Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
THE ORIGIN OF NEW LIFE FORMS 4
[/align]
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/b...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]

[align=center]
Parallel Strata
[/align]

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

[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/vie...wnload&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?