Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by dejayou30
OK, so where is the evidence of creation that would support your claim? Or are we just supposed to "believe" without any evidence?
All of the information I am sharing gives evidence of creation and disproves evolution.
Quote:
The quotes you used from the legitimate scientists are 30-40 years old, and are therefore, mostly irrelevant. Given all the discoveries and the mountain of evidence that has been discovered since those claims have been made that wholly support the theory of evolution and not a single one contradicting it, do you think they would still stand by those quotes themselves? I really doubt it.
Where is that "mountain of evidence" supporting evolution? In the last 50 years, science has added to the evidence disproving evolution and supporting creation.
Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Symbiotic Relationships
[/align]
Different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. At the broadest level, the animal kingdom depends on the oxygen produced by the plant kingdom. Plants, in turn, depend on the carbon dioxide produced by the animal kingdom.
More local and specific examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp (a), the yucca plant and the yucca moth (b), many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. In other words, creation.
a. Oscar L. Brauer, ??The Smyrna Fig Requires God for Its Production,? Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 9, September 1972, pp. 129??131.
Bob Devine, Mr. Baggy-Skin Lizard (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), pp. 29??32.
b. Jerry A. Powell and Richard A. Mackie, Biological Interrelationships of Moths and Yucca Whipplei (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966).
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 38. Symbiotic Relationships
Science Disproves Evolution
Oh now I get it. Youre just posting the same arguement over and over to different questions, using the same outdated data. The circular logic is very nice as well. Normally, between steps 9, 10, and 11 in your little work through of how life got started, a real scientist would ask why and how, instead of jumping to conclusions. I think that means I'm done banging my head against a wall in this silly argument. :)
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
:S2::S2::S2::S2::S2:
Someone please lock this thread. Everything this guy says is nonsense, and has no relevance in modern science. It is all just creationist :spam3:!!!!
Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Sexual Reproduction 1
[/align]
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.
[a.] The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
[b.] The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).
[c.] The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
[d.] The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision??processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
[e.] The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also ??accidentally? evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
[f.] This remarkable string of ??accidents? must have been repeated for millions of species.
a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother??s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby??half of whom is a ??foreign body? from the father. If these immune systems functioned ??properly,? mammals??including each of us??would not exist.
??The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged.? [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]
b. N. W. Pixie, ??Boring Sperm,? Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.
c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, ??Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,? Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654??1656.
d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 39. Sexual Reproduction
Science Disproves Evolution
Dangit, I cant help myself :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
[a.] The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
Cross breeding of different species is possible (ligers, mules being an example). This proves that conditions can be different than expected, but still work. Also, altho sexual reproduction is complex, it is getting to be relatively easy to reproduce the results (test tube babies, cloning dogs) through todays technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
[b.] The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).
I believe thats covered in [a.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
[c.] The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
again, a. Same idea stated 3 different times enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
[d.] The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision??processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
As far as my logic takes me, if you can clone an animal, you should know how all those systems work. I also remember the 8th grade science class where all those fun words, meiosis, prophase, mitosis, anaphase were drilled into my little skull. Those are the processes at work, and they get really technical in college biology classes. Not general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
[e.] The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also ??accidentally? evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
Controlled, or just the right circumstances? I believe evolution would make a great case for this example, if the resulting animal didnt survive, or was incapable of reproducing, then the species would not last. Basically you just made an argument for natural selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
[f.] This remarkable string of ??accidents? must have been repeated for millions of species.
Again, evolution describes this as well. If it happened in the original generation (f1), then f2 would harbor the same traits and characteristics. There for, the same type of sexual reproduction would be passed down through generations, following the minor genetic differences that could eventually foster a new species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother??s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby??half of whom is a ??foreign body? from the father. If these immune systems functioned ??properly,? mammals??including each of us??would not exist.
Actually, in humans up to 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriages (this includes unrecognized pregnancies - such as a miscarriage before the first missed period). Many of these are due to immune system problems, where the egg is rejected. This includes the RH factor which can cause major problems in pregnancies. Rh is a marker on the surface of blood cells, and is either positive or negative. If the fetus is positive, the mothers immune system will attack the fetus.
If the immune system is functioning PROPERLY, it allows a fetus to develop to full term. Then it confirms your Law of Biogenesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
It is the next logical step. Take yeast for example. In good conditions, it will reproduce asexually. In bad conditions, it has sex. Why? Because in bad conditions the exchange of DNA from one organism to the other might result in an advantageous mutation in the resulting offspring. Which carried down in the genetic line to the yeast cells we have today.
Ok thats it for now. ;)
Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Sexual Reproduction 2
[/align]
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise??or survive?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).
e. ??But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.? Jean Marx, ??Tracing How the Sexes Develop,? Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.
f. ??This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.? George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.
??So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights??just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton??s celestial mechanics.? Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.
??The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.? Michael Rose, ??Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,? New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.
??Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.? Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, ??Why Sex?? Discover, February 1984, p. 24.
??Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.? Kathleen McAuliffe, ??Why We Have Sex,? Omni, December 1983, p. 18.
??From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?? Nilsson, p. 1225.
??One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.? [According to evolution, it should not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, ??Why Is Sex?? Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.
g. ??In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point??a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.? Pitman, p. 135.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 39. Sexual Reproduction
Science Disproves Evolution
e. Research that was completed way, way before the genomes were sequenced. Of course they are going to be unrelated, there is a different sequence of events that happen. It does not change the fact that sexual reproduction evolved in these animals.
f. The George C Williams quote about his book is often misquoted. His meaning was to state the book's purpose is to explain some mechanics of sex in biology. He is saying he has answers to questions people have, not that there are no answers. This is even more apparent by your second quote, where he states that GC Williams has ingenous answers.
g. Dont know what point your trying to make, but evolution is a long process of tiny, tiny steps. You dont make a pie out of thin air, first you have the crust, then you make the filling, and you put it all together. If you add one cherry at a time, eventually you will get the filling. Makes sense? You don't just go to your cupboard and find a can of filling and say, Gee, someone miraculously put that there!
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by carinia
e. Research that was completed way, way before the genomes were sequenced. Of course they are going to be unrelated, there is a different sequence of events that happen. It does not change the fact that sexual reproduction evolved in these animals.
What evidence is there that sexual reproduction evolved in these animals?
Quote:
f. The George C Williams quote about his book is often misquoted. His meaning was to state the book's purpose is to explain some mechanics of sex in biology. He is saying he has answers to questions people have, not that there are no answers. This is even more apparent by your second quote, where he states that GC Williams has ingenous answers.
It seems this statement is not misquoted: ??This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.? What evidence do you have showing that to be a misquote? How does the second quote confirm your first assertion?
Quote:
g. Dont know what point your trying to make, but evolution is a long process of tiny, tiny steps.
What evidence is there to support your assertion?
Quote:
You dont make a pie out of thin air, first you have the crust, then you make the filling, and you put it all together. If you add one cherry at a time, eventually you will get the filling. Makes sense? You don't just go to your cupboard and find a can of filling and say, Gee, someone miraculously put that there!
You are comparing evolution with pies? It is true that pies are not made from thin air and cans of filling don??t appear as the result of natural causes. The pie and the can are evidence of intelligent design. Why do you think the universe and life on earth can appear out of thin air as the result of natural causes but pies and cans must be the result of intelligent design?
I suspect the answer is you have the unsupported and unsupportable preconception that a supernatural Creator is impossible.
Science Disproves Evolution
Can someone PLEASE lock this thread and ban this nutjob? The guy has only posted in this thread with his illogical creationist spam. It would be like someone joining only to post advertisements for something. He is advertising for his creationist nonsense and is not interested in the cannabis community. Look at his posts, 100% of them are all in this thread. Ban this spammer!
