universe is and always has been finite. So it must have had a beginning.

The law of causality tells us that whatever happens is caused, so what caused the universe to begin? It is [speculatively] possible that the big bang is simply the latest in a series of explosions that destroy all evidence of what came before. But that only backs the question up a few steps to "What caused the first explosion?" It is also [speculatively] possible that the steady state theory is right, that the universe had no beginning and is creating hydrogen from nothing to maintain energy without running down. But this explanation is contrary to the evidence and the law of causality.

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. In the case of the origin of first life, either it came about by spontaneous chemical generation without intelligent intervention, or by the intervention of an intelligent being through special Creation.

Evolutionists believe that life began in a spontaneous way from nonliving chemicals by purely natural processes. Shortly after the earth was cooled enough to allow it, they tell us, the combination of simple gases like hydrogen, nitrogen, ammonia, and carbon dioxide reacted to form elementary amino acids, which in time developed into DNA chains and finally cells. Of course, this is said to have taken several billion years and the extra energy of the sun, volcanic activity, lightning, and cosmic rays were needed to keep the process going. Experimentation begun by Stanley Miller arid Harold Urey has attempted to reconstruct these conditions and has had success in producing various amino acids needed for life. From this, much of the scientific community has concluded that the spontaneous chemical generation of life from a pre biotic soup is the way life began.

There are, however, some very good reasons to reject this view. First, the early earth conditions necessary to produce life are just as likely to destroy it. The experimental work has shown that no oxygen can be present for the reaction to work. Also, the energy needed from the sun and cosmic radiation are damaging to the very substances produced. Under the conditions required for life to have arisen spontaneously, it is more likely that the elements would be destroyed faster than they could be produced. Even if the right chemicals could be produced, no satisfactory answer has been given for how they could have been arranged properly and been enclosed in a cell wall. This would require another set of conditions altogether.

What could explain the sudden appearance of life and also provide for the informational organization of living matter? If we apply the principle of uniformity (analogy) to the question, the only cause that we know routinely does this kind of work in the present is intelligence. The reasonable assumption is that it also required intelligence to do it in the past. Uniform experience proves this to us and, as Hume said, "As a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof from the nature of the fact" that the information inherent in living things required an intelligent cause. Since it is not possible that we are speaking of human intelligence, or even living beings in the natural sense, it had to be a supernatural intelligence. Once it is admitted that there is a radical disjunction from nothing to something at the beginning of the universe, there can be little objection to the idea of another intervention when the evidence clearly points to it.

But what of the fossil evidence that has been so widely proclaimed? Darwin recognized this as a problem as well and wrote in â??The Origin of Species,â?� "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." [Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859), p. 280] In the 150 years since Darwin wrote, the situation has only become worse for his theory. Noted Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has written, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History May 1977, p. 14]

Eldredge and Tattersall agree, saying:

â??Expectation colored perception to such an extent that the most obvious single fact about biological evolutionâ??non-changeâ??has seldom, if ever, been incorporated into anyone's scientific notions of how life actually evolves. If ever there was a myth, it is that evolution is a process of constant change.â?� [Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 8]

What does the fossil record suggest? Evolutionists like Gould now support what creationists like Agassiz, Gish, and others have said all along:

â??The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

â??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.

â??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??" [Gould, op. cit. pp. 13-14]

The fossil evidence clearly gives a picture of mature, fully functional creatures suddenly appearing and staying very much the same. There is no real indication that one form of life transforms into a completely different form.

Now that we have new evidence about the nature of the universe, the information stored in DNA molecules, and further fossil confirmation, the words of Louis Agassiz resound even more loudly than they did when first written in 1860: "[Darwin] has lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which pervades the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind, and therefore intelligible to us as thinking beings, and unaccountable on any other basis than that they owe their existence to the working of intelligence; and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature." [Louis Agassiz, "Contribution to the Natural History of the United States" in American Journal of Science, 1860]

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. The overwhelming evidence supports the Creationist view.

[Pahu78]

Missing Trunk 3


Evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Almost all of todayâ??s plant and animal phylaâ??including flowering plants (c), vascular plants (d), and vertebrates (e)â??appear at the base of the fossil record.

c. â??... it is well known that the fossil record tells us nothing about the evolution of flowering plants.â?� Corner, p. 100.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, â??Occurrence of Microflora in the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab,â?� Nature, Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796â??797.

A. K. Ghosh, J. Sen, and A. Bose, â??Evidence Bearing on the Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab,â?� Geological Magazine, Vol. 88, Marchâ??April 1951, pp. 129â??133.

J. Coates et al., â??Age of the Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range,â?� Nature, Vol. 155, 3 March 1945, pp. 266â??267.

Clifford Burdick, in his doctoral research at the University of Arizona in 1964, made discoveries similar to those cited in the four preceding references. [See Clifford Burdick, â??Microflora of the Grand Canyon,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 3, May 1966, pp. 38â??50.]

d. S. Leclercq, â??Evidence of Vascular Plants in the Cambrian,â?� Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1956, pp. 109â??114.

e. John E. Repetski, â??A Fish from the Upper Cambrian of North America,â?� Science, Vol. 200, 5 May 1978, pp. 529â??531.

â??Vertebrates and their progenitors, according to the new studies, evolved in the Cambrian, earlier than paleontologists have traditionally assumed.â?� Richard Monastersky, â??Vertebrate Origins: The Fossils Speak Up,â?� Science News, Vol. 149, 3 February 1996, p. 75.

â??Also, the animal explosion caught peopleâ??s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.â?� Paul Chien (Chairman, Biology Department, University of San Francisco), â??Explosion of Life,â?� Explosion of Life: A scientist reveals details of the Cambrian explosion (http://www.origins.org/articles/chien_explosionoflife.html), p. 3. Interviewed 30 June 1997.

â??At 530 million years, the 3-centimeter-long Haikouichthys appears to be the worldâ??s oldest fish, while another new specimen, Myllokunmingia, has simpler gills and is more primitive. To Conway Morris and others, the presence of these jawless fish in the Early Cambrian suggests that the origin of chordates lies even farther back in time.â?� Erik Stokstad, â??Exquisite Chinese Fossils Add New Pages to Book of Life,â?� Science, Vol. 291, 12 January 2001, p. 233.

â??The [500] specimens [of fish] may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of a storm-induced burial....The possession of eyes (and probably nasal sacs) is consistent with Haikouichthys being a craniate, indicating that vertebrate evolution was well advanced by the Early Cambrian.â?� [/color][/i]D. G. Shu et al., â??Head and Backbone of the Early Cambrian Vertebrate Haikouichthys,â?� Nature, Vol. 421, 30 January 2003, pp. 527, 529.

D. G. Shu et al., â??Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China,â?� Nature, Vol. 402, 4 November 1999, pp. 42â??46.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. Missing Trunk (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#wp1064364)

[funiman111]

My qoute was about fossils. Not the existence of god



Well... i know this thread isnt about the existence/inexistence of God, and i dont want to hijack it, but i must point that, interestingly enough, skeptics, atheists and such denies the existence of God because He cant be seen...

[funiman111]

Show me the evidence to support creationism. Uniformitarianism approach is what scientist do today. Which assumes that the natural processes that operated in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. We see evolution going on today which they can make conclusions about the past. We have NO evidence what so ever to support creationism. Which again is a seperate topic.

Again certain fossils are easier preserved then others.

Why do gaps exist? (or seem to exist)

Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage. Many laypeople even have the (incorrect) impression that the situation is even worse, and that there are no known transitions at all. Why are there still gaps? And why do many people think that there are even more gaps than there really are?

Stratigraphic gaps

The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.

Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. These are rough estimates (from Gingerich, 1976, 1980) but should give an idea of the completeness required.

Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened.


Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran)

[Delta9 UK]

Evolution does not break the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that either shows your lack of knowledge of Evolution or of the 2nd law, take your pick.

The Earth is NOT a closed system so evolution and life itself does not break the 2nd Law.

This is a common misconception made by Creationists and tantamount to wilfull ignorance or deception - take your pick.

You might want to read this page:
Get Answers - Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use)

^^ It has a list of arguments that even Creationists have realised they shouldn't use. That's kind of telling in itself - don't you think?

[gypski]

Why don't those non-believers in evolution look an a chart of the phases of human embryo development into a complete human. The stages are very distinctive as the genetic code unfolds and the body develops. Reptillian and fish are are just two of the phases. :jointsmile:

If you want an religion that mimics evolution, look at Hindu and the transmigration of the soul through the life cycles and animal species. :D :stoned:

[Pahu78]

Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage.

But where is there any evidence of those species-to-species transitions? The attempt to show them only shows different complete species that share certain similarities, which are claimed to be transitions. Isnâ??t that more an example of imagination?


And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.

Your assumption that eons of time elapsed is based on what? Are you aware all the dating techniques being used have been proven to be unreliable?


If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species.

And yet Darwin noticed: â??why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?â?�

Other recent scientists have observed the same problem:

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.]

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.]

"...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.]

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]

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)]

The sudden appearance of fully developed life forms is consistent with creation, isnâ??t it? One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the â??Cambrian Explosionâ?�, which refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

If evolution did not take place, if the natural forces at work today did not create the diversity of life we see on our little blue world, then something supernatural must be responsible. True science seeks to understand, no matter what the philosophical or metaphysical ramifications may be. That is why evolution is not science, but rather a philosophy, for it seeks to explain things within only one possible framework, whether or not this framework is true. The facts are that the scientists' own interpretation of the fossil record clearly demonstrates that every species appeared at once suddenly and then gradually died off with the passage of time. The significance of this great body of evidence against evolutionary theory in the fossil record cannot be stressed enough. It is utterly devastating to evolutionary theory completely by itself. But in the final analysis, it is but one of a plethora of scientific facts that refute the 19th century fable that is evolution.


Show me the evidence to support creationism.

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?� http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-12387-2]

[Pahu78]

Evolution does not break the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that either shows your lack of knowledge of Evolution or of the 2nd law, take your pick.

The Earth is NOT a closed system so evolution and life itself does not break the 2nd Law.

This is a common misconception made by Creationists and tantamount to wilfull ignorance or deception - take your pick.

You might want to read this page:
Get Answers - Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use)

^^ It has a list of arguments that even Creationists have realised they shouldn't use. That's kind of telling in itself - don't you think?

The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that â??the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.â?�

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend is a scientifically observed phenomenonâ??fact, not theory.

The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an â??exceptionâ?� because we live in an open system: â??The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.â?� This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.

But simply adding energy to a system doesnâ??t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or â??build-upâ?� rather than â??break-downâ?�). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropyâ??in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your carâ??s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

â??...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.â?�
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), [i/Chemical and Engineering News,[/i] vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

So, what is it that makes life possible within the earthâ??s biosphere, appearing to â??violateâ?� the second law of thermodynamics?

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

a â??programâ?� (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

Each living organismâ??s DNA contains all the code (the â??programâ?� or â??informationâ?�) needed to direct the process of building (or â??organizingâ?�) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organismâ??s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential componentâ??their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sunâ??s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to â??violateâ?� the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures â??in spite ofâ?� the second lawâ??s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earthâ??s â??open-systemâ?� biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described aboveâ??nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

In short, the â??open systemâ?� argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (one of whom has been quoted above with careâ??and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

[Pahu78]

Why don't those non-believers in evolution look an a chart of the phases of human embryo development into a complete human. The stages are very distinctive as the genetic code unfolds and the body develops. Reptillian and fish are are just two of the phases. :jointsmile:

If you want an religion that mimics evolution, look at Hindu and the transmigration of the soul through the life cycles and animal species. :D :stoned:


Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have â??gill slits,â?� because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, thatâ??s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble â??gill slitsâ?� have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a). Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).

a. â??This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as â??ontogeny [the development of an embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].â?? This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.â?� Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

â??It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.â?� George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.

â??The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the â??biogenetic lawâ?? and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.â?� Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.

b. Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this â??biogenetic lawâ?� that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, distorted his data. Thompson explains:


A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [i]imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the â??convergenceâ?� of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The â??biogenetic lawâ?� as a proof of evolution is valueless. W. R. Thompson, p. 12.

â??To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that â??hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same chargeâ??.â?� Pitman, p. 120.

c. â??Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckelâ??s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.â?� Michael K. Richardson et al., â??There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,â?� Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 20. Embryology (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1027448)

[Pahu78]

Missing Trunk 4


In fact, many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today (f). Complex species, such as fish (g) worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish (h) sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animal species (living and extinct), have no known evolutionary ancestors (i) The fossil record does not support evolution (j).

f. â??Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.â?� Roger Lewin, â??A Lopsided Look at Evolution,â?� Science, Vol. 241, 15 July 1988, p. 291.

â??A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

â??Stephen Jay Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversedâ??we have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.â?� Chien, p. 2.

â??It was puzzling for a while because they [evolutionary paleontologists] refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist nowâ??thatâ??s more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now.â?� Ibid., p. 3.

g. â??But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing, a matter of hot dispute among the experts, each of whom is firmly convinced that everyone else is wrong...I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.â?� Errol White, â??A Little on Lung-Fishes,â?� Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, Vol. 177, Presidential Address, January 1966, p. 8.

â??The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes...â?� J. R. Norman, A History of Fishes, 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 343.

â??All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?â?� Gerald T. Todd, â??Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishesâ??A Causal Relationship?â?� American Zoologist, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1980, p. 757.

h. Cloud and Glaessner, pp. 783â??792.

i. â??There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like...Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred.â?� Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1962), pp. 14â??15.

â??There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods.â?� Frank M. Carpenter, â??Fossil Insects,â?� Insects (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 18.

j. â??If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.â?� Marshall Kay and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965), p. 103.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. Missing Trunk (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#wp1064364)

[Pahu78]

Out-of-Place Fossils 1


Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order (a).

a. Walter E. Lammerts has published eight lists totaling almost 200 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. [See â??Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United States: Parts Iâ??VIII,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1984, p. 88; December 1984, p. 150; March 1985, p. 200; December 1985, p. 127; March 1986, p. 188; June 1986, p. 38; December 1986, p. 133; and June 1987, p. 46.]

â??In the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change: modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and a plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing the sequence. But the predictive (or postdictive) power of theory is almost nil.â?� David M. Raup, â??Evolution and the Fossil Record,â?� Science, Vol. 213, 17 July 1981, p. 289.

â??Fossil discoveries can muddle our attempts to construct simple evolutionary treesâ??fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodgepodges of defining features of many different groups.â?� Neil Shubin, â??Evolutionary Cut and Paste,â?� Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, p. 12.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html)

[Pahu78]

Out-of-Place Fossils 3


Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock (g). Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina (h). Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed (i). In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian (j) rocksâ??rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian (k) rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.

g. Andrew Snelling, â??Fossil Bluff,â?� Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1985, p. 8.

Carol Armstrong, â??Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198â??199.

Pat Shipman, â??Dumping on Science,â?� Discover, December 1987, p. 64.

h. Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the â??Great Carolina Marl Bedâ?� (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmesâ?? Book House, 1870).

Edward J. Nolan, â??Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,â?� Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80â??81.

John Watson did extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.

i. A. C. Noé, â??A Paleozoic Angiosperm,â?� Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, Mayâ??June 1923, pp. 344â??347.

j. R. M. Stainforth, â??Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,â?� Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292â??294.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796â??797.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, â??Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,â?� Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056â??1057.

J. Coates et al., pp. 266â??267.

k. George F. Howe et al., â??A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173â??182.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html)

[Pahu78]

Out-of-Place Fossils 2


In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs (b). Hoofprints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia (c). A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years (d). Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan (e) and Arizona (f).

b. Y. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, â??A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?â?� Moskovskaya Pravda [Moscow Truth], 5 February 1984.

c. Richard Monastersky, â??A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style,â?� Science News, Vol. 136, 8 July 1989, p. 21.

d. Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93â??96, 100.

e. Alexander Romashko, â??Tracking Dinosaurs,â?� Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10. [For an alternate but equivalent translation published by an anti-creationist organization, see Frank Zindler, â??Manâ??A Contemporary of the Dinosaurs?â?� Creation/Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1986, pp. 28â??29.]

f. Paul O. Rosnau et al., â??Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona?â?� Parts I and II, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 26, September 1989, pp. 41â??48 and December 1989, pp. 77â??98.

Jeremy Auldaney et al., â??More Human-Like Track Impressions Found with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta Formation at Tuba City Arizona,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 34, December 1997, pp. 133â??146 and back cover.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html)

[Pahu78]

Out-of-Place Fossils 4


Petrified trees in Arizonaâ??s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later (l). Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved (m). Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

l. Stephen T. Hasiotis (paleobiologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver), personal communication, 27 May 1995.

Carl Zimmer, â??A Secret History of Life on Land,â?� Discover, February 1998, pp. 76â??83.

m. Dong Ren, â??Flower-Associated Brachycera Flies as Fossil Evidence for Jurassic Angiosperm Origins,â?� Science, Vol. 280, 3 April 1998, pp. 85â??88.

The best-preserved fossils are encased in amber, protected from air and water and buried in the ground. Amber, a golden resin (similar to sap or pitch) usually from conifer trees such as pines, may also contain other preservatives. No transitional forms of life have been found in amber, despite evolutionary-based ages of 1.5â??300 million years. Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.

Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin, which was later covered by more resin and finally buried.

In a clean-room laboratory, 30â??40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! This amber is claimed to be 25â??40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 25. Out-of-Place Fossils (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html)

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 1


For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about manâ??s origin (a). Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent (b).

Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated (c).

It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown â??manâ?� was a hoax, yet Piltdown â??manâ?� was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

a. â??... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.â?� Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, â??How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?â?� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.

b. â??Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.â?� Henry Gee, â??Return to the Planet of the Apes,â?� Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

c. Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature â??without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.â?� Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.

Bowden, pp. 56â??246.

Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2, editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 193â??200, 298â??305.

d. Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:

â??How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bonesâ??the cranial fragmentsâ??and â??seeâ?� a clear simian signature in them; and â??seeâ?� in an apeâ??s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientistsâ?? expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.â?� Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.â?�

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men? (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274)

[jeepboi]

Im easy I have faith.

Science is great but my faith will win everytime for myself. As for anyone else thats their choice. To each their own

[jeepboi]

i kinda feel like im reading the big bang theory without the jokes

[fdsaasdf]

Oh, you silly christians. You'll say anything just to help you sleep at night. I completely lost respect for the argument when it said that everything everything requires an intelligent creator. It's a little something called 'natural selection'.

[suhl]

I am so glad this topic never dies. the title is priceless :S2:

[bhouncy]

Evolution is a fact.

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 2


Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.

The hoaxer now appears to have been Martin A. C. Hinton, who had a reputation as a practical joker and worked in the British Museum (Natural History) when Piltdown man was discovered. In the mid-1970s, an old trunk, marked with Hintonâ??s initials, was found in the museumâ??s attic. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same detailed way as the Piltdown bones. [For details, see Henry Gee, â??Box of Bones â??Clinchesâ?? Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer,â?� Nature, Vol. 381, 23 May 1996, pp. 261â??262.]

Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey (e) and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw (f). Ramapithecus was just an ape (g). Some textbooks still claim that Ramapithecus is manâ??s ancestor, an intermediate between man and some apelike ancestor. This mistaken belief resulted from piecing together, in 1932, fragments of upper teeth and bones into the two large pieces. This was done so the shape of the jaw resembled the parabolic arch of man. In 1977, a complete lower jaw of Ramapithecus was found. The true shape of the jaw was not parabolic, but rather U-shaped, distinctive of apes.

Artistsâ?? drawings, even those based on speculation, powerfully influence the public. Nebraska man was mistakenly based on one tooth of an extinct pig. Yet in 1922, The Illustrated London News published a picture showing our supposed ancestors. Of course, it is highly unlikely that any fossil evidence could support the image conveyed of a naked man carrying a club.

e. Allen L. Hammond, â??Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,â?� Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37, 43.

f. Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, â??False Start of the Human Parade,â?� Natural History, Vol. 88, Augustâ??September 1979, pp. 86â??91.

g. Hammond, p. 43.

â??The dethroning of Ramapithecusâ??from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982â??is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.â?� Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 86.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men? (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274)

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 3


Forty years after he discovered Java â??man,â?� Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thighbones of apes found in the same area (h).

h. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skullcap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed that the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolutionâ??a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.

Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java â??manâ?� to Java â??gibbon.â?� Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.

â??Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude.â?� Eugene Dubois, â??On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,â?� Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.

â??Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes.â?� Ibid., p. 5.

â??The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human.â?� W. R. Thompson, p. 17.

W. R. Thompson, in his â??Introduction to The Origin of Speciesâ?� by Charles Darwin, refers to Duboisâ?? discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java â??manâ?� at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293â??294.] Duboisâ?? claims of finding â??the missing linkâ?� would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.

C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.

Bowden, pp. 138â??142, 144â??148.

Hitching, pp. 208â??209.

Patrick Oâ??Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139â??142.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men? (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274)

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 4


Many experts consider the skulls of Peking â??manâ?� to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man (i). Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created (j).

The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportions (k) and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo) (l).

i. Bowden, pp. 90â??137.

Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p. 145.

j. â??[The reanalysis of Narmada Man] puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon.â?� Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, as quoted in â??Homo Erectus Never Existed?â?� Geotimes, October 1992, p. 11.

k. Donald C. Johanson et al., â??New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,â?� Nature, Vol. 327, 21 May 1987, pp. 205â??209.

l. â??We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus [Homo].â?� Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, â??The Human Genus,â?� Science, Vol. 284, 2 April 1999, p. 65.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men? (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274)

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 5


The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between those of man and living apes (m).

m. Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred to below, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis technique. A computer simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. To my knowledge, this technique has not been applied to the most famous australopithecine, commonly known as â??Lucy.â?�

â??... the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.â?� Zuckerman, p. 78.

â??Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ...â?� Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973 to 1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), â??Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,â?� The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May 1979, p. 273.

Charles E. Oxnard, â??The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?â?� Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389â??395.

â??For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable.â?� Zuckerman, p. 93.

â??His Lordshipâ??s [Sir Solly Zuckermanâ??s] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. â??They are just bloody apes,â?? he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.â?� Lewin, Bones of Contention, [i] pp. 164â??165.

[i] â??This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the â??knuckle-walkerâ?? condition, not unlike the extant African apes.â?� Richard E. F. Leakey, â??Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya,â?� Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men? (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274)

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 6


Another study, which examined the inner ear bone of australopithecine, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans (n). Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans (o). Claims were madeâ??based on one australopithecine fossil (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)â??that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucyâ??s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees (p) and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees (q). The australopithecines are probably extinct apes (r).

n. â??Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions.â?� Fred Spoor et al., â??Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,â?� Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]

o. â??The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees.â?� Bruce Bower, â??Evolutionâ??s Youth Movement,â?� Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.

p. William L. Jungers, â??Lucyâ??s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,â?� Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676â??678.

Jeremy Cherfas, â??Trees Have Made Man Upright,â?� New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172â??178.

Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, â??The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,â?� American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279â??317.

q. Adrienne Zihlman, â??Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,â?� New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39â??40.

r. â??At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... [T]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.â?� Matt Cartmill et al., â??One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,â?� American Scientist, Vol. 74, Julyâ??August 1986, p. 417.

â??The proportions calculated for africanus turned out to be amazingly close to those of a chimpanzee, with big arms and small legs. ... â??One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree,â?? says Berger.â?� James Shreeve, â??New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,â?� Science, Vol. 272, 3 May 1996, p. 654.

â??There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the apeâ??so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.â?� Solly Zuckerman, â??Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,â?� Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

â??We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.â?� Ibid., pp. 348â??349.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men? (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274)

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 7


For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets (s). Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today (t). Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artistsâ?? drawings of â??ape-men,â?� especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence (u).

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable.

s. Francis Ivanhoe, â??Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?â?� Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577â??578.

William L. Straus Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, â??Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,â?� The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32, December, 1957, pp. 348â??363.

Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, â??Oldest Bone Disease,â?� Nature, Vol. 349, 24 January 1991, p. 288.

t. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).

Jack Cuozzo, â??Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,â?� The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33â??40.

u. Boyce Rensberger, â??Facing the Past,â?� Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men? (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html#wp1418274)

[gypski]

Poor, poor science. Neanderthals were a distinct species of Hominid. We are also a modern version of hominid. If you want the straight story on Neanderthal you need to read The Neanderthals - Changing the Image of Mankind by Erik Trinkhaus and Pat Shipman, the recognized authorities on Neanderthals. Not junk scientists. :thumbsup:

Anthropology 101 should set any rational person straight on the theory of evolution. We are in a long line of primates descended from the tree shrew. :D

[Pahu78]

Fossil Man


Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull (a), the Castenedolo skeletons (b), Reckâ??s skeleton (c), and others (d). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (e). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

a. J. D. Whitney, â??The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California,â?� Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard College, Vol. 6, 1880, pp. 258â??288.

Bowden, pp. 76â??78.

Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Emsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50â??52, 82, 83.

W. H. B., â??Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California,â?� American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.

Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, â??The Case for the Calaveras Skull,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248â??256.

For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks the hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava. See, for example:

Whitney, pp. 262â??264, 266, 274â??276.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294â??301.

George F. Becker, â??Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California,â?� Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189â??200.

b. Bowden, pp. 78â??79.

Cousins, pp. 48â??50, 81.

Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons:

â??As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the â??Castenedoloâ?� find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs.â?� Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.

However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the unfossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.

c. Bowden, pp. 183â??193.

d. Ibid., pp. 79â??88.

e. Fix, pp. 98â??105.

J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp. 316â??318.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 27. Fossil Man (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences31.html#wp1009380)

[gypski]

Christian pseudo science. No human ancestor bones or our relative hominds from which we derived are older then approximately 4.5 million years. Give or take a hundred thousand or so years. :thumbsup:

[Pahu78]

Chemical Elements of Life 1


The chemical evolution of life is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen [a]. However, the closer one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.

Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon . One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, todayâ??s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on the earthâ??s surface since the first fossils formed.

[b]Oxygen. No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earthâ??s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many substances should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth [c]. Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation [d]. But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sunâ??s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life [e]. The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneouslyâ??in other words, by creation.

a. The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%).

b. Carbon is only the 18th most abundant element, by weight, in the earthâ??s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite.

c. â??The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem.â?� Leigh Van Valen, â??The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen,â?� Science, Vol. 171, 5 February 1971, p. 442.

d. Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen. If no oxygen was in the atmosphere as life evolved, how did the atmosphere get its oxygen?

Cyanobacteria break down carbon dioxide and water and release oxygen. In 1987, William J. Schopf claimed that he and his graduate student had discovered fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cyanobacteria. This, he said, is how the atmosphere gained its oxygen after these bacteriaâ??shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiationâ??evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved.

Schopfâ??s former graduate student and other experts have now charged Schopf with withholding evidence that those fossils were not cyanobacteria. Most experts feel betrayed by Schopf, who now accepts that his â??specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all.â?� [See Rex Dalton, â??Squaring Up over Ancient Life,â?� Nature, Vol. 417, 20 June 2002, pp. 782â??784.] A foundational building block in the evolution storyâ??that had become academic orthodoxyâ??has crumbled.

e . Hitching, p. 65.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 28. Chemical Elements of Life (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences33.html#wp1009402)

[Pahu78]

Chemical Elements of Life 2


Nitrogen. Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments [f].

Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life [g].

f. â??If there ever was a primitive soup [to provide the chemical compounds for evolving life] , then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. Indeed to the contrary, the very oldest of sediments ... are extremely short of nitrogen.â?� J. Brooks and G. Shaw, Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 359.

â??No evidence exists that such a soup ever existed.â?� Abel and Trevors, p. 3.

g. â??The acceptance of this theory [lifeâ??s evolution on earth] and its promulgation by many workers [scientists and researchers] who have certainly not always considered all the facts in great detail has in our opinion reached proportions which could be regarded as dangerous.â?� Ibid., p. 355.

Certainly, ignoring indisputable, basic evidence in most scientific fields is expensive and wasteful. Failure to explain the evidence to students betrays a trust and misleads future teachers and leaders.

Readers should consider why, despite the improbabilities and lack of proper chemistry, many educators and the media have taught for a century that life evolved on earth. Abandoning or questioning that belief leaves only one strong contenderâ??creation. Questioning evolution in some circles invites ostracism, much like stating that the proverbial emperor â??has no clothes.â?�

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 28. Chemical Elements of Life (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences33.html#wp1009402)

[gypski]

14C doesn't have a half life of 5000 years either!!!!!!!!!! :bigsmoke:

[Delta9 UK]

14C doesn't have a half life of 5000 years either!!!!!!!!!! :bigsmoke:

LMFAO - YECFAIL

I wonder if Pahu has noticed yet that all these links are rel="nofollow" so no Google Juice for you my friend :D

Seems like the whole purpose of this thread (or spamfest) is to try and gain traffic from this site.

Pahu also posts this junk all over the web (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=x5K&q=Science+Disproves+Evolution+pahu&btnG=Search&meta=)

Seems like he has a full time job of it? Paid for by the Creation institute or some crap I would guess.

[Pahu78]

Proteins 1


Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link up if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earthâ??s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed [a]. Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen [b].

a. An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that â??imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers.â?� Philip Morrison, â??Earthâ??s Earliest Biosphere,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp. 30â??31.

To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid [c]. However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur [d]. Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids [e].
Charles F. Davidson, â??Geochemical Aspects of Atmospheric Evolution,â?� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 53, 15 June 1965, pp. 1194â??1205.

Steven A. Austin, â??Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?â?� ICR Impact, No. 109, July 1982.

â??In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved sedimentary rocks.â?� Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, â??Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron,â?� Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1976, p. 1161.

â??What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.â?� Philip H. Abelson, â??Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,â?� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55, June 1966, p. 1365.

b. R. T. Brinkmann, â??Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere,â?� Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No. 23, 20 October 1969, pp. 5355â??5368.

c. â??It is difficult to imagine how a little pond with just these components, and no others [no contaminants], could have formed on the primitive earth. Nor is it easy to see exactly how the precursors would have arisen.â?� Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.

d. â??But when multiple biopolymers must all converge at the same place at the same time to collectively interact in a controlled biochemical cooperative manner, faith in â??self-organizationâ?? becomes â??blind belief.â?? No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap.â?� Abel and Trevors, p. 9.

e. â??I believe this [the overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions to move in the direction opposite to that required for the evolution of life] to be the most stubborn problem that confronts usâ??the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life].â?� George Wald, â??The Origin of Life,â?� p. 50.

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