13 billion year old planet discovered? Biblical questions?

[SirLiftsaLot]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Science&cat=Astronomy_and_Spa ce

I have never really understood with the utter infinite nature of space, what role it has on our lives. I am speaking biblically, what purpose did God have if any in creating things the way he did, especially 1000's of planets outside of our solar system? I always get confused here and start questioning certain things. I mean especially if we are coming close to what most consider to be our last days prior to the rapture, why are we still just hitting the tip of the iceberg on things like this? It just doesn't make any sense to me, and I have been looking biblically for answers, and haven't found any. I am hoping that some of our resident theological thinkers can help me understand this. Or am I supposed to cast this off as godliness, and just accept it is beyond my understanding? Thanks for the input.

[Venom]

http://bibleverseart.com/albums/album02/Ziggurat.jpg

That help. /forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I'll add more later.

[Adam Knowlden]

One thing you should know from all our posts is that God never tells you to check your brain in at the church door when you get saved! So there is no need to fear.

We are always hearing some new "discovery".

"We have another ape man!" Christians start panicking! "What are we going to do!"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/images/oh20030627_180.jpg

Wait a minute. Ape men don't fit in the bible. So before we worry about these discoveries let's remember one valuable line...

Romans 3:4a: 'let God be true, and every man a liar.'

[ QUOTE ]
"What we think we've found is an example of the first generation of planets formed in the universe," Sigurdsson said. "We think this planet formed with its star, 12.713 billion years ago when the (Milky Way) galaxy was very young, just in the process of forming."



[/ QUOTE ]

This is all based on the assumption the big bang is true and cosmic evolution is a fact. We won't even get into parallax trigonometry, red shift, background radiation, etc. that is used for these "ages" or the tons of evidence the universe can't be billions of years old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020809_131.jpg

Both creationists and evolutionists study the same rocks, animals, fossils and Earth. In fact, they all look at the same UNIVERSE! Why is it then that both sides end up with such different conclusions about those same things?

All evidence must be interpreted. It's the ideas that are used to interpret the evidence that cause creationists and evolutionists to have such different conclusions. These ideas are called bias. Everyone has a bias and we all look at the world through our bias.

These biases are pictured here as lenses that we view the world though.

1. Secular lens
This represents the beliefs that fallible humans use to try to explain how and why the universe exists. These beliefs cause us to see these facts in a particular way, to view them through the evolutionary account of history.

2. Biblical lens
A unique book, called the Bible, claims over 3,000 times that it is the Word of God written by an Infinite Being who used different people to write down what we need to know to understand the history and future of the universe. These beliefs cause us to see these facts in a particular way, to view them through the Biblical account of history.


Here's some good links for you bro:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4133.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/answersbook/sixdays2.asp

[StarBackSneetch]

I think there is other life out there. Just seems like a waste of space(lol) if their isnt

[DissidentPuddle]

Yup...earth man and the universe are all less then 100,000 years old.

[StarBackSneetch]

you are insane!! read this quote from my earth science textbook.

Geologists use radioactive age dating methods to determine the ages of rocks. Certain atoms in the rock spontaneously change into different atoms over time through radioactive decay. By taking a rock (meteorite) apart atom by atom and finding out how many atoms have decayed, and knowing the rate of change (or half-life of the atom) scientists can work out how many years have passed since the rock formed. This is a tremendous simplification, but basically it is somewhat like counting rings in a tree to see how old it is. Many meteorites age-date at about 4.6 billion years. This is the currently accepted age of the Earth

[Venom]

As O.S said, dating is extremely flawed. You can read our bible links on this, we have several debates.

But can you clarify your question? Are you asking why God made so much? Or what. Not sure why you mentioned the last days...

[StarBackSneetch]

Its not billions off!!! no way, that was posted in reply to Dissidentpuddle who says the earth is only 100,000 years old. How to you explain Dinosaurs or the ice age??? all that happened in 100,00 years???

[Venom]

God the creator, and science when viewed correctly, as O.S pointed out. Read our bible links.

[ QUOTE ]
How to you explain Dinosaurs or the ice age??? all that happened in 100,00 years???

[/ QUOTE ]
Read our links.

[StarBackSneetch]

I read some in the Jehovah witness post, and I have to say I agree with the crazy Jehovahs on this one. I don't believe the earth and the universe was created in a week. I believe god has a different sense of time then we do. I also believe in evolution( its a proven fact it happens). I think some people take the bible to literal, the whole idea of how stuff was created in the bible maybe just metaphors. I think scientist are right about most stuff they find out about our world but at the same time I think god made it happen that way. I guess im kinda a Christian Science guy.

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]
I also believe in evolution( its a proven fact it happens)

[/ QUOTE ]

Its obvious you have done no research on the subject, and just take what you hear as fact. Especially from you're above questions.

What I would do is study the subject more. At least read the links we have, than pose some sincere questions.

[MaNofSteeL]

i dun mean to insult anyone..but everything in life doesnt make any sense..i duno how ppl even believe in god!..FAITH??...oh plz!! the universe is so **** big and we cant reach it~ we barely reched Mars..
like sm1 here said is an aweful waste of space if there's nobody out there!i believe in evolution and nature and SCIENCE and everything in science is the opposite of that in the bibble!!! dinosours n stuff..then meteor hit or wtever..n we were creted..AFTER millions of years!!! y did "God" wait so long? and the earth was created in 7 days??!! oh come on..all what is in the bibble are simply stuff to keep us under control!! and all the stories n stuff bout god! they're all stories with no meanin...
just imagine a world where ppl ddnt believe in smth!! CHAOS!! that's y there's the bible..so when sm1 asks a priest smth which he acnt answer he says "read the bible son"!!
the earth's origions and everything bout our creation is NOT known thats y the bible exists!
i duno if i made my point here.....just wanted to share my thoughts..

[AndrewWard]

But who started evolution?

[CheezitMan22]

[ QUOTE ]
AndrewWard said:
But who started evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean who started it?? It just happens... (plz oldschool and venom, dont rip me apart here /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif.we all have different opinions hehe, appreciate the lengths you go to to inform everyone about what you all think though /forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif)

I promised myself not to get into another one of these cause neither side can really prove to the other that their way of thought is right. I will state this, God did creat us I believe that. He may have used some type of evolution or not. I was not there. However he did creat us the earth the universe and the natural laws that govern us. That said for the creationist here, god is perfect yes? So if he is perfect how do you say that the dating systems based on radioactivity and how it breaks down ( which is goverened by natural laws he created) is wrong, in my eyes that is saying that god is wrong....just my 2 cents I am out of this...but I do know this...you may believe the bible word for word to be true, but when someone tells me this is the only way to believe and there is not other way, then I am not going to listen. Oh yeah one more thing, the jeahovah witnesses are not crazy, they believe just about what you all do just in a different way. their bible is the exact copy of the king jamse version only instead of god or lord they actually use his real name.......so if ya do not know about em dont knock em peace!

[Hacobo]

"I think there is other life out there. Just seems like a waste of space(lol) if their isnt "

^^Wasn't that a line from the movie Contact? That movie was pretty cool.

[Hacobo]

Maybe I'm reading wrong, but are you guys saying evolution doesn't exist?

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. That's true. I estimate that there are probably several hundred processes that one could use to get an idea of the age of the earth. Only a few dozen, at most, of these processes seem to give you billions of years. The other 90 per cent of those processes give you ages much less than billions of years. So it seems like it would be good science to go with the flow of the 90 per cent of the data, and use as a working hypothesis that the Earth really is young and then to try to find explanations for the other 10 per cent of the data.

That whole process seems to be a much more scientific approach than the one that is taken by evolutionists. Basically, they concentrate on the 10 per cent of the data, and that's the data you've always heard about. Such as the light travelling from distant galaxies and the radiometric dating techniques, and a few other things like that.



[/ QUOTE ]

Dr D. Russell Humphreys-Dr Russell Humphreys is a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Winner of several scientific awards, he is currently involved with the laboratory's particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research. This work involves advanced nuclear physics, both theoretical and experimental. He is also an adjunct professor of the Institute for Creation Research, and a board member of the Creation Research Society.

In my opinion it is the 90 percent that need to be falsified to show a old earth. Radiometric dating is flawed and based on many starting preassumptions, and does not convince me to ditch the 90 percent of evidences that point to a young earth.

But I understand their zeal. They need billions of years. No one has seen goo to you evolution. The only way to make it sound plausible is if it happened "long ago and far away".

How come bones in the dirt can do something animals can't do today? The answer is always, "Theres just not enough time involved!" Sorry I'm not buying that.

Time and death are the supernatural ingredients behind evolution.

Creationists don't believe that goo to you evolution is true. That would take millions of added information to create. WHere is the process of adding information?

There are actually several "types" of evolutionists each proving the other wrong, but that's a different post.

They basically all say though, as Darwin put it, "all plants and all animals throughout all time and space should be related to one another"

ie. man and banannas are "related" to each other and have a common ancestor to a rock.

We as creationists believe dogs produce a variety of dog, roses produce a variety of roses. This is sometimes called micro evolutoin, which should really just be called variation. We agree that happens. But evolution likes to go many steps back and say dogs and roses are "related". That is where the religion has begun. Dogs and roses are not "related".

We do not believe that dead matter defied the laws of biogeneisis and sprang to life from a rock, then death and time used their magic creative powers to create everything from nothing. And it's not true you are related to a sea slug and a slime mold. No. I don't think so. That is not a proven fact and it's not science, its a religion. No one has seen life come from non-life, no one has seen a dog produce a non-dog.

In my opinion telling me all animals and plants are related and they ultimately evolved from a rock is more superstitious than beliveing in God and Creation.

God made it clear. He created. He didn't need death, chaos, and blind random chance. Man's sin messed up creation. Man brought death. Death didnt' bring man. The bible is clear.

<font color="red">39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

</font>

[Hacobo]

Maybe you meant it as a joke, but who ever said plants and animals came from a "rock"?

[Adam Knowlden]

According to evolutionists, this is the best theory they have!

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s741512.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Life may have emerged from rocks

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the most comprehensive theory of the origin of life that exists at present," said Professor Malcolm Walter, a geologist and director of the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Sydney's Macquarie University.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's an untested theory and it's difficult to see how any tests could be done, but that's true of all theories of the origin of life," he told ABC Science Online.


[/ QUOTE ] /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Abiogenesis, ie the belief that the biological Law of biogenesis, stating life begats life, was defied and dead matter came to life.

It is the notion of spontaneous generation.

Or life evolved from dead matter.

This is a far cry from a scientific fact.

[sublime]

the theory in more depth (but still for a layman) is that the molecules and such came together in certain ways, adheded somehow and then each molecule already had certain properties so it did a certain kind of work. eventually it became a cell, and cells begat everything else.

or at least thats what I remember from AP Bio.

[superbilt]

ok just put it this way
say humans did evolve from monkeys somebody had to create the monkeys.
say the universe was formed from the big bang theory well obviously someone had to make that happen. anyway you look at it there has to be a creator.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
anyway you look at it there has to be a creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

For sure bro.

I have a great article from the New York Times I will show you guys tonight. This latest discovery actually has the big bang in a mess.

The "Methuselah planet" as they are calling it according to the big bang should not exist. It's formation takes place only a billion years away from the origin of the universe. Way too soon for stellar evolution to take place! I will show why later..

It's age defies stellar evolution via the big bang in every fesiable manner.

I will show why later. But the article shows that scientists have to rethink everything they know about the universe and planetary formation.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[CoLDTuRKeY]

We oughta do what OS did in the Women's Forum with Krypto's great posts (what happened to those anyway?)
Have a top with all our Bible arguments and make it a sticky in this forum.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[DissidentPuddle]

To my knowledge of recent genome mapping, I share 40% of my genes with a fresh water trout. Then theres the whole garden variety bush, who I also share at least 10% of my genes with. And then theres the fly. Can't quite remember the relation of my genes to that one. But I do in fact remember the trout, which I know for almost fact that I share 40% of my genes with. I see a strong relation there.........This is the difference between a trout, and me, 40%, I'd like to know the difference between man, and say an amoeba. An amoeba would, theoretically, have at least 80% of the genes we have, serving as a cellular model or so........I dunno....

[DissidentPuddle]

Oh yeah, I thought they had theorized that the universe is ~25 Billion years old...

[MaNofSteeL]

man m sure in like 50years everything will b clear and science will become the reference and NOT the bible! the only thing standing between this is the church!
y when science is on to something the church steps in "thats makes the bible look bad" and science steps back!
soon the world will see the truth..when the descoveries become so intense and amazing that science wont listen to the church!

[kingkaiser]

Manofsteel - unfortunately, due to previous actions by religious groups (think a few centuries back), a divide started between science and religion, that eventually has led to science being used to prove God isnt needed. Its interesting to look at the evolution from "God controls everything", to "God created and just troubleshoots", to "God just created", to "God...whats that?"
It is hard to kick off those 10% since those are the most widely held, and also because steady progress has been made towards the creation for decades now, with scientists now being able to determine what happened 0.000000000.......42 seconds after the bang (we cant even begin to imagine time that small really)..theories are proposed and seem to be validated rather frequently regarding the Big Bang. Yeah sometimes you have anomalies, but theres far more stacked up against a world thats just a few thousand years old to accept. I personally feel that we're just interpreting scripture too rigidly - God probably spoke in terms we could understand at the time of revelation - but with all religious issues, thats a matter of personal opinion. That having been said: "Proof" of anything is hard to find; just a lot of indicators towards an answer.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
soon the world will see the truth..when the descoveries become so intense and amazing that science wont listen to the church!

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is, there is no evidence for evolution now, but since you believe in it, there will be in the future? That's what they said at the scopes trial, and all the evidence presented then is now disregarded by all scientists. Evolution is a religion that one must have faith in.

This is not about religion vs. science. Its about religion vs. religion, as that is what evolutionism is

[ QUOTE ]
That having been said: "Proof" of anything is hard to find; just a lot of indicators towards an answer.



[/ QUOTE ]

Again, its the interpretation. It all comes down to Uniformitariunism vs. Catastrophism. There are plenty of dating methods that show a young earth, and countless to show the fallacies of radiometric dating. And there is no evidence for evolution at all.

[ QUOTE ]
. Its interesting to look at the evolution from "God controls everything", to "God created and just troubleshoots", to "God just created", to "God...whats that?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, its unfortunate to see year after year as new people try and explain life without God, the compromises of others. Fortunately, Gods word has not changed, though, as we see through the past century all mans theories have.

And yet Gods word can still be shown to be true. Life could not under any circumstances have come from dead matter, it is impossible, and in fact, it is a law. The Law of Biogenetics.

As far as what scientists know about the origin of the Universe Stevan Weinberg, the prominant Nuclear Physisist, and leading authority on the subject states

<font color="blue"> For there is a scientific problem even more fundamental than the origin of the universe. We want to know the origin of the rules that have governed the universe and everything in it. Physicists, or at least some of us, believe that there is a simple set of laws of nature, of which all our complicated present physical and chemical laws are just mathematical consequences. We do not know these underlying laws, but as an act of faith if you like, we expect that eventually we will.
</font>

Lets highlight this: but as an act of faith if you like , we expect that eventually we will.


Lets look at faith

Faith - belief in something for which there is no proof

There is no proof for life comming from non life, nor the origin of even laws, nor can science give an answer for the origin of stars. Weinberg has this to say about that

[ QUOTE ]
Among the most important relics are the structures we see in the sky: many stars are grouped into clusters, the clusters themselves along with loose stars like our sun are grouped into galaxies, and the galaxies themselves are grouped into clusters of galaxies. A second great disappointment of modern astrophysics has been that we still do not have a clear and detailed understanding of how these structures were formed. We do not even know whether the smaller structures formed first and then coalesced into the larger ones, or whether the larger structures formed first and then broke up into the smaller ones.

It is also a bit disturbing that all these estimates of the ages and compositions of the stars rest on elaborate calculations of what is going on inside them, but all that we observe is the light emitted from their surfaces.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
[ QUOTE ]
Hacobo said:
Maybe I'm reading wrong, but are you guys saying evolution doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Macroevolution does not exist. There is no arguement as to the existance of MICRO evolution and variation in the species. But if you look at the mechanisms behind macroevolution, they are all completely based on faith and not science. In fact, modern science points against macroevolution, even further confirming Creationist beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????
are you saying science is saying that macroevolution does not exist? what do you meen? thats what their whole reaserch is about, proving evolution...

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
duderoi said:
[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
[ QUOTE ]
Hacobo said:
Maybe I'm reading wrong, but are you guys saying evolution doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Macroevolution does not exist. There is no arguement as to the existance of MICRO evolution and variation in the species. But if you look at the mechanisms behind macroevolution, they are all completely based on faith and not science. In fact, modern science points against macroevolution, even further confirming Creationist beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????
are you saying science is saying that macroevolution does not exist? what do you meen? thats what their whole reaserch is about, proving evolution...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is addressed below

Click here for evidence of evolution in the fossil record! (http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/fossil_evidence.htm)


What do scientists have say about spontaneous generation? (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=558528&amp; Forum=bodybuilder&amp;Words=Cohen%2C%20Jon%2C&amp;Match=En tire%20Phrase&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=1week&amp;Main =557113&amp;Search=true#Post558528)

What Darwin actually observed, a lesson in microevolution. (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=519 987&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

The Fossil Record- No friend of evolution. (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=561882&amp; Forum=bodybuilder&amp;Words=fossil&amp;Match=Entire%20Phra se&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=1week&amp;Main=560610&amp;Sea rch=true#Post561882)

Lack of any evidence for intermediate Homidnoids (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=560585&amp; Forum=bodybuilder&amp;Words=fossil&amp;Match=Entire%20Phra se&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=1week&amp;Main=560561&amp;Sea rch=true#Post560585)

Mutations will never increased genetic information. (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=561 957&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)
Response to no evidence for information. (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=562 007&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

Richard Dawkins, the pope of evolutionism, cannot give an answer to the magic behind evolution. (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=562 019&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

Walking With Cavemen- When it comes to creating fairy tales documentaries, Discovery Channel takes the cake. (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=565798&amp; page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)
A Rebuttal Against Best Evidence for Macro Evolution. (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=566100&amp; Forum=All_Forums&amp;Words=information&amp;Match=Entire%20 Phrase&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=1week&amp;Main=566100 &amp;Search=true#Post566100)

thank you for the links....but even if i didnt know you, it would be very obvious they were writen from a christian point of view


http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&amp;r9408b.htm

http://www.seekfind.net/dinosaurs/evolution/Here_is_the_proof_of_evolution.html

http://newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio039.htm

http://www.geocities.com/c_piron/12.html


...sorry if one of those links is bad, i didnt have time to fully read every single one...

[President Wilson]

First off, those posts showed straight scientific journals, and stated what is seen, by those journals.

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

This article you posted states that the fossil evidence is complete.
In fact he says

[ QUOTE ]
Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming.

[/ QUOTE ]

He does not document this however, which is a common thread. he's wrong and scientists admit this to the case over and over again. In fact, the evolutionary theory states that all life descended from a single cell. Thus, the fossil record should show clear transitions from one " kind" of animal to the next. This however is not what is seen. In fact, the fossil record shows the complete opposite. Charles Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species, has this to say about the subject: " The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly 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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory( Darwin, OoS)."

The scientific journals, not written from a Christians state

<font color="blue"> "... in defending gradualism as a nearly universal tempo, Darwin had to use Lyell's most characteristic method of argument -- he had to reject literal appearance and common sense for an underlying "reality." (Contrary to popular myths, Darwin and Lyell were not the heroes of true science, defending objectivity against the theological fantasies of such "catastrophists" as Cuvier and Buckland. Catastrophists were as committed to science as any gradualist; in fact, they adopted the more "objective" view that one should believe what one sees and not interpolate missing bits of a gradual record into a literal tale of rapid change( Gould, EEP )." </font>

"... in defending gradualism as a nearly universal tempo, Darwin had to use Lyell's most characteristic method of argument -- he had to reject literal appearance and common sense for an underlying "reality." (Contrary to popular myths, Darwin and Lyell were not the heroes of true science, defending objectivity against the theological fantasies of such "catastrophists" as Cuvier and Buckland. Catastrophists were as committed to science as any gradualist; in fact, they adopted the more "objective" view that one should believe what one sees and not interpolate missing bits of a gradual record into a literal tale of rapid change( Gould, EEP )."
But why does Gould say that Darwin's scientific awareness was mythical, and that the Catastrophists were actually more scientific? Simply put, according to the prevailing view at the time, found in Genesis, the world was destroyed by a world wide flood. And, one would expect to see a massive and "abrupt( due to the sudden catastrophe of the flood )" fossil graveyard of animals of countless species found all over the world. One would not expect to see progressively, slow evolution. The anti-creationist Richard Dawkins, and a man who has clearly displayed his contempt for even mentioning God( i.e. "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)( Dawkins BR , 3 ), made an extremely revealing statement, in saying that in the Cambrian explosion " are the oldest( rocks ) in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them 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( R, Dawkins, TBWM, 229 )."
The Cambrian explosion, is a time in the fossil record, in which all major body plans jumped onto the seen. Below the Cambrian none of these body plans are found. This is why Gould stated that the catastrophists were more scientific then Darwin, because the Flood could easily explain such an explosion of fossils. While Gould disagrees with the flood as an explanation, he freely admits the following:
" The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed( EEP, 14 )."

Therefore, the fossil evidence does not support Darwinian evolution. And yet the textbooks show the fossil record as if it were fact( Campbell, 382 ). Gould addresses this by saying that, "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(IANTOEE, 13-14 ). How extreme, and complex were the organisms that sprang up in the fossil evidence during the Cambrian? Dr. Lewtin says that, " The body plans that evolved in the Cambrian by and large served as the blueprints for those seen today. Few new major body plans have appeared since that time. Just as all automobiles are fundamentally modeled after the first four-wheel vehicles, all the evolutionary changes since the Cambrian period have been mere variations on those basic themes (Lewton, AROADHW)." Indeed, it appears that the catastrophists were closer then the gradual evolutionists.
The fossil evidence is tremendously lacking. Evolutionist, after evolutionist attests to this. But if this is the case, then what does Gould and other famous scientists such as the esteemed Niles Eldridge believe? They theorize that evolution took place in leaps, and this explains why we cannot see it in the fossil evidence. Dr. Eldridge states that, "Evolution in living things is not a series of changes constantly taking place, but one that proceeds by fits and starts( 73 )." Stephan J. Gould and Eldrige call their theory Punctuated Equilibrium. But, are they following Darwins same pattern, and basing their theory on myth or evidence? Interestingly enough, Neo Darwinianists fight ferociously to defend their evolutionary theory, as do the Punciationists. It would seem, that arguments on both sides are compelling enough to have to drop both choices. On the P.E. theory, Dr. Alters makes the assertion that "By the same token, while many feel that punctuated equilibrium postulates how speciation occurs, its occurrence is not based on empirical evidence but on the apparent lack of evidence ( 337 )" One must therefore ask, is a lack of evidence, proof that macro evolution happened quickly, or that it did not happen at all?
Darwin once again sheds light on this by saying that, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." Indeed, many would concur that it is true science to agree with his conclusion on utter rejection.

Here are the references I referred to

Darwin, Charles. Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races


Gould J. S. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History,
vol. 86,

Dawkins, Richard. Book Review (of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edeys Blueprint),

R. Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker W.W. Norton &amp; Co, N.Y. 1987, p. 43

Campbell A. Neil, Reece B. Reece. Essentials of biology. Von Hoffman Press, Inc. 2001.

Gould, S. J. "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, 6(1), p. 120 May 1980

Lewontin, Richard. Review of The Demon-Haunted World, In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

Eldredge, Niles. Evolution Moves in Jumps, Science Digest, vol. 73 March

Alters, Brian J., and William F. McComas, Punctuated Equilibrium: the Missing Link in Evolution Education, American Biology Teacher, vol. 56 September 1994, pp. 334-340.



None of those journals is from a creationist point of view, but they state the facts, and the facts show the fossil evidence to be devoid of evidence

well ok, but what proof do you have of God created earth? if its not science, what is it? except the bible...i know that you can show me why science is wrong, but can you show me why the bible is right?

[President Wilson]

Once again, you offer no proof with this article

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&amp;r9408b.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

It discusses resistance but that is not a gain in information. The point is not resistance or a beneficial mutation. The point is does it increase information. Dr. Lee Spetnor, one of the most respected scientists in his field clearly states what you need to understand!

"in all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information ."

and he further states

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it "

You are failing to understand the difference between benefit and an increase.

In fact, Charles Darwin himself illustrated a beneficial mutation. on the Island of Madeira. The Beetle there had the previously contained information for wings. However, those whose wings degenerated, by what scientists now know as mutations actually survived because they were not blown out to sea. What conclusion can therefore be made? Simply that, a positive mutation is one, which allows a species to survive. But, this, as Dr. Spetner stated is clearly a " loss " of information, and does not explain how the wings got there in the first place, and certainly cannot explain how an organism can gain information. This, is therefore the opposite of information gaining, macro evolution( i.e. a new organ system or the development of the complex eye).

<font color="blue"> Bacterial Resistance </font>

Now let me illustrate why, bacterial resistance is not a gain of information. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germ's interior. Those germs which do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own executioner.

However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation) which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made poison. <font color="red"> Once again, we see that information has been lost/corrupted, not gained.
</font>

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
duderoi said:
well ok, but what proof do you have of God created earth? if its not science, what is it? except the bible...i know that you can show me why science is wrong, but can you show me why the bible is right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a workout right now friend, but I'll get back to you on this. I'm glad you are seeking answers

i meen do you really not believe that if an animal is at an enviorment which does not suit its needs, it will not change OVER TIME to fit to its enviorment, and to survive?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
We have provided substancial evidence refuting evolution. It is clear what we believe. The mechanisms behind macroevolution are simply nonexistant.

[ QUOTE ]
duderoi said:
i meen do you really not believe that if an animal is at an enviorment which does not suit its needs, it will not change OVER TIME to fit to its enviorment, and to survive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you telling me you believe that if a bear wants to live in the water it will transform itself (with the magic ingredient of time) into a whale? THAT is faith...

[/ QUOTE ]

non...not at all....its got nothing to do with "want" but if the bears enviorment was so changed that he HAD to learn to live in water i guess he could, but maybe not, thats pushing it...there is a difference in a birds beak getting bigger, and a mammal turning into a fish....

"Atheism kills, because without God there are no rules - anything goes" that is completely 100 percent NOT true. chinas main religion is atheism, and what? do they walk around murder everyone they see, yes they have a totally messed up government, but so what? people still have morals, and LOGIC which they use...what is every single murderer out there an atheist? quite the contrary, statistics show that most serial killers did believe in God....atheism does NOT effect a persons actions, ALL IT MEENS IS THAT A PERSON DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, I DONT AND WHAT? AM I MURDERING PEOPLE? NO! if i didnt tell you, and didnt post on posts like these, could you tell i didnt believe in god? NO you couldnt, because everyone is a person, hes religion does not have to effect him, only if they are extremely strict about it. do you actually go to sleep at night being scared of atheists? this is either way over my head, or i mis read something, because a person is a person, period! end of story! your are 1 in a thousand, 90% of christians dont even go to church, well they do once a year...i would rather not believe in something, and follow that, rather then believe in something, something that is , according to you, the most powerful thing in the universe, and not strictly follow and respect it.

in my book your religion does not determine your personality at all! i could not care less if you are christian, atheist, buddah, or jewish you are the same person to me, the only difference is that you have different holidays you "celebrate"... anyone who actually believes someone doesnt believe in god is "dangerous" should really get his head checked.

[Adam Knowlden]

Hey Dude

[ QUOTE ]
i meen do you really not believe that if an animal is at an enviorment which does not suit its needs, it will not change OVER TIME to fit to its enviorment, and to survive?


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you are referring to natural selection.

Yes animals can defenietly adapt to their environments. In fact creationists came up with the concept of natural selection. It's necessary in the catastrophism model.

For example:

Alaskan rabbits can interbreed with Minnesota rabbits. And Minnestoa rabbits can interbreed with Floridia rabbits. But Alaskan rabbits and Floridian rabbits can't interbreed. They have lost too much gentic information. They have adapted to totally new environments. Up north they have white thicker fur. In the south they have earth tone and thinner hair. They have adapted.

But stand back and look at it. It's still a rabbit. It's never going to turn into a non-rabbit. You can shuffle their genetic information for eternity and it's always going to be a rabbit.

The Kentucky Derby has spent millions upon millions interbreeding horses. Why not breed one with wings? The answer is the genetic information to breed wings is not in the genetic code of a horse. You can adapt it to all the environments you want to, breed it with as many varities of horses as you can and a horse is never going to sprout wings. I don't care what the environment is, or how you scramble the genetic information, a horse will always be a horse. A rose will always be a rose. Farmers breed corn by the hundreds. They have so many types they have to have complicated labeling systems. But no matter what kind of environment you grow the corn in(temperature, soil, chemicals, etc) it's always going to be corn. Same with cattle. Farmers have been breeding cattle for bigger and better cows. But there is limits in the code.

And it sounds rediciulous anyway! But that's exactly what they want you to believe happened to the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs evolved into birds!! I can't believe how they oversimplify things! Do you know what it would take to turn a dinosaur into a bird!!! /forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Let me help illustrate with this story...

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/squirrel1.jpg

There is nothing quite like the sight of an evolutionist squirming and tugging at his collar after being asked to explain how flight "evolved"! Like all tenets of mud-to-man evolution, you'll get plenty of "may have's", "could have's", and "uh's" but no facts or credible evidence. The reason is simple - there is no evidence of how this amazing mutational process occurred!1.

Presently the general consensus among evolutionists is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. This hypothesis has proven so weak, though, that it has recently come under serious scrutiny from within the secular evolutionist scientific community2. With the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis on the verge of extinction, what will our evolutionist story-tellers dream up next?

Well, maybe I can help. Let's use as an example a squirrel-like creature. This poor creature has found himself on the brink of starvation due to population stress and other factors. So what's a squirrel to do? Following is an account of the first flight of the great flying squirrel ancestor Willie Wright.

(indeed I have heard on more than one occasion the following argument from some of the more mentally challenged evolutionists!)

The fossil record certainly doesn't help the evolutionist's position. Considering the quantity of avian (bird) and especially bat fossils that have been unearthed, if evolution were true there should be hundreds of thousands of examples of transitional forms demonstrating a gradual limb-to-wing development over time. But there are none! Instead, birds and bats appear fully formed in the fossil record, as would be expected if creation were true. Indeed, the oldest fossil bat (called Icaronycteris by long-winded evolutionists) is supposedly 50 million years old, yet is indistinguishable from a modern bat! (see Glenn Jepson, Science 154:1333-1339, 1966). Additionally, both non-flying and flying insects are found in the fossil record, without a trace of intermediate insects in the process of obtaining the ability to fly. Why is it that evolutionists can come up with supposed ancestors, but never any of the intermediate steps? The answer is simple - evolution is a fairy tale!

"That fly sure looks tasty! Maybe if I too could fly, I could catch it and eat it, then I would be able to survive as a species!"

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/squirrel2.jpg

The beginning of a long line of evolutionary progress!...

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/squirrel3.jpg

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/squirrel4.jpg

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/squirrel5.jpg

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/squirrel6.jpg

Yet another evolutionist fantasy that just won't fly!

The whole idea that an arm could evolve into a wing is patently absurd, since the arm would become completely useless and a hindrance long before it could possibly become a functional wing. Even the leading evolutionist Stephen J. Gould recognizes evolution by gradual changes (neo-Darwinism) as a pipe-dream: "Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?"

1. Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, Vol 86, June-July 1977, pg 23.
Gould substitutes the fairy tale of neo-Darwinism with his own fairy tale, which he calls punctuated equilibrium - evolution in rapid bursts in isolated populations. Gould does this to accommodate 1) the half-a-wing problem, 2) the utter lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and most importantly 3) his atheistic world view. It is apropos that the evidence for Gould's fairy tale of punctuated equilibrium appears to be based on lack of evidence (in the fossil record)!

Here's another example.

The giraffe is an unusual animal that contains an interesting design mechanism. Did you know that a full grown giraffe's heart weighs over 24 pounds and pumps 16 gallons a minute? Because the giraffe's heart is much larger than his head, a series of special one-way, back-flow preventer valves are needed in the neck to regulate the flow of blood to the head, especially when the giraffe is bending down to get that much needed drink of water. Without these valves, the immense blood pressure coupled with gravity would make for one nasty headache and other such repercussions. Elastic blood vessels in the giraffe's head allow harboring of enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when bent in this position.

The creationist points out that this intricate design mechanism is, you guessed it, a design! The evolutionist will have you believe that this system evolved with time, that eventually a giraffe mutated merrily along until the valves properly formed in the neck and the elastic blood vessels sufficiently formed in the head (along with other details left out here).

If evolution is true, the struggle for the Giraffe to survive must have been one ugly sight! Let's take a look at one possible outcome...

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/girbac1.jpg

"Giraffe with a distressed look on his face, revealing the discomfort due to buildup of pressure on the brain! He's pretty thirsty, hopefully that mutating valve will hold out! "

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/girbak3.jpg

Oh well, better luck next time!

Wild imagination coupled with extravagant story-telling ability is exactly what the evolutionist must employ to explain how intricate, inter-dependent systems such as the Giraffe's capillary system can gradually evolve over time!

To say every living thing came about via mindless random processes requires a faith that far exceeds belief in a Supreme Creator. As the renown British physicist Lord Kelvin once wrote: "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words"

Creationists also point to the millions of symbiotic relationships in nature, that are an outright smack in the face to evolution.

Let's first start with the cleaner fish. This fish will swim into a shark's mouth and eat remnant food particles from the shark's teeth. The cleaner fish departs with a satisfied appetite, and the shark is happy because his teeth are cleaned in the process. The shark does not allow any other kinds of fish into its mouth without chomping down for a good lunch. Indeed, what other fish would dare attempt to swim into a shark's mouth! This type of relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Creationists point out that these relationships clearly represent a design that could not have occurred by chance. Evolutionists have a very difficult time explaining how these types of relationships could evolve with time.

Nevertheless, an evolutionist will somehow have us believe that the cleaner fish eventually figured out he could go in the shark's mouth, and the shark eventually figured out that he should let him so as to maintain proper dental hygiene. The following illustrations portray the likely repercussions of this ill-advised bravery.


http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/shark1.jpg

"A daring fish hoping this is that special time that the shark submits..."

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/shark2.jpg


Sorry Charlie, maybe next time!

Nobel Prize winner and evolutionist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi acknowledged that time, chance, and random mutations could never produce the numerous symbiotic relationships we see all around us (He went on to postulate an impersonal creative force, an "innate drive in living matter" in an attempt to make peace with his faith in evolution)1.

Let's face it, symbiosis clearly points to a Designer. The lengths an evolutionist must go to to explain away this one is beyond fairy tale!

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin


Perhaps the crown jewel of "just-so stories" dreamed up by evolutionists is the idea that mud-to-man evolution is driven by natural selection. Creationists have long pointed out the logical fallacies of this argument. First, natural selection can only work with pre-existing genes, so to expect this process alone to create new information is preposterous. Second, survival of the fittest describes the fittest as those who will leave the most offspring, so since we are left with only the most fit, natural selection as an explanation becomes a tautology.

A handful of evolutionists recognize the logical fallacies associated with natural selection as a driving force of evolution. But despite its obvious flaws, most evolutionists still unabashedly wave the magic wand of natural selection as the enabler of molecules-to-man evolution.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/img_118d864b.gif

The phenomenon of migration poses yet another huge hurdle for the evolutionist determined at all costs to not "allow a Divine Foot in the door"1. Encyclopedia Brittanica began its article on the evolution of migration in very appropriate fashion: "The origins of migration remain in the realm of pure conjecture".2 Of course this did not stop the evolutionist author of the article from doing what evolutionists do best: proceeding into the realm of pure conjecture (aka fairy tale)!3

Let's take a closer look at this phenomenon, in particular the migration of the Eastern Siberian Golden Plover.


http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/migration1.jpg

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/migration2.jpg

Maybe they had initial help from some intelligent, caring life form, perhaps aliens from outer space!

But what good are propeller hats without a good map, or perhaps a gyroscope, or even a decent compass?

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/migration3.jpg

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/migration4.jpg

Well, the alien transport is long gone, and now our fine feathered friends must endure fog, rain, and cold when they make their long and tiring journey. Surely they miss the days of old on that wonderful first class flight!

OK, so you aren't buying these "explanations". How does the Golden Plover really solve this fuel consumption problem?

Proceed for the answer!

Researchers showed in a 1970 study published in Science magazine that a flock of 25 birds in a V-formation can fly 70 percent farther than a single bird using the same amount of energy1. This more than compensates for the 500 mile shortfall of flying solo or out of formation. Flying in the V-formation provides the Golden Plovers an additional 1400 miles of flying range!

Since the lead position at the apex of the formation draws the brunt of the work, the birds share turns at the apex. Flying gets progressively easier the farther back you go in the formation, thus allowing accommodation for the weaker birds.

How can the evolutionist desperate for naturalistic explanations possibly account for the necessity of flying in a V-formation? This strategy must be well known and in place ahead of time before flying off to some far-away place, particularly a land destination as remote and precise as Hawaii. Making matters worse for the conjuring evolutionist is the fact that the parents leave well before their young, so the V-formation strategy is not taught to them but must have instead been pre-programmed in the Golden Plover's brain from the beginning. Moreover, there would be no selection pressure to migrate due to food shortages since there is plenty to eat in Alaska, nor would selection pressure due to the climate be an acceptable explanation because the birds leave long before winter sets in.

Finally, how does the evolutionist explain the amazingly precise flight plan that governs migratory animals over great distances? For example, the Monarch butterfly will migrate 3000 miles often to the same tree of their forefathers!

So in the end the evolutionists would want us to believe that the complex information required by the Golden Plovers to know how much to eat, how fast to fly, precisely where to fly to, and how to make the best use of its energy supply (via the V-formation), all came about by random mutation and blind selection! But common sense, and Information Theory, demands that this is impossible3. This complex cache of information programmed into the Golden Plovers could have only been established from the beginning by an Intelligent Source (aka The Creator).

Migration is yet another powerful example in a virtually endless list of examples from nature that provides overwhelming testimony of Creative Design. To believe it is the result of naturalistic process is to believe, as we say here, in a fairy tale!

<font color="red">
Job 39:26 Does the hawk fly by your wisdom, And spread its wings toward the south? </font>

great post oldschool!!!....thanks for the info i never looked at it from that angle !

[Adam Knowlden]

Anytime bro. Also know I'm not trying to mock you or your beliefs. Just show the holes in the theory.

I will also try to help show you the evidence for God either tonight or tomorrow.

alright thanks bro! and thats the thing though i dont exactly have a religion kind of like DaveB.....

[SirLiftsaLot]

And yet another person the Holy Ghost has on the ropes and is ready for saving!! Great work guys, it must feel good to see and feel jesus working through you like this. Duderoi, I am glad you are someone that doesn't fall easy prey to everything he hears, you looked at things objectively and with enough evidence or reasoning you came to a conclusion on your own, I really respect that. Thanks for the post guys. Keep it up.

[President Wilson]

Here is more info for you

-What the scientific journals say:

<font color="blue"> Thirdly, to obtain the age of formation of a rock or mineral, the material must have remained a closed chemical system since its formation, with neither gain nor loss of radioactive parent or daughter atoms or, in the case of complex decay chains, of intermediate members. Unfortunately, geological materials and environments do not often meet this requirement (Durrance 1986, p. 287) .
</font>

<font color="green"> The assumption that during the whole life of the rock volume being analyzed, neither the radioactive element nor its decay products have moved into or out of this volume is practically unlikely to be realized in nature at all or, if it is, it occurs only in exceptional cases. Therefore, differences (often essential) between data determining absolute age and geologic data are a usual phenomenon that surprises nobody; it has always been solved in favour of the latter. Ie. the absence of geological data, determination of absolute age often leads us into great errors (Skobelin et al. 1990, p. 25) .
</font>

<font color="brown"> It is widely believed that studies of lead isotopes in terrestrial samples provide a well-determined age of the Earth. We show this to be incorrect , even though a roughly accurate answer is sometimes obtained , but is not necessarily related at all to the formation of the Earth. Other widely-cited systems such as Rb-Sr, I-Xe, and Pu-Xe also do not date terrestrial accretion and/or core formation in any well-defined sense (Harper and Jacobsen 1996, pp. 1131-1132)
</font>

<font color="red"> Even in igneous rocks, discordant mineral dates are more often encountered than concordant dates (Durrance 1986, p. 296.
</font>

<font color="green"> 206PB/238 U, 207PB/238U, 207PB/206PB would agree, provided that there are no geologic complications such as xenocrysitic material in the sample. However , rarely do the calculated ages agree ( Stern et. al. 98 )</font>

<font color="blue"> When determined by several methods ( K-Ar, RB-Sr and fission track ) radimetric ages for coexisting minerals in metamorphic or igneous rock generally differ( Itaya and Takasugi 1988 p.281 ). </font>

<font color="green"> "The ratio of the lead isotopes in deposits deriving their lead from such rocks is, therefore, neither a measure of the age of the deposits nor the age of the sedimentary host rocks but is rather a function of the complex geochemical processes through which the lead may have passed( Boyle, R. W et al)."
</font>


"One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr in the literature( Brooks et al.p. 1093 )."

<font color="green"> "Much still remains to be learned of the interpretation of isotopic ages and the realization that the isotopic age is not necessarily the geologic age of a rock has led to an over-sceptical attitude by some field geologists( Brown et. al. p.137 )."
</font>

<font color="red"> "The Mississippian age for sample NS-45 cannot be correct because it is grossly inconsistent with the stratigraphic position of the lavas( Carmichael, C. M et al, p. 2813)."
</font>

<font color="green"> "The common occurrence of discordant results in isotopic geochronometry presents an intriguing and complicated problem. It has become obvious that many mineral samples used in age determinations have not been closed systems throughout their histories( Catanzaro et al p. 87 )" </font>

"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon( Hayatsu et al. )."


<font color="green"> "If all of the age-dating methods (rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead and potassium-argon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would be neat. But they haven't. The lead ages, for example, have been consistently older.

This led Leon T. Silver of the California Institute of Technology to study the temperatures at which lead volatilizes (vaporizes) and moves out of the lunar sample. Theoretically, this could happen on the moon and this volatilized lead would become parentless separated from its uranium parent. More lead (parentless lead added to the material) would yield older ages( Driscoll p 12 )."
</font>

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock.'


<font color="green"> "It is now well known that K-Ar ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant( Engels et. al p. 93 )."
</font>

references

Stern, R. A., and W. Bleeker. 1998. Age of the world's oldest rocks
refined using Canada's SHRIMP. Geoscience Canada 25(1):27-31.

Harper, C. T., ed. 1973. Geochronology. Benchmark Papers in GeolOgy .Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc.,
469

Brown, P. E., and J. A. Miller, Interpretation of Isotopic Ages in Orogenic Belts in Kent et al., "Time and Place in Orogeny," Geological Society of London Special, vol. 3

Skobelin, E. A., I. P. Sharapov, and A. F. Bugayov. 1990. Deliberations of state and ways ofPerestroika in geology (pp. 17-37),

Durrance, E. M. Radioactivity in Geology. Chister, England: Ellis Horwood Ltd., 441 p.

Hayatsu, A., "K-Ar Isochron Age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16 , pp. 973-975.


Itaya, T., and H. Takasugi. 1988. Muscovite K-Ar ages of the Sanbagawa schists, Japan, and argon depletion during cooling and deformation~Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 100:281-290.

Stansfield, William D., The Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan, ), 614 pp. Stansfield was at the University of California, Santa Barbara.


Engels, Joan C., "Effects of Sample Purity on Discordant Mineral Ages Found in K-Ar Dating," Journal of Geology, vol. 79 (September 1971), pp. 609-616.


Driscoll, Everly, 'Dating of Moon Samples: Pitfalls and Paradoxes,' Science News, vol. 101 ), pp. 12-14.


Carmichael, C. M., and H. C. Palmer, "Paleomagnetism of the Late Triassic North Mountain Basalt of Nova Scotia," Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 73 ,pp. 2811-2822.


Boyle, R. W., "Some Geochemical Considerations on Lead Isotope Dating of Lead Deposits," Economic Geology, vol. 54, no. 1 , pp. 130-135.

Brooks, C., D. E. James, and S. R. Hart, Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role in Young Continental Volcanism Science, vol. 193 pp. 1086-1094.

Catanzaro, E. J., and J. L. Kulp, "Discordant Zircons from the Little Belt (Montana), Beartooth (Montana) and Santa Catalina (Arizona) Mountains," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 28 , pp. 87-124.


Radiometric dating is all based on assumptions. Assumptions which have been shown false time in and time out. You have to assume no parent or daughter product has entered or left( assume a closed system ), you have to assume a constant decay rate. Each of these will be shown to be false assumptions, and all will be shown to be unknowable, and will be documented by a tremendous amount of scientific journals. It is a fact that this method, is continually shown to be innaccurate. It is also a fact that there are several other methods of dating which completely disagree with radioisotope methods. Below you will see why, this form of dating has failed miserably time in and time out.

1. A constant rate of decay can no longer be assumed. For example, Dr. Dudley states

[i]"The observed variations in the decay rates (changes in the half life) were produced by changes in pressure, temperature, chemical state, electric potential, stress of monomolecular layers, etc.

"The decay 'constant' is now considered to be a variable. The value is dependent on the energy state of the entire atom as the basic unit system, not just on the energy state of the atomic nucleus.

"Radioactivity is thus shown experimentally not to be, as described by Millikan, 'an unalterable property of the atom.' Half lives are NOT constant.
p 44


To show more on this, bb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the rhenium-osmium (187Re-187Os) system. (The Re-Os method is one of the isotopic 'clocks' used by uniformitarian geologists5 to supposedly date rocks.) The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of only 33 years.6 This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga = giga-annum = a billion (109) years).

Dr. Jueneman and Dr. Frederic B state in the journal of Industrial research that:

" There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man. "



scientific journal references

Bosch, F. et al., Observation of bound-state decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical Review Letters 77(26)51905193, 1996.

Dudley, H. C., "Is there an Ether?" Industrial Research (November 15, 1974), pp 41-46.


Kienle, P., Beta-decay experiments and astrophysical implications, in: Prantzos, N. and Harissopulus, S., Proceedings, Nuclei in the Cosmos, pp. 181-186, 1999.

Jueneman, Frederic B., Industrial Research and Development (June 1982), p. 21.


Huh et. al in the scientific journal Earth and Planetary Science, stated that the decay rate of 7Be depends on its chemical form. And he showed variations in decay on this.
And this was measured with the upmost precision. In other words science shows that variation in the half-life of 7Be does occur and the assumption that rates are constant is not correct.

Therefore you cannot know, the constant decay rate, because decay rates have been shown to vary.

In the scientific journal Earth and Planetary science

the discovery that radioactive dating can no longer be called quote - "clocklike" - prompted the journal Science to comment, 'Certainty, it seems, is on the wane.'

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171, 1999, pp. 235-328.

Science, October 29, 1999, pp. 882-883.

There are several variables. For example Webb et. al. in the scientific journal Physical Review, showed evidence from quazar spectra that in fact looks to indicate that the fine structure constant is different at large red shifts

Webb, J.K. V.V. Flaumbaum, C.W. Church, M.J. Drinwater, and J.D. Barrow, A search for time variation of th fine structure constant, Physical Review Letters, 82, 884-887, 1999

These new types of models show a way to have accelerated decay at and show when observed abundance taios of isotopes can be affected.

Dr. Russel Humpreys, nuclear Physisist, with over 20 published scientific journal articles has shown tremendous evidence for accelerated nuclear decay.

Here is a quote from him on the constansy of radio active decay

" I offer scientific evidence that atomic nuclei have decayed much faster in the past "

Here is what he states on the constants of radioactive decay

" To shatter that myth, let me point out a little-known fact: researchers have repeatedly changed nuclear decay rates in the laboratory.

For example, one survey of the scientific literature cites over two dozen experiments reporting changes in nuclear decay rates, changes caused by the chemical or physical environment of the decaying nuclei [Hahn, Born and Kim, 1976]. Such changes are not surprising to nuclear theorists, and the same survey reports over a score of studies predicting or explaining rate perturbations. More recent experiments give similar results [
Kerr, 1999].

Rate changes cited were between a few tenths of a percent to a few percent...several were greater than twenty percent. More recently, a researcher reported a change as high as forty percent [Reifenschweiler, ].

I will show below how observational data point strongly to accelerated decay in the recent past. "

He covers many evidences, here is an extremely powerful such evidence for rapid decay rates

" One of the strongest pieces of evidence for accelerated decay is the high retention of radiogeneic 4HE in zircons. These zircons, are embedded are embedded in crystals of biotite (black mica). In turn, the biotite is embedded in hot Precambrian basement granodiorite (granitic rock) below the Jemez volcanic caldera near Los Alamos, New Mexico. Radioisotopic (Pb-Pb) dating of zircons recovered from deep
boreholes in the formation give an age of "1.5 billion years" [Zartman, 1979].

The surprising thing is this: <font color="red"> although these zircons are tiny and were in hot rock, they have retained very large percentages of the 4He which the radioactive atoms in the zircons would have emitted by a-decay at nonnal rates </font> over the alleged 1.5 billion years. <font color="red"> This is surprising to evolutionists because, over a billion years, they would expect most of the He to escape such small zircons by diffusion </font> (He atoms wriggling through the crystal lattice ), especially at high temperatures.


Diffusion rates of radiogenic He through bare zircons, not embedded in other crystals, have been measured, as Figure 6 shows [Magomedov, 1970]. Those rates are too fast to retain the He for more than a few decades even at room temperatures...the real question is: how fast does He diffuse through biotite?

There are measurements of argon diffusion
in biotite[Grove and Harrison, 1996].

Like He, Ar is a noble gas which does not chemically bond to other atoms. Argon atoms are larger and heavier than He atoms, so we would expect He to diffuse though a given material faster than Ar. That is, we can scale diffusion rates in any given mineral from the size and mass of the diffusing atoms [Fortier and Gilletti,1989]. Argon and helium measurements on other materials support such scaling [Carrol, 1991].

From those data we can very roughly extrapolate the Ar-in-biotite data to He-in-biotite, getting a band of estimated He diffusion rates for biotite. We can then compare the scaled He-in-biotite rates to two simple models for the Jemez He retention:

.Evolution model-steady low-rate radioactive decay, He production, and He diffusion for 1.5 billion years at today's temperatures in the formation.

.Creation model-a short burst of high-rate radioactive decay and He production, followed by 6000 years of He diffusion at today's temperatures in the formation.

Next we can plug each of these models into the well-understood equations for diffusion [Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959, pp. 256-257]. The cavity diameters are 44 microns, to match the surface areas of the zircons. Then for each temperature, I calculate what diffusion coefficient in the biotite is necessary to get the observed percent He
retention in the zircons during the time allotted by each of the two models...The exciting thing about Figure 7 is this: the shaded band overlaps the Creation model and is far above the evolution model. That is, our estimates of what the experimental He-in-biotite rates should be are entirely consistent with a burst of accelerated nuclear decay only thousands of years ago. Moreover, the estimates exclude, by many orders of magnitude, the evolution model. That is, if the formation were really 1.5 billion years old, most of the He should have diffused out of the
zircons...Accelerated nuclear decay explains the above summary well"

He goes on

" Several other lines of evidence are in good accord with the He retention data, thus strengthening the case for accelerated decay. One of these is the scarcity of radiogenic 4He in the earth's atmosphere [Vardiman, 1990].
Even after accounting for the slow rate of escape of He from the atmosphere into space, there is far less He in the air than we would expect after billions of years of nuclear decay in the crust.

One simple calculation in the secular literature, which as has not been refuted in over four decades, indicates that the atmosphere contains less than 0.01% of the 4He evolutionists would expect after -5 billion years [ Cook, 1957]. It appears from Section 6 that much of the He has not had time to even leave the zircons where it originated, much less move up through the crust into the air. The scarcity of He in the atmosphere and
the excess of it in the zircons work together to support the case that large amounts of nuclear decay have occurred while only thousands of years have elapsed.

Studies of Pb diffusion from the Jemez zircons give similar results as the He diffusion study [Gentry et al., 1982a; Gentry, 1992, pp. 257-260, 340-352]. In particular, if we extend Gentry's diffusion calculation [ Gentry et al. , 1982a, p. 298, note 16] down to the deepest and hottest sample (313°C), we find at that temperature most of the
radiogenic Pb would diffuse out of a bare zircon of this small size in only a few hundred thousand years. Yet the deepest samples still retained essentially all their Pb. "

Other evidences for accelerated decay are the famous "orphan" Po radiohalos: 218PO,214PO, and 210pO radiohalos with no rings from any parent
isotopes [Gentry, 1992, pp. 36-31]. If the Po was not created instantaneously in solid rock, then according to one hypothesis, the orphan halos suggest drastic changes in nuclear decay rates [Humphreys, 1986].

There are several mechanisms which can effect decay. Even cosmic expansion may accelerate decay rates. And the Bible speaks of this countless times, such as

Zec 12:1 - Show Context
The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens

Isa 44:24 - Show Context
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isa 42:5 - Show Context
Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out;

And there are several events which would have accelerated nuclear decay in the Bible, such as creation itself, the fall and the flood. These events occuring would render any radio isotope dating completely. Peter even discusses strongly the use of decay


2 Peter 3


10 - " ..the elements shall melt with fervent heat, "

12 - " fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat..

This subject can be delved into much greater further on, but the point is, there are several lines of evidence for decay in scripture, and we now know that decay rates are not constant. The helium diffusion alone completely conflicts with the Uniformitariun view, which I will discuss shortly.


But Decay rate is only one problem that must be assumed. Again using secular assumptions.

1. You must also assume that the specimen dated has not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter.

2. When the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material

This is why dating methods give such screwed up dates. And, experimentally show to flat out not work!

Take a look at the Grand Canyon. By looking at it, the secular scientists know that the top of the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old. No one disagrees with that.

How accurate are the dating methods then?

The bottom of Grand Canyon is dated by evolutionary methodsat 1.07 billion years is the "rubidium-strontium isochron age" of the Cardenas Basalt, and is widely regarded by evolutionists as the best age obtained for lower Grand Canyon Rocks.

As stated, no one disagrees that the top is only a few thousand. What is it dated at? Using the same dating methods it is dated as being 1.34 billion years of age!

That means, that if you accept evolutionary dating methods that the top of Grand Canyon is Older then the bottom!

Thats the opposite of the evolutionary model.

Further, the top is accepted to be only a few thousand years of age. This is a massive, massive error.

And shows clearly the fallacies involved in radiometric dating

Do you realize, that all a rock has to get is one part in 10 million having an average concentration of potassium, to be argon, to get a radiometric date of over 570 million years of age!

And even less for 57 million. For that all you would need is one in 100 million for rocks in that vicinity.

And yet, you can cleary state a date as being 100 thousand years old. When dates are completely off for testable features.

Therefore, it isnt the evidence that creationists disagree with, its the interpretation.

Creationists do not despute the evidence. Its the interpretation that differs. However, several processes prove the earth to be young. And countless studies show radiometric dating to be extremely innacurate.

Let me give you an example. Mt Ngauruhoe has had several known lava flows. Look at the data

February 11, 1949 - It should be dated to obviously a recent date correct? It was dated to be 1 to 1.2 million years of age

another flow occured

June 4, 1954 - It was dated up to 1.5 million years old, and this just happened.

June 30, 1954 - It was dated up to 3.5 million years of age

July 14, 1954 - It was dated up to 1.2 million years of age

February 19, 1975 - Up to 1.2 million!


This is " Science " in other words, what we can test. The dating methods failed miserably. And by the way, creationists have several reasons as to why.

Namely Uniformitariunism Vs. Catastrophism.

I will post another post to show you how Uniformitariunism Vs. Catastrophism interprets evidence, and how the evidence supports the creation view

I would like to address just how tremendous the disagreements in dating actually are

The Hawkesbury Sandstone is assigned a Middle Triassic age of 230 million years of age. Fossil wood was found in here. Now, radiocarbon, should not even be measurable after 50, 000 years. This is near a quarter of a billion years! And dated by carbon dating. The analytical report from the laboratory measured that radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C age of 33,720 ± 430 years.

This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon However, a 33,720 ± 430 years BP radiocarbon emphatically conflicts with, the supposed evolutionary age; of 230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.

If dating works so great, how can an assigned date of a quarter billion years be so completely flawed?

It seems that long ;age believers are left with only three options:

1. Accept the radiocarbon date. This would mean that the age of the Upper Tertiary shrinks from 230 million to 33,000 years, a factor of around 600 times. The whole geologic dating system would be thrown into disrepute!

2. Arbitrarily reject the radiocarbon date. To be consistent, therefore, they would have to conclude that radiometric dates are not the absolute age indicators we are persistently told, which destroys the main plank in the old-age dogma to begin with.

3. Ignore the result.

The creationist however looks and sees

A. The error is so drastic that it is apparent that both dates are erroneous.

A fact, shown in such modern day lava dates, which show flows 50 years old as being millions of years old.

The point again, however is the assumption you begin with

Just closely look at the assumptions

A. The Two groups of scientists go into the same place and begin with two assumptions.

1. The secular group says - This Middle Triasic Period is near 250, 000 million years old. Since it is this old, we have no need of even using carbon dating, because it will yield no results.

Premise - Its impossible to find carbon on a quarter of a billion year old site.

2. The creationists goes to the same site and says. Heres wood. This was laid down in the flood. And it will have carbon in it, even though the carbon 14 to carbon 12 ratio was vastly different pre-flood. premise - It will have carbon based on assumption.

result - The creationsists finds carbon in the wood. And everytime this has been tried it has been successful. This goes perfectly with our pre-assumptions.

The flood model explains both of those dates clearly.

Going back to the assumptions. You have to assume that no exceess daughter product is present, and yet we know this is not the case. For example in the scientific Journal
Tegner et al states the following

Any component of 4°Ar, other than 4°Ar derived from atmosphere and radiogenic decay, <font color="red"> is termed excess argon</font> , <font color="green"> and is widely recognized in dated materials. Large plutons are particularly prone to contamination by excess 40 Ar </font> due to incomplete re-equilibration with atmosphere at the
time of crystallization and assimilation of radiogenic 40 Ar from the adjacent country rocks during hydrothermal alteration (Tegner et al. 1998. p. 79) . "

One of the limitations of the K-Ar method for dating minerals is their excess 4°Ar, which is responsible for the anomalously old age determined for these minerals (Morozova et al. 1997, p. 716).

Cumbest et al states

<font color="red"> A significant problem in K/ Ar isotopic dating is the siting of "excess" 40 Ar acquired by minerals from their environment (that is, 40 Ar not produced by radiogenicdecay within the mineral) (Cumbest et a/. 1994, p. 942).</font>

and in a further scientific journal Morozova et al states

<font color="blue"> K-Ar dating is based on the decay of potassium to 40 Ar .A major constraint is the possibility that a min-
eral may contain excess radiogenic argon, which results in anomalously high ages (Morozova et al. 1996,
p. 52) . </font>

It is difficult to imagine how so-called excess argon could be described in terms of such things as "widely recognized," "particularly prone to contamination," "a limitation of the K- Ar method," "a significant problem," if it were infrequent in occurrence and/or just some kind of easily-recognized nuisance. Furthermore, other researchers are more forthright. Australian geochronologists McDougall and Harrison ( 1988, p. 11) consider it "not uncommon." Elsewhere, here is what scientific journals have to say about excess argon:


<font color="red"> Potassium-argon ages much greater than are geologically plausible often are observed, and in some cases they are older than the age of the earth
(McDougall and Harrison 1988, p. 106) . </font>

Dr. Austin ( 1996) provides many examples, from the literature and from direct dating of recent Mount (I love Jesus!). Helens volcanic rock, of the commonality of excess argon. Other authors affirm the fact that excess argon is not at all a rare phenomenon.

This is notably the case for some of the commonly-used minerals in K-Ar dating, such as hornblende and biotite, for example Mcdowel in another scientific journal states


<font color="green"> Indeed, the presence of excess argon in amphiboles appears to be much more common than previously suspected (McDougall and Harrison 1988, p. 28) .

</font>

again, Dr. Hyodo states

<font color="green"> There have been numerous cases reporting the presence of excess argon in biotite. ..(Hyodo and York 1993) .
</font>


and again, scientifically documented

<font color="green"> Where present, this excess Ar yields an anomalously old age and, in certain environments, is a common phenomenon in minerals, especially biotite(Smith et a1. 1994b, p. 808).
</font>

Clearly, it is a fact, that it( excess ) commonly occurs in igneous rocks over large geographic area.

For instance, a swarm of dikes in western Arizona yielded "too old" K-Ar results as a rule (Nakata 1991, p. 25).

The same phenomenon is characteristic of the 1 x 2 quadrangle ofwest-central Colorado:

again I'll site a scientific journal


<font color="green"> Nevertheless, many Proterozoic and Tertiary rocks have produced paleozoic and Mesozoic dates. For the Tertiary rocks, all of which are plutonic, the abnormally old K-AT dates probably can be attributed to excess argon (Wallace 1995, p. 6).
</font>

Likewise, excess argon is common in the Kola Peninsula of Russia's Far East (Ivanenko and Karpenko 1988). Several analytic techniques have been alleged to independently detect the presence of excess argon (e. g., K-Ar isochrons, potassium- vs. -age plots, and 4OAT/39AT spectra). And the explanations do not match up, as the following scientific journal attests

<font color="green"> Also in most cases the explanation for the excess argon is given without any real proof, while the identification is usually based either on comparing the
results with the precisely established geological age or by comparison with other isotopic methods (Rublev 1985, p. 73). </font>

A rather obvious example of this is the following:

<font color="green"> The K-AT ages of homblende and biotites from these rocks are, with two exceptions, older than crystallization ages and the explanation for this must be excess
argon. It is difficult to ascribe any significance to the dates because of this (Hunt and Roddick 1992, p. 217).
</font>

Currently, uniformitarians are unsure whether to blame <font color="red"> "excess argon" on K-decay in the mantle, or on an external source (phillips et at. 1998).
</font>

references

Tegner, C, et. al. 1998 Ar-Ar. geocrhonology of Tertiary mafic intrusions along the east green land rifted margin. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 156:75-88

Morozova, I,M. et al 1997, Radiogenic argon as an indicator of the inheritence of materials during glauconite transformation. Geochemistry International 716-723

Cumbest, R.J.E.L. Johnson, and TC Onstott. Argon composition of metamorphic fluids: Implications for Ar Ar geocronology.. Geological Society of Americal Bulliton

Morozova, IM et al 1996. Inhertience of radiogeneic argon by newly formed minerals during glauconite transformation. Transactions of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Earth Science sections 344, 52-57

Mcdowel F,W. 1983 K-Ar dating: Incomplete extraction of radiogenic argon from alkali feldspar. Chemical Geology 119-126

Austin, S.A. and A.A. Snelling Disscordant potasium argon model and isocrom ages for Cardenas Basalt middle Proterozoic and associated diabase of easter Grand Canyon.

Hyado H, and D. York, 1993. The discovery and significance of a fossilized radiogenic argon wave in the earths crust. Geopphysical Research Letters 20, 61-4

Smith, P.E. et al. 1994n Cretaceous Park: Ar ages from Mesozoic lacustrine basins, northeast Chrina p 297, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 31:808-817

Nakata, J.K. 1991, K-Ar and fission track ages, of volcanic intrusive, altered, and metamorphic rocks in the Mohave Mountains area, Isochron/West 57:21-27

Wallace, Ar 1995, Isotopic geocrhonogy of the Leadille quadrangle, west central Colorado. Geological Survey 2104, p 51

Ivanenko, V, and MI Karpenko, Ar dta on excess argon 40 in nepheline from Kovdor Massif, Kila Peninsula. Gochemistry International. 77-82

Phillips, D. et al. 1998 A petrographic and Ar geocrhonological study of the Voorspoed Kimberlite, South African Journal of Geology 299-306

I can go on and on, on how the assumptions have been shown to be wrong in all cases. I can show countless other scientfic journals which show these assumptions to be wrong. Here are a few more


<font color="green"> The assumption that during the whole life of the rock volume being analyzed, neither the radioactive element nor its decay products have moved into or out of this volume is practically unlikely to be realized in nature at all or, if it is, it occurs only in exceptional cases. Therefore, differences (often essential) between data determining absolute age and geologic data are a usual phenomenon that surprises nobody; it has always been solved in favour of the latter. Ie. the absence of geological data, determination of absolute age often leads us into great errors (Skobelin et al. 1990, p. 25) . </font>

and another scientfic journal

<font color="red"> As research progressed and data accumulated, it became apparent that many minerals and rocks presented problems with either trapping large amounts
of 40 Ar at the time of crystallization, or radiogenic 40 Ar loss during slow cooling (Bowring 1998,
p. 39).

</font>

There is no question about the fact that accurate age-determining results are clearly in the minority:

<font color="red"> Because of the sensitivity to moderately elevated temperatures, apatite fission-track ages only rarely give a reliable measure of the age of formation of
their host rock (Gleadow et al. 1986, p. 405) .
</font>

The below shows why radiometric dates should be rejected, as it is clear that the systems have been clearly open!


<font color="blue"> Most, if not all, isotopic systems of Paleozoic age have been open , to one degree or another, for some period of time since their formation (Kunk and Sutter
1984, po 13). This latter statement, of course, is a tacit use of the CDMBN </font>

That eliminates all accuracy!

Now Consider the use of isotopic dating methods, on Late Paleozoic and Early Mesozoic lavas, for the purpose of time-scale calibration:

<font color="red"> " problems of alteration or loss of radiogenic daughter products, which are so common in otherwise suitable lava horizons. o o (Forster and Warrington 1985, po 109).

</font>

The K-Ar method, at least, fares no better:


<font color="blue"> Secondly, the potassium argon method is complicated by the possibility if not likelihood of argon loss (Hallam et al. 1985, po 118) .
</font>

and again!

<font color="green"> In the Japanese Islands, it is not rare for Quaternary and especially Tertiary volcanic rocks that their K-Ar date are not consistent with the stratigraphical relation because of some disturbances in the K-Ar system (Ebihara et al. 1989, po 149) .
</font>

But surely, many apologists for isotopic-dating have claimed, even if K-Ar dates are prone to open-system behavior, Rb-Sr ones are nonetheless certainly reliable. Think again:

<font color="blue"> The evidence for open-system Rb-Sr systematics in numerous environments has now discredited the Rb-Sr isochron method as a dating tool for igneous crystallization (Dickin 1997, po 53). </font>

and again

<font color="green"> " The U-Pb and Rb-Sr systems are known to be highly susceptible to resetting by hydrothermal, diagenetic and metamorphic processes (Toulkeridis etal. 1998, p. 138) . </font>


That is just a taste of what is stated in the scientific journals. And I will add more to show the point of the impossibility of the assumptions, and how they continually are shown false

<font color="red"> Many glauconite dates do have inherent analytical and geochemical problems, but so do most high temperature dates. We find it regrettable that, whereas low-temperature dates have been criticized widely, often for good reasons, very little is said about equally significant problems with high-temperature dates (Haq et al. 1988, pp. 601-602) . </font>


There is no escaping the fact that inferred closed-system behavior, as deduced a posteriori from the dating results of all methods, is the exception and not the rule, as this scientific journal attests:

<font color="green"> Thirdly, to obtain the age of formation of a rock or mineral, the material must have remained a closed chemical system since its formation, with neither gain
nor loss of radioactive parent or daughter atoms or, in the case of complex decay chains, of intermediate members. Unfortunately, geological materials and
environments do not often meet this requirement (Durrance 1986, p. 287) . </font>


look at this journals conclusions

<font color="green"> Many studies have demonstrated that the apparent K-Ar ages of biotites in crystalline rocks of orogenic terranes commonly are younger than the true ages of metamorphism or pluton emplacement. ..a considerable interval may separate the time of emplacement (or metamorphism) from the time of Ar retention in the minerals. ..(Criss et al. 1982, p. 7029).
</font>

and again

Intrusives are prone to slow cooling after emplacement, and may undergo later thermal metamorphism yet show little evidence of that overprint. Incipient weathering may go unrecognized (Harland 1- et al. 1990, p. 75) .

This is a clear addmission that "too young" results are very common, if not usual! Most definitely, they cannot be explained away as a tiny number of malfunctioning watches.

What about lavas? Here we have unequivocal evidence that the majority of K-Ar dates, as currently interpreted by uniformitarians themselves, do not give the correct age of
lava flow. This is particularly evident from K-Ar datings flood basalts. Typically, the results have "smeared" over hundreds of millions of years

This shows that most of the previously-believe K-Ar dates were not reliable. For example in a scientific journal:

<font color="green"> " Precise dating of flood basalt eruptions is often a difficult task. Paleontological control is usually weak, because the types of fossils usually associated with lava flows ( e. g., plant material) do not give precise zonal ages. Radiometric dating is also difficult because the small grain size oflavas usually precludes the separation of K-or Rb-rich phases for precise K/ Ar dates, which are notoriously susceptible to argon
loss, and in the Thulean Province may be further complicated by inherited argon. In this situation, many conventional K/ Ar dates are needed to provide a consensus of results so that samples displaying high or lowages (corresponding to inherited argon and ar-
gon loss respectively) can be rejected (Dickin 1988, p. Ill) . </font>

That is the truth, and here is just how bad it is!

<font color="green"> Only a few of the potassium-argon ages obtained may approach emplacement ages; most reflect a complex postintrusive thermal history that affected the
entire region sampled (Miller and Morton 1980, p. 2).

Furthermore, this geographic area of discrepantly-young K-
Ar dates is probably much larger than previously supposed
(Miller and Morton 1980, p. 19).
</font>

references

Skobelin, E. A., I. P. Sharapov, and A. F. Bugayov. 1990. Delibera-
tions of state and ways ofPerestroika in geology (pp. 17-37),

Bowring, S. A. 1998. Geochronology comes of age. Geotimes
43(11):36-40.

Gleadow, A. J. W., et al. 1986. Confined fission track lengths in apatite: a diagnostic tool for thermal history analysis. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 94:405-415.

Kunk, M. J., and J. F. Sutter. 1984. 4°Arf39Ar age spectrum dating of
biotite from Middle Ordovician bentonites--eastern North America
(pp. 11-22), in D. L. Bruton, ed., Aspects of the Ordovician System.


Forster, S. C., and G. Warrington. 1985. Geochronology of the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic (pp. 99-113

Hallam, A., et al. 1985. Jurassic to Paleocene: Part I. (pp. 118-140),

Ebihara, M., T.ltaya, and S. Nonura. 1989. Chemical compositions
and K-Ar ages of Pliocene volcanic rocks along Aimagawa river,
western Gunma, central Japan. Geochemica/ Journa/ (of Japan)
23:149-160.


Dickin, A. P. 1997. Radiogenic Isotope Ge%gy (updated paper-
back edition). U. K., New York: Cambridge University Press.


Toulkeridis, T., et al. 1998. Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and Pb-Pb dating of si-
licic carbonates from the early Archaean Barberton Greenstone Belt,
South Africa. Precambrian Research 92: 129-144.


Haq, 8. U., J. Hardenbol, andP. R. Vail. 1988. Response to Gradstein
et al. Science 241:601~602.


Durrance, E. M. 1986. Radioactivity in Ge%gy. Chister, England:
Ellis Horwood Ltd., 441 p.


Criss, R. E., M. A. Lanphere, and H. P. Taylor. 1982. Effects of
regional uplift, deformation, and meteoric-hydrothermal meta-
morphism on K-Ar ages of biotites in the southern half of the Idaho


Harland, W. 8., et al. 1990. A geologic time scale 1989. Cambridge,
New York: Cambridge University Press, 263 p.


Dickin, A. P. 1988. The North Atlantic Tertiary Province (pp. 111-
149), in I. D. MacDougall, ed., Continenta/ F/ood Basa/ts, The Neth-
erlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 341 p.

Countless dates disagree, and support creation science, such as the carbon date above. I can list countless examples here, I'll list a few for you

note: recall from above, that after 50, 000 years radiocarbon would be undetectable! Therefore if you find wood in something that is a million years of age, it should not date via carbon. As shown above, creationists have found countless examples of carbon being datable in so called millions of years old stata. So if you find carbon in these dates, it completely shows that they must be young, and that the dating is clearly wrong

Upper Tertiary geological system is held to be 20 million years of age by evolutionists. Dr. Hansruedi Stutz
took wood from the area. The result, is that the wood was thousands of years old and not millions! This discovery, that the 14C in the wood has not yet had time to disintegrate, is in line with what one would expect, based on the true history of the world given in the Bible by the One who made all, and Who alone is infinite in knowledge, wisdom and power.

Jurrasic Strata which is alleged to be 205.7 million years was tested, using carbon dating on wood. There is no way in the world that any trace would be left. Three samples of fossil wood were collected from the south wall of Hornton Quarries, one from immediately adjacent to the belemnite fossil during the first visit, and two from locations nearby during the second visit. Pieces of all three samples were sent for radiocarbon (14C) analyses to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), while as a cross-check, a piece of the first sample was also sent to the Antares Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Lucas Heights near Sydney (Australia). Both laboratories are reputable and internationally recognised, the former a commercial laboratory and the latter a major research laboratory.

The staff at these laboratories were not told exactly where the samples came from, or their supposed evolutionary age, to ensure that there would be no resultant bias.

Both laboratories used the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique for radiocarbon analyses, recognised as producing reliable results even on samples with minute quantities of carbon.

The results

The radiocarbon (14C) results are listed in Table 1. Obviously, there was detectable radiocarbon in all the fossil wood samples, the calculated 14C 'ages'ranging from 20,700 ± 1,200 to 28,820 ± 350 years BP (Before Present).

Quite obviously this radiocarbon 'age' is drastically short of the 'age' of 189 million years for the index fossils found with the fossil wood, and thus for the host rock.

the radiocarbon 'dating' of the fossil wood has emphatically demonstrated the complete failure of the evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions underpinning geological 'dating'


On the other hand, these results are totally consistent with the details of the recent global Genesis Flood, as recorded in the Creator's Word the Bible.

Those are just samples, of how badly the errors are.

Aside from all this, and the showing of the fact that radiometric dating is obviously innacurate, there are several other dating methods, the majority of which show the earth is far too young for evolution.

Dr. Russel Humpries covers this briefly

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
The Earth is Not Millions of Years Old
Evidence For a Young World
Dr. D Russel Humphreys

A dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. This booklet makes a great witnessing tool.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1

Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this the winding-up dilemma
which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ;winding-up dilemma also applies to other galaxies.

For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called density waves1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescopes discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the Whirlpoolgalaxy,

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.3

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical Oort cloud well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the Kuiper Belta disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]

3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.5 This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.6

The main way known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. 6 As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.

4. Not enough sodium in the sea
Every year, river7 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.8,9 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at todays input and output rates.9 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.9 Calculations10 for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean. [See also Salty seas: Evidence for a young Earth.]

5. The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast
The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.11 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.

A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.12 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.13 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.14 [See also The Earth's magnetic field: Evidence that the Earth is young.]

6. Many strata are too tightly bent
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.15

7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ages
Strong geologic evidence16 exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone formed an alleged 500 million years ago of the Ute Pass fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time scale.

8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ages to a few years Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.17 Squashed Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.18 Orphan Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.19,20

9. Helium in the wrong places
All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earths atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years.21 This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.22 [See also Blowing Old-Earth Belief Away: Helium gives evidence that the Earth is young.]

10. Not enough stone age skeletons
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.23 By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies.24 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

11. Agriculture is too recent
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.23 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all.24

12. History is too short
According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.25 Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.24

Another fallacy preached is how long processes take, such as coal

Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150°C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.

Organic Geochemistry 6:463-471, 1984.

Despite the common teaching that it takes millions of years to form opal, Australian researcher Len Cram has long been growing opal in his backyard laboratory. His opal (photo right, by Dr Cram) is indistinguishable, under the electron microscope, from that mined in the field. He was awarded an honorary doctorate (by a secular university) for this research. All he does is mix together the right common chemicals no heat, no pressure, and definitely no millions of years.


Rock and fossil formation -

Scientists have long known that petrifaction can happen quickly. The petrified bowler hat (above right, by Renton Maclachlan) is on display in a mining museum in New Zealand. The photo (above left) shows a roll of no. 8 fencing wire which, in only 20 years, became encased in solid sandstone, containing hundreds of fossil shells. Petrified wood can also form quickly under the right conditions one process has even been patented.5

The famous multiple levels of fossil forests in America's Yellowstone National Park (photo right, by Clyde Webster) have now been shown to have formed in one volcanic event.6 Successive mudflows transported upright trees (minus most of their roots and branches) whose tree-ring signatures confirm that they grew at the one time.


Aside from all this, we now know that layers can form rapidly! This layer below was formed in a matter of hours, and the layers are not ages!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/112cli%7E1.jpg

Polystrate fossils prove that many layers were deposited all at the same time,and are not different ages

http://www.drdino.com/img/04apt7PolyStrataTrees-new-73.jpg

Common sense says, that when trees, are running through multiple layers, that they cannot be different ages!


Fritz, William J., Stumps Transported and Deposited Upright by Mount (I love Jesus!). Helens Mud FlowsGeology, vol. 8 (December 1980), pp. 586-588.
p 586

"During several visits to Mount (I love Jesus!). Helens, Washington, from July to September 1980, I observed numerous stumps that had been deposited upright after being transported many kilometres by streams and mudflows resulting from the May 18, 1980, eruption. These observations support the conclusion that mud flows and streams of the same variety transported and deposited stumps that are preserved in a vertical position in the Eocene Lamar River Formation."
p 588

"Deposits of recent mud flows on Mount (I love Jesus!). Helens demonstrate conclusively that stumps can be transported and deposited upright. These observations support conclusions that some vertical trees in the Yellowstone fossil forests were transported in a geologic situation directly comparable to that of Mount (I love Jesus!). Helens."

There is quite a bit more young earth evidence.
For example, as stated the continents are erroding too fast. Look at this scientific journal explain this

"The Disappearing U.S., " Scientific American, vol. 211 ,p. 58.

"The question of how fast the U.S. land mass is being washed into the sea has been given a new answer by two Princeton University geologists, Sheldon Judson and Dale F. Ritter. They calculate that solid and dissolved material carried by the rivers of the U.S. is sufficient to lower the average land surface by 2.4 inches in 1,000 years, a rate about twice as high as previous estimates.

"To reach this conclusion, reported in Journal of Geophysical Research [vol. 72, April 15, 1967, pp. 3395-3401], Judson and Ritter examined the annual records of suspended sediment in the country's major rivers compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Army Corps of Engineers. The highest erosion rate, 6.5 inches per 1,000 years, is found in the Colorado River basin. The next highest rate, 3.6 inches, is recorded for the rivers draining California. The largest river basin, that of the Mississippi, is eroding at the rate of two inches per 1,000 years. The lowest rate is for the Columbia River basin, 1.5 inches.

"The authors conclude: Taking the average height of the United States above sea level as 2,300 feet and assuming that the rates of erosion reported here are representative, we find that it would take 11 to 12 million years to move to the oceans a volume equivalent to that of the United States lying above sea level. At this rate there has been enough time since the Cretaceous to destroy such a landmass six times."

The truth however is that it is based on interpretations. This scientific journal concludes best by stating

Engel, A. E. J., "Time and the Earth," American Scientist, vol. 57 , pp. 458-483.


<font color="blue"> "No more than one percent or so of the history of the earth is decipherable. But that one percent is dispersed through a series of events, or episodes, extending back through geologic time. By imaginative manipulation of the evolving data we can reconstruct a magnificent and awesome history of the earth and its life."
</font> p 462


and that

"We will speculate a lot about the first aeon or more of earth's history in the next few years; but in the foreseeable future it will be mostly speculation essentially geopoetry."p 463

[Venom]

Awesome post President!

[SirLiftsaLot]

ditto to that!!

[MaNofSteeL]

first of all...all ur posts r smth which u looked up..and have references..thats cool but wt DO U THINK?!!
"Everything that has a beginning has a cause?!" wt the heck does that mean?..the universe was created and there was a cause? wt cause? who created god?..wt?.. he somehow was created and then simply decided to create humanity?! and even go into more trouble to creating the universe? y?..to show his mighty powers?..u say FAITH?! m srry but i dun ave FAITH! there's absolutely nothing that can make me have faith! ppl live their lives with a big lie! the existance of a higher power...where's that power??! ppl die everyday..a mother accidentally drops her child and he dies? wts the "CAUSE" OF THAT?! i believe in evolution..that doesnt mean i believe in god! ppl pray and pray..DONT get their prayers answered and they keep praying?! is that FAITH?!..if god was to appear in front of me now i still wont believe in him bcs i duno where he came from and Y did he create such a flawed race!!..the bible is just a book..with stories in it..with no proof of them wtsoever but the church which backs them up by letting us believe they were true so we WONT BE LOST!

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
first of all...all ur posts r smth which u looked up..and have references..thats cool but wt DO U THINK?!!


[/ QUOTE ]

Scientists gather all the research and draw conclusions. To do the opposite is exactly what you claim to not possess, using faith instead of reason.

[ QUOTE ]
who created god?..wt?..

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a nonsensical question. God is eternal. He never had a beginning. He was not created nor did he come from anywhere. He always was.

[ QUOTE ]
m srry but i dun ave FAITH! there's absolutely nothing that can make me have faith! ppl live their lives with a big lie! the existance of a higher power...where's that power??! ppl die everyday..a mother accidentally drops her child and he dies? wts the "CAUSE" OF THAT?! i believe in evolution..that doesnt mean i believe in god! ppl pray and pray..DONT get their prayers answered and they keep praying?! is that FAITH?!..if god was to appear in front of me now i still wont believe in him bcs i duno where he came from and Y did he create such a flawed race!!..the bible is just a book..with stories in it..with no proof of them wtsoever but the church which backs them up by letting us believe they were true so we WONT BE LOST!

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> He said to me, "Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you." 2 As he spoke, the Spirit came into me and raised me to my feet, and I heard him speaking to me.
3 He said: " Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against me to this very day. 4 The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says.' 5 And whether they listen or fail to listen-for they are a rebellious house-they will know that a prophet has been among them . 6 And you, son of man, do not be afraid of them or their words. Do not be afraid, though briers and thorns are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious house. 7 You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. 8 But you, son of man, listen to what I say to you. Do not rebel like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you."
9 Then I looked, and I saw a hand stretched out to me. In it was a scroll, 10 which he unrolled before me. On both sides of it were written words of lament and mourning and woe.



</font>

"That is a nonsensical question. God is eternal. He never had a beginning. He was not created nor did he come from anywhere. He always was."

well see that doesnt make any sence...you guys even said "everything had to start from something" well...? something cant just "be" there, if he was "just there" always wouldnt the universe be thousands of billions years old? cause he would make it earlier. plus why would he only make life on earth then? when scientists had said they have been close to finding very beggining of life on other planets. and why would it take him 7 days to make earth, if hes so powerful and mighty it should of been made in a split second.

[Tuf]

[ QUOTE ]
duderoi said:
"That is a nonsensical question. God is eternal. He never had a beginning. He was not created nor did he come from anywhere. He always was."

well see that doesnt make any sence...you guys even said "everything had to start from something" well...? something cant just "be" there, if he was "just there" always wouldnt the universe be thousands of billions years old? cause he would make it earlier. plus why would he only make life on earth then? when scientists had said they have been close to finding very beggining of life on other planets. and why would it take him 7 days to make earth, if hes so powerful and mighty it should of been made in a split second.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you seek to answer where God comes from, you are trying to relate what can't be related adequately in physical terms. The restrictions of our physical existence can't be applied to the limitless spiritual plane that is God.

Our finite minds can't grasp the concept of eternity--we are not even able to fully comprehend the physical universe, let alone spiritual existence. There is nothing in our experience that prepares us to fully understand this.

<font color="red">Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Psalm 93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. </font>

<font color="red">Isaiah 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
</font>
One of God’s names in Hebrew is Yahweh, which means "the Eternal" (Genesis 21:33). He is not bound by the laws of time and space as we are--He was already there in the beginning. /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif

yeah but when was the beggining? what was it?

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah but when was the beggining? what was it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"If God created the universe, then who created God?' But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question 'Who created God?' is illogical, just like 'To whom is the bachelor married?'

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask, 'If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?' The following reasoning stands up to scrutiny:

Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
(Actually, the word ‘cause’ has several different meanings in philosophy. But here the word refers to the efficient cause, the chief agent causing something to be made.)

The universe has a beginning.

Therefore the universe has a cause.

It is important to stress the words 'which has a beginning.' The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so does not need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space at the beginning of the universe. 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 He has no beginning in time. Therefore He does not have, or need to have, a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics(Thermo means heat and dynamic means energy- so thermo dynamics are the laws of heat energy) , 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 in the universe available for work is running down, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.(Entropy is a measure of disorder, or of the decrease in usable energy. )

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 energy and reached what is known as 'heat death.' 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 best solution is that the universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.(Oscillating (yoyo) universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov, solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But the laws of thermodynamics undercut that argument—as each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past. Also, there is far too little mass to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, and no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical big crunch.)


Now, what if the you were to say that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no one really denies it in their heart. All science, history and law enforcement would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied.( Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing, but this is not so. Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their 'quantum vacuum' is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—'not nothing'. Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or a cat which appeared. This universe cant have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it would not have any properties until it actually came into existence.)

Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because it would need to exist before it came into existence, 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 Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Therefore, He had no beginning in time, has always existed, and so does not need a cause.

Whichever way you look at it—the evidence from the Bible, the incredibly complex, organized information in living things, or the origin of the universe—belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator God, as revealed in the Bible, not only makes sense, but is the only viable explanation.

Moreso irreducible complexity shows only a Creator could be responsible.

Incredibly complex coordinated biological systems are known in which no conceivable part-coordinated, part-functioning, simpler arrangement would be other than a liability.

Behe, M.J., Darwin’s Black Box, The Free Press, New York, 1996.

Some examples are the blood-clotting mechanism, the bacterial flagellum (used for propulsion), the photosynthetic apparatus, and the pupal transformation of caterpillars to butterflies. Examples abound in living things.

The immense complexity of the human brain, its creativity and power of abstract reasoning, with capacities vastly beyond that required for sheer survival, is perhaps the most obvious evidence for intelligent creation.

At the molecular level, the organization that characterizes living things is inherently different from, for example, a crystal arrangement. The function of a given protein, for instance, depends upon the assembly sequence of its constituents. The coded information required to generate these sequences is not intrinsic to the chemistry of the components (as it is for the structure of a crystal) but extrinsic (imposed from outside).

During reproduction, the information required to make a living organism is impressed upon material substrates to give a pre-programmed pattern, by systems of equal (or greater) complexity (in the parent organism/s) which themselves had the same requirement for their formation. Without pre-programmed machinery, no spontaneous, physico-chemical process is known to generate such information-bearing sequences—this requires the operation of outside intelligence.

The most reasonable inference from such observations is that outside intelligence was responsible for a vast original store of biological information in the form of created populations of fully functioning organisms. Such intelligence vastly surpasses human intelligence—again consistent with the concept of God as revealed in the Bible.

Gitt, W., In the Beginning Was Information, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung, Bielefeld, Germany (the German edition was published in 1994), 1997.

[Adam Knowlden]

For those interested AiG has written a article about the planet:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0718newplanet.asp

[METHOD MAN]

Many Christians, me included (Roman Catholic), are taught to NOT take the stories of the Bible literally.

This is what Einstein has to say about the relationship of Science and Religion.

It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration.
At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described. For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development. To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature. We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself. The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge. If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
are taught to NOT take the stories of the Bible literally.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is a shame.

[ QUOTE ]
For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Wherein lies the difference between operational science and origins science.

Operational science is testable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

Origins science is not testable and not repeatable.

[ QUOTE ]
This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs

[/ QUOTE ]

Darwinism is religion. It is metaphysical. Not emperical or observable.

That is why it is not science vs. religion, but religion vs. religion.

The important question is not 'Is it science?' We can just define 'science' to exclude everything that we don’t like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence.

However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation. Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

translation- Reject the bible

http://answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20010628_46.jpg

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]


Many Christians, me included (Roman Catholic), are taught to NOT take the stories of the Bible literally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation- the bible is not scientific, but a pack of lies and fairy tails.
Feel free to point one out. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

And as O.S said, if this is about evolution. It's not science vs. religion. It's religion vs. religion.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point Old School, this is exactly what the top scientists in the world continually attest too. The eminent evolutionist and respected scientists Dr. Wald,
on page 9 of " Wald, George, The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life , 270 pp. p. 9 "

states the following

" One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. <font color="red">Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
</font>

That is 100 percent, faith based religion, and might I add, against scientific evidence as he himself stated.

In the prominant journal of " New Scientist " Andrew et al states the following:

" 1. p. 30 Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The fundamental forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest. But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, <font color="blue"> is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment." </font>

2. p. 32
"The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, <font color="red"> is still shrouded in almost complete mystery." </font>

3. And the religion of it all

p. 33
"In their more public pronouncements, researchers interested in the origin of life sometimes behave a bit like the creationist opponents they so despise glossing over the great mysteries that remain unsolved and pretending they have firm answers that they have not really got. We still know very little about how our genesis came about, and to provide a more satisfactory account than we have at present remains one of science's great challenges."

Scott, Andrew, New Scientist, vol. 106 , pp. 30-33.


There is a marked difference between Origin's science and Operational science. Old School's post above does an excellent job clarifying this.

[Peter Jackson]

One of my friend's, who happens to be a little on the strange side, believes we are a colony of space aliens! Maybe we come from that new planet!! Before you flame my butt, that was a joke. How do they really know that planet is so old, it's all just a guess really. Who really cares anyway, it doesn't change anyones life.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Peter Jackson]

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
[ QUOTE ]
Peter Jackson said:
How do they really know that planet is so old, it's all just a guess really

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! In reality, that's all evolution is! /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

AMEN!!!

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
Peter Jackson said:
One of my friend's, who happens to be a little on the strange side, believes we are a colony of space aliens! Maybe we come from that new planet!! Before you flame my butt, that was a joke. How do they really know that planet is so old, it's all just a guess really. Who really cares anyway, it doesn't change anyones life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter, its sad, but that is actually being investigated. Its called panspermia. Essentially here is the theory

Hundreds of years worth of scientific investigation have shown that life could not have origionated sponaneously on earth

Richard Lewonton, one of the top evolutionists in the world sets the stage for why this theory is being looking into

<font color="red"> "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories , because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "

</font>

<font color="blue"> Conclusion: </font> Therefore life must have spontaneously generated on another planet.

Its pathetic. All science has shown that life can only come from previous life, and they are now attempting to transfer this embarrassing problem else where. However, the Biogenetic Law remains one of the most established scientific concepts there is. The above quote from Richard, and panspermia are 100 percent religous. Richard, is the Ronnie Coleman of Evolutionists, and one of the most respected in his field. World renouned, and look at his statements more closely

we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes

Priori can be defined by websters as <font color="blue"> being without examination or analysis : PRESUMPTIVE b : formed or conceived beforehand
</font>

in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories

Need I say more?

because we have a prior commitment a commitment to materialism.


It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary


Point? Materialism has nothing to do with science. It is nothing more than a philosophy. Its not due to observation, but rather to their commitment to a Godless religion. Its important to realize that this is what people are compromising Gods infallable word with. Another religion. Here is a good audio on this Click Here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/play.aspx?mediaID=010329_ans)

[Peter Jackson]

Very interesting, thanks Pres, I've heard of panspermia. I remember my friend told me this about 12 years ago. Essentially a part of us aren't from the Earth, that is the spiritual part of us, but as far as us being aliens, all I have to say is HA HA!! I find it totally funny.

Here's an interesting article I found....can anyone tell me if they see errors in it, or if it is legitimate? It seems that the only factors here are distance from the earth and the speed of light.


Looking Back in Time
--------------------
Because light travels at a large but finite speed, it takes time for light to cover large distances. Thus, when we see the light of very distant objects in the universe, we are actually seeing light emitted from them a long time ago: we see them literally as they were in the distant past.

For example, Supernova 1987a occurred in a "nearby" galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud. Its light was observed on earth in 1987, but the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud is about 190,000 light years. Thus, we normally say that Supernova 1987a occurred in 1987, but it really happened about 190,000 years earlier; only in 1987 did the light of the explosion reach the earth! If we want to know what the Large Magellanic Cloud looks like "now", we will have to wait 190,000 years.

In comparison, the Sun is only about 8 light-minutes away. So the light we see from the Sun represents what the Sun looked like 8 minutes ago, and we must wait another 8 minutes to see what it looks like "now".

The most distant things that astronomers can see are about 18,000,000,000 light years away. Thus, the light that we presently see from these objects began its journey to us about 18 billion years ago. Since that is close to the estimated age of the Universe, this light is a kind of "fossil record" of the Universe not long after its birth! Thus the observation of very distant objects is in a very real sense equivalent to looking backwards in time.

[falser]

I think one of the main problem when trying to argue creation vs. evolution is that reglious people have been conditioned to believe that God is truth, and any evidence must be taken in that context. And so they'll argue until they're blue in face that none of the evidence proves anything 100 percent because they need that small uncertainty be the work of God - their beliefs require it. A religious person will say anything that man cannot explain is the work of God, and a scientific man will say that whatever man cannot explain needs more research to find the truth.

I have seen many posts on these boards to the effect that "evolution is a religion that requires faith". And I don't think these statements adquately address the different theories because science is not a religion. A scientific problem starts with NO TRUTHS or beliefs, and based on all evidence you make the best conclusion you can. Religion on the other hand starts with the TRUTH that God does exist and all evidence must fit this model.

Being a scientific person myself I would conclude the evidence seems to support evolution. But I have an open mind enough to admit there is a posibility that I am wrong.

[konaforever]

It's correct, but creationists have an "answer" for this. One of the explanations they use is that God created the universe with light in transition. Meaning, the light you see was created by God when he created the universe. So that the light isn't billions of years old, but only thousands.:-/

[ QUOTE ]
BigFour said:
Here's an interesting article I found....can anyone tell me if they see errors in it, or if it is legitimate? It seems that the only factors here are distance from the earth and the speed of light.


Looking Back in Time
--------------------
Because light travels at a large but finite speed, it takes time for light to cover large distances. Thus, when we see the light of very distant objects in the universe, we are actually seeing light emitted from them a long time ago: we see them literally as they were in the distant past.

For example, Supernova 1987a occurred in a "nearby" galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud. Its light was observed on earth in 1987, but the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud is about 190,000 light years. Thus, we normally say that Supernova 1987a occurred in 1987, but it really happened about 190,000 years earlier; only in 1987 did the light of the explosion reach the earth! If we want to know what the Large Magellanic Cloud looks like "now", we will have to wait 190,000 years.

In comparison, the Sun is only about 8 light-minutes away. So the light we see from the Sun represents what the Sun looked like 8 minutes ago, and we must wait another 8 minutes to see what it looks like "now".

The most distant things that astronomers can see are about 18,000,000,000 light years away. Thus, the light that we presently see from these objects began its journey to us about 18 billion years ago. Since that is close to the estimated age of the Universe, this light is a kind of "fossil record" of the Universe not long after its birth! Thus the observation of very distant objects is in a very real sense equivalent to looking backwards in time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
I think one of the main problem when trying to argue creation vs. evolution is that reglious people have been conditioned to believe that God is truth, and any evidence must be taken in that context.

[/ QUOTE ]

First you have to understand a few things.

Every scientist and laymen starts with axioms, or pressumtions. This is the perspective in which all evidence is looked through.

The exact same thing is true of evolution. No matter what, all evidence must be weighed and seen through the glasses of naturalism, materialism, etc.

However your point is not necessarily accurate.

For one there is a movement called Intelligent Design within the scientific community which does not claim to identify the designer, but only shows that there is ample evidence to show naturalism is not possible. The movement is headed by Micheal Behe.

For example Dr Russell Humphreys is a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Winner of several scientific awards, he is currently involved with the laboratory's particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research. This work involves advanced nuclear physics, both theoretical and experimental. He is also an adjunct professor of the Institute for Creation Research, and a board member of the Creation Research Society.

He accepts a young earth without beginning with the biblical axiom for the following reasons:

[ QUOTE ]
I estimate that there are probably several hundred processes that one could use to get an idea of the age of the earth. Only a few dozen, at most, of these processes seem to give you billions of years. The other 90 per cent of those processes give you ages much less than billions of years. So it seems like it would be good science to go with the flow of the 90 per cent of the data, and use as a working hypothesis that the Earth really is young and then to try to find explanations for the other 10 per cent of the data.

That whole process seems to be a much more scientific approach than the one that is taken by evolutionists. Basically, they concentrate on the 10 per cent of the data, and that's the data you've always heard about. Such as the light travelling from distant galaxies and the radiometric dating techniques, and a few other things like that.



[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly enough, getting into cosmology, Einstein's equations, when starting with different axioms. For example:

Stephen Hawking and George Ellis have written: '...we are not able to make cosmological models without some mixture of ideology'. Their work makes use of the Copernican Principle: the universe has no edges and no centre - it looks everywhere broadly the same. This principle, it is important to note, is not a conclusion of science, but an assumption thought to be valid.

The implications of the Copernican Principle for modern cosmology are profound. Humphreys argues that when these ideas are expressed mathematically and applied to the equations of general relativity, they result in Big-Bang cosmologies. Humphreys looks again at general relativity theory, but using different presuppositions. These are: the universe is of finite size and has a boundary; the Earth is near the centre; the cosmos has been expanded by God in the past; the cosmos is young. The picture that emerges is dramatically different from the Big Bang.

When starting with different axioms we can get entire new cosmologies. This is where science and beliefs (religion) are seperated, as is the case with the big bang.

[ QUOTE ]
and a scientific man will say that whatever man cannot explain needs more research to find the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Which is why despite the absurdity of abiogensis, evolutionists continue to <font color="red">believe </font> it happened.

[ QUOTE ]
t theories because science is not a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is not a religion, correct. Evolution is a religion.

Science is operational. It is testable, repeatable, falsifiable. Origins are neither of those things, which is why religious beliefs will always be inserted, no matter how "scientific" one believes they are.

[ QUOTE ]
Being a scientific person myself I would conclude the evidence seems to support evolution. But I have an open mind enough to admit there is a posibility that I am wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate. I believe the evidence shows an intelligent designer.

And we often point out that the design in living organisms is evidence of an intelligent designer. If this is not evidence, then it’s worth asking: what evidence would convince you that anything has been intelligently designed, whether by human design or by any other intelligence? After all, archaeologists have criteria for deciding whether an artifact has been made by design, and the SETI project is based on discovering a signal from outer space that would be evidence of a message sender. So what are these criteria?

Answer: complex specified information — So this argument can be formulated:

Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.

All living organisms have complex specified information.

Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender.

Goo to you evolution requires a dramatic increase in genetic information. Yet no naturalistic explanation for genetic increases in information exists. This indicates special creation. All variation within the created kind are losses of information. Goo to you requires increases in genetic information. To believe that speciation or natural selection can magically increase genetic information is far more religious than to believe in creation.

Another interesting argument comes from the leading philosopher and Christian, Alvin Plantinga — he asked, what evidence does anyone have for the existence of other people’s minds? He argued cogently that the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist.

[ QUOTE ]
Religion on the other hand starts with the TRUTH that God does exist and all evidence must fit this model.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just as evolutionism starts with the TRUTH that God doesn't need to exists and all evidence must fit this naturalistic model.

[ QUOTE ]
It's correct, but creationists have an "answer" for this. One of the explanations they use is that God created the universe with light in transition. Meaning, the light you see was created by God when he created the universe. So that the light isn't billions of years old, but only thousands.:-/

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. There are other cosmologies, such as devised by Humphreys.

These statements must address three crucial phenomena.

1. Light from distant galaxies. The distances are immense, with some of the estimated times of light travel measured in billions of years.

2. Galactic red shifts. The light from distant galaxies is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum - for which an explanation is needed.

3. Cosmic microwave background. Low level microwaves permeate space and are observed to be remarkably uniform in all directions.

The Big Bang cosmology has been successful, of course, because it does have an explanation for these cosmological data. It maintains

1. that the universe is billions of years old;

2. that the universe is expanding and

3. that the microwave background represents radiation that was generated during the initial stages of the Big Bang.

Russell Humphreys presented two papers at the conference: one discussing 'A biblical basis for creationist cosmology' and the other detailing `Progress toward a young-earth relativistic cosmology'.

Humphreys starts with different axioms and plugs those into Einstein's equations for a totally different cosmology that supports a thousands of years old creation.

Humphreys suggests that the Bible teaches a cosmological geocentricity.

The paper covers much more ground than can be reviewed here, but the 6 general conclusions are listed below. They all have relevance to the proposed relativistic cosmology.

1. Matter in the universe is bounded.

2. The universe has expanded.

3. The Earth is near the centre of the universe.

4. The universe is young as measured by clocks on Earth.

5. The original matter God created was ordinary liquid water.

6. God transformed the water into various elements by compaction.

Kona, please do not tell me you are gathering your knowledge of creation from talkorigins. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif They are extremely unscientific and agrue against creation from outdated theories.

That is why I have tried to stress, the bible gives us starting axioms. Such as God created kinds of animals, there was a global flood, and the earth is only thousands of years old. It doesn't give us the science behind those axioms. That is where creation science comes in. There are outdated theories of creation science just as there are outdated theories of evolution. Such as the list of over 200 vestigial organs presented at the monkey scopes trial.

However talkorigins choses to attack creation from outdated theories that even creationists acknowldege aren't feasible.

Find a better source.

I see.

According to Humphreys, the time dilation effects of relativity theory permit "billions of years worth of physical processes [to take] place in the distant cosmos' - all during the 4th day of creation. Stars and galaxies formed, and time elapsed so that light was able to travel to every corner of the universe. So Adam and Eve, on the 5th day (earth time) were able to look into the expanse and see the splendor of the heavens.

So Humphreys theorizes that billions of years of time elapsed in the cosmos - all in the span of 6 24-hour days here on earth, possibly because the earth is at the center of the universe.

An interesting theory! But is this a biblically-based cosmology?

[falser]

[ QUOTE ]
Every scientist and laymen starts with axioms, or pressumtions. This is the perspective in which all evidence is looked through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you can appreciate the difference between starting with a theory, and starting with a truth. A scientific man may start with a theory that evolution is responsible for life on Earth today and see if the data supports that. Creationists will immediately begin with a truth that God exists and created life. There is a very big difference between these two.

[ QUOTE ]
Science is not a religion, correct. Evolution is a religion.

Science is operational. It is testable, repeatable, falsifiable. Origins are neither of those things, which is why religious beliefs will always be inserted, no matter how "scientific" one believes they are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is a theory based on scientific evidence. I don't see how that translates into religion. It doesn't take faith to conclude that based on certain evidence that evolution is the most likely explanation.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a scientific person myself I would conclude the evidence seems to support evolution. But I have an open mind enough to admit there is a posibility that I am wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate. I believe the evidence shows an intelligent designer.

And we often point out that the design in living organisms is evidence of an intelligent designer. If this is not evidence, then it’s worth asking: what evidence would convince you that anything has been intelligently designed, whether by human design or by any other intelligence?
...
Goo to you evolution requires a dramatic increase in genetic information. Yet no naturalistic explanation for genetic increases in information exists. This indicates special creation.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I was trying to point out. Creationists immediately jump to the conclusion that it is the work of God without leaving the door open that some process is involved that we are not aware of. And this is primarly where their argument falls apart in my view. The lack of proof or evidence does not by default prove (let alone even suggest) that God exists.

[ QUOTE ]
Another interesting argument comes from the leading philosopher and Christian, Alvin Plantinga — he asked, what evidence does anyone have for the existence of other people’s minds? He argued cogently that the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is kind of a different topic, but... I know brains exists, and that is pretty good evidence that people have a mind and can think. I can't see God, and so I don't know if he exists. Again, the lack of proof does not mean God exists.

[ QUOTE ]
Just as evolutionism starts with the TRUTH that God doesn't need to exists and all evidence must fit this naturalistic model.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. Evolution starts WITHOUT the truth that God does exist (there is a difference). None of the evidence supports intelligent creation unless viewed in the context of religion - it takes a leap of faith to jump to that conclusion. Evolutionism does not make any conclusions about what cannot be explained by scientific evidence - no leaps of faith, beliefs, or religion involved.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you can appreciate the difference between starting with a theory, and starting with a truth. A scientific man may start with a theory that evolution is responsible for life on Earth today and see if the data supports that. Creationists will immediately begin with a truth that God exists and created life. There is a very big difference between these two.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, in Origins science, there is no difference. Lewontian clears up exactly what evolutionists do

[ QUOTE ]
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories , because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "



[/ QUOTE ]


That has absolutely nothing to do with science, but rather his " priori "


[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a theory based on scientific evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is a religion based on materialism. There is no fossil evidence for evolution, and there has never been an observed increase in information.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how that translates into religion. It doesn't take faith to conclude that based on certain evidence that evolution is the most likely explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, one of the top scientists in the world shows his faith

The eminent evolutionist and respected scientists Dr. Wald,
on page 9 of " Wald, George, The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life , 270 pp. p. 9 "

states the following

" One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."


That is 100 percent, faith based religion, and might I add, against scientific evidence as he himself stated.

There is zero evidence for life spontaneously arrising, and in fact, any belief in such a notion is against science, it is pure religion.

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly what I was trying to point out. Creationists immediately jump to the conclusion that it is the work of God without leaving the door open that some process is involved that we are not aware of. And this is primarly where their argument falls apart in my view. The lack of proof or evidence does not by default prove (let alone even suggest) that God exists.



[/ QUOTE ]

Either life created itself or it was created. Science has shown over and over that spontaneous generation is an impossiblitity. Life can never spontaneously arrive. How does this cause creationism to fall apart?


[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Evolution starts WITHOUT the truth that God does exist (there is a difference). None of the evidence supports intelligent creation unless viewed in the context of religion - it takes a leap of faith to jump to that conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

All evidence points against life ever spontaneously generating. Evolution can never even get off the ground.
Secondly, you have no mechanism which has ever been observed to increase information

Dr. Lee Spetnor, one of the most respected scientists in his field clearly states what you need to understand.

"in all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information ."

and he further states

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it "

You cannot gain money in the bank if you lose more then is depositied.

Evolution based on the above science, doesn't have a leg to stand on.

one of the Top astrophysisists in the world( Dr. Weinberg ) attests to this faith when speaking of the laws of the universe

<font color="green"> For there is a scientific problem even more fundamental than the origin of the universe. We want to know the origin of the rules that have governed the universe and everything in it. Physicists, or at least some of us, believe that there is a simple set of laws of nature, of which all our complicated present physical and chemical laws are just mathematical consequences. We do not know these underlying laws, but as an act of faith if you like, we expect that eventually we will.
</font>

That is religion based on materialism. And once again you see the difference between studying origins and studying operational science

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
A scientific man may start with a theory that evolution is responsible for life on Earth today and see if the data supports that. Creationists will immediately begin with a truth that God exists and created life. There is a very big difference between these two.

[/ QUOTE ]

No there is not. We are both starting with pre-assumptions, as you said,

[ QUOTE ]
starting with a truth

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution starts WITHOUT the truth that God does exist

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, evolution starts with the "truth" that God does not exist, or was not needed ie. there has been no intelligent input anywhere in the universe, via laws that govern the universe, creation, life, information, etc.

But implying this axiom as a "truth"(or non-"truth" as you like to phrase it, but really it's the same thing, just bait and switch) reveals the religious nature of your defenition. The existance or non-existance of the intelligent designer is an un-testable, non-obervable, non-emperical axiom, which when combined with the defenition of evolution, within itself implies religion vantage points mixed in with the theory.

As you have just stated that your entire theory rests upon your world view that there is no Intelligent designer, reaffirming your belief in naturalism, materialism, etc. and your dogmatic view that all evidence must be weighed through these paragims.

Evolution pre-assumes that there has been no intelligent input, anywhere in the universe, at any time. That every thing in the universe is an act of naturalism, materialism, in which ALL evidence is viewed through.

Renowned Canadian science philosopher Dr Michael Ruse has made some statements that shocked his colleges. He has admitted evolution has religious natures.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> 'evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.' </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

There are only two possible axioms to start with at the genesis point of origins science.

Supernaturalism- "In the beginning God"
Naturalsim - "In the beginning Matter"(which has to be eternal)

There are no other concieved pre-assumptions in all of philosophy, origins science, etc., all others such as panspermia only move the problem somwhere else. It is still an offshoot of these two.

Neither can be proved by science. No person or scientists is without bias. To chose one of these axioms and lable it the "truth by which all evidence is weighed" is not a scientific truth at all, but a religious truth.


[ QUOTE ]
I hope you can appreciate the difference between starting with a theory, and starting with a truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution, just like creation, starts with what you call what they believe are "truths".

Then the theories stem from those "truths". Which as we know , these "truths" are the origins sciences we have been discussing. They can neither be proven, observed, repeated, nor tested as operational sciences can.

I will try to cover the basics to clarify.

Creation starts with these truths.

There is an identifiable Intelligent Designer, and we have his Words.
Catastrophism- The Global Flood
Created Kinds- Distinct kinds of animals.

Evoltuion starts with these "truths"

Naturalsim- The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes.
Uniformitarianism- understanding the present is the key to understanding the past. And the geologic column,which exists no where but on paper, much like the bible, can tell us the truth about the past.
All plants and all animals throughout all time and space are related to one another- Darwin

None of these "truths" or what I call axioms is part of operational sciences. No one was there, and the origin of earth/universe is unrepeatable. These pre-assumptions are believed, not scientific "truth"(ie. not testable, repeatable, observable).

Evolution is just as guilty as Creationists to holding fast to their religious world-views, and weighing all evidences through these views.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't take faith to conclude that based on certain evidence that evolution is the most likely explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would conclude it takes great amounts of faith to believe in the evolutionary "origins of life scenario", and it is not even a feasible explanation.

Events of the past, such as the origins of life, are ultimately untestable by science. Science can never absolutely prove anything regarding these matters and thus any belief, no matter how scientific one may think it to be, requires some measure of faith.

Science can, however, disprove hypotheses which are internally contradictory or go against the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, or geological evidence. Accordingly, a belief that life arose naturally on earth can be effectively disproven, to the point that anybody who chooses to believe in it can be shown to be holding great amounts of faith.

The questions to ask regarding this scenario are:

(Pre-biotic synthesis is the means by which sufficient quantities of all the ingredients thought to be necessary for life's natural origin were formed.)

Many have called this collection of chemicals the "primordial soup". The questions we are going to ask are

A) Could the soup have even been produced? and

B) Is there any geological evidence that it ever existed?

A. Pre-biotic synthesis finds itself in "****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't" scenario:

1. Pre-biotic synthesis can only take place in a reducing atmosphere, but that very fact would guarantee the destruction of highly sensitive pre-biotic chemicals by UV rays.

2. You could protect the molecules with oxygen, but in doing so you'd eliminate any chance of their production in the first place.

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Md.: Adler and Adler, 1985), pg. 261).

B. There isn't a shred of geological evidence left in the rocks that a primordial soup ever existed. If there was ever a soup, the earliest precambrian rocks(according to evolutionary standards) should contain high levels of non-biological carbon, for biologically produced carbon contains an excess of "isotopically light" carbon. Ancient sedimentary rocks, however, do not reveal this signature, and thus there is no positive evidence for this soup.

There is also no evidence that the methane-ammonia atmosphere necessary for prebiotic synthesis ever existed. If if it had, then the rocks thought to be from that time period ougth to contain an "unusually large proportion of carbon or organic chemicals", which they do not. It has also been shown that even a significant quantity of ammonia in the primitive atmosphere would have been destroyed within 30,000 years by UV rays.

But now let's reason like the evolutionary scientists do: The primordial soup seems necessary for life's natural origin, life evolved naturally, therefore the primordial soup must have existed! Unfortunately, the converse is also true. If the primordial soup is necessary for life's origin, but the soup didn't exist, than life didn't arise naturally. Believing the naturalistic view of the origin of life is essentially saying: "Enter my religious world views, exit all operational science."

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25 p.28. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote Dr. Safarti:

[ QUOTE ]
In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is kind of a different topic, but... I know brains exists, and that is pretty good evidence that people have a mind and can think. I can't see God, and so I don't know if he exists. Again, the lack of proof does not mean God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote C.S. Lewis:

[ QUOTE ]
'If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents — the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts — i.e. of materialism and astronomy — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionism does not make any conclusions about what cannot be explained by scientific evidence - no leaps of faith, beliefs, or religion involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

All origins science involves some degree of faith, belief, and religious dogma. It is untestable by science, and when included in with "scientific" theories makes the theory inherently religious.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green">H.J. LIPSON, Physics, U. of Manchester, "I think however that we should go further than this and admit that the only accepted explanation is creation. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.", Physics Bulletin,Vol.31, 1980, p.138 </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting theory! But is this a biblically-based cosmology?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Without intending to, these experts support all my major points. Weinberg shows that the crux of the Conner-Page argument is wrong.14 Hellaby, Sumeruk and Ellis show that a white hole can occur naturally and contain a timeless zone.16 Harwit shows that real time dilation of physical clocks occurs in my type of cosmology.26 </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

There does seem to be scriptural backing.

<font color="red"> Ish. 42:5 This is what God the LORD says-
he who created the heavens and stretched them out,who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it,
,who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it: </font>

<font color="blue">Isaiah 44:24
"This is what the LORD says- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD , who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,
</font>

<font color="green">Isaiah 45:12
It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.
</font>

<font color="brown"> Jeremiah 10:12
But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. </font>

See some of the links as to how the cosmology matches Genesis 1.

However, there are a few things we have to understand regarding cosmology.

http://aig.smartbusiness.org/docs/267.asp

1. It is an infant science.
2. We are making observations from a extremely small vantage point and attempting to make conclusions about the entire universe.
3. Most of it is mathematics.

Quote from Humphreyes:

[ QUOTE ]
In contrast to the way some scientists promote their theories, I don't expect people to take mine as gospel. For example, many people may prefer the mature creation of starlight, a venerable creationist theory I commented on in appendix A of my book. Even if you like my theory, please try to keep open to the possibility that a better one may come along. I myself remain open, and anticipate my tenure at ICR, with increased attention and time focused on this vital question, to bear much fruit.

Cosmic phenomena are so complex and beyond our ken that it would be especially arrogant to assume God couldn't do what He said He did simply because we can't imagine how. Our imaginations are very limited, but God's is not. Even in cosmology, all things are possible with God (Matthew 19:26). Every human theory needs to conform to the knowledge the word of God gives us. Regardless of the complexities of cosmology, we can know that the world is young because of clear Scripture in clear context, such as Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . ." Our privilege, our mandate, is to try to discern His methods and thoughts, and to give Him all praise and glory throughout.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here are some other great reads by Humphreys:

http://www.rae.org/index.html

http://www.icr.org/research/rate/heliumdiffusion.html

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-203.htm

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-233.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0814_cosmologies.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1120.asp

and some audios:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/searchProcess.aspx?keywords=Russ+Humphreys

And here is a link providing responses to various attacks on Humphreys model:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

[falser]

I think both of you have a different definition of religion than I do. Religion generally means a belief in a superior being(s) and the worshiping of him/them. By this definition atheism and evolution are the exact opposite of religion. Just because I believe evolution to be the best theory doesn't mean I worship it, or admit that it is the only explanation. Definitions can be argued but it really doesn't serve any purpose.

In fact I don't rule out the possibility of creationism. I share Stephen Hawking's philosophical views - there's a lot we don't know, and it's possible that a God is the answer.

Actually since neither of you are willing in the least to admit creationism may be wrong indicates a certain level of closed mindedness that is common among all religions - God's way or the highway so to speak.

[ QUOTE ]

Dr. Lee Spetnor, one of the most respected scientists in his field clearly states what you need to understand.

"in all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information ."


[/ QUOTE ]

Quoting religious propaganda and books written by creationists out to discredit evolution doesn't really help your arguments. If on the other hand you quoted a biologist studying evolution, who said that mutations cannot result in more complex DNA it would hold more weight. Unfortunately most biologists and physicists won't do so...

[ QUOTE ]
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

[/ QUOTE ]
(quote from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/, a very interesting site about this topic)

Creationism is not scientific and contradicts a very large amount of evidence in support of evolution. And because of this I won't be picking up a bible anytime soon.

In any case I think you've proved my point - you're willing to argue until you're blue in face that evolution is non-existant, simply because your religion requires it.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
I think both of you have a different definition of religion than I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith - Websters Dictionary

It is apparent that you have faith in the Religion of evolution. As of yet, you have provided no reason why, other then to claim it has evidence. As for your talk of origins faq, it is one of the most outdated on the net, we have rebuttled that countless times, I'll paste just one response from the past we made, but that faq has been rebuttled by countless others. In fact, they use evidence that has been outdated for decades.

<font color="red"> 29 Evidences eh, lets have a look
</font>

[ QUOTE ]
Their first evidence is comparitive anatomy - that organisms have similar body plans

[/ QUOTE ]

Rebuttle - I currently have installed on my computer, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Works. These two programs have thousands of similarities. The question therefore arises as to why this is the case? The answer is actually very simple; both programs were designed by Microsoft. Therefore, the argument of similarities between body plans can just as easily be attributed to a common designer. After all, a Toyota Camry and a Toyota Corolla can interchange countless parts. This does not prove that they evolved from a motorcycle, or had a common ancestor, but rather a common designer.

Lets look at their next line of evidence

[ QUOTE ]
A nested hierarchy of species

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution

[/ QUOTE ]

You can say that again! It proves they had a common designer!

[ QUOTE ]
Confirmation:
Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme. Based on shared derived characters, closely related organisms can be placed in one group (such as a genus), several genera can be grouped together into one family, several families can be grouped together into an order, etc.



[/ QUOTE ]


This is their evidence, that animals can be classified in families, therefore macroevolution is true?

This once again proves the Bible right. God said that animals would bring forth after their " kind " thanks for the confirmation

Next line of evidence

[ QUOTE ]
Many genes with very basic cellular functions are ubiquitous &amp;#8211; they occur in the genomes of most or all organisms.

[/ QUOTE ]


So their first three evidences are all based on the same thing? The fact that each organism has similar design patterns once again points to a common designer. I love how they use the same evidence and then turn it into three sections. Thats call equivocation

[ QUOTE ]
Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors


[/ QUOTE ]

They state that they have evidence here! To the contrary!

If evolution, in the macro sense has occurred, a resultant historical presentation of it would be found in the person of preserved fossil evidence. In fact, the evolutionary theory states that all life descended from a single cell. Thus, the fossil record should show clear transitions from one kind of animal to the next. This however is not what is seen. In fact, the fossil record shows the complete opposite. Charles Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species, has this to say about the subject: " The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly 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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory( Darwin, OoS)."

Indeed, Darwin faced a theory, which was devoid, even by his own standards of revealing gradual evolution and intermediate links. Was his hypothesis therefore scientific? To better understand this, one must first understand the principle of Uniformitariunism. This concept states that the key to the past, is the present. Dr. Pidrey states that " The term uniformitarianism was first used in 1832 by William Whewell, a University of Cambridge scholar, to present an alternative explanation for the origin of the Earth. The prevailing view at that time was that the Earth was created through supernatural means and had been affected by a series of catastrophic events such as the biblical Flood. This theory is called catastrophism. "

To capitalize on Dr. Pidreys point, the term Uniformitariunism says that gradual processes today, produces all the features of the earth that are seen. This is the Uniformitariunism assumption. Catastrophism, states that the geologic features we see took place rapidly. For example, in 1980 when Mount St. Helens blew, the energy released from the explosion was equal to 33,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs. This is a catastrophe, that changed the landscape drastically in a few days, not slowly over time. Therefore the two views are at odds with one another. Furthermore, with much evidence from catastrophies in the present, it is becoming increasingly difficult to hold onto such thought patters. The conflict, therefore is between quick changes as predicted by the flood, as opposed to slow changes, in the absence of such massive catastrophes. Charles Darwin, took the idea of gradual changes over long periods of time, and applied it beyond the geographical scope, and onto the biological scope. He did this by discussing that life, slowly, and gradually evolved from one common simpler form.

However, Darwin, and other scientists have not found such an explanation to be able to sufficiently cover what is viewed in the fossil record. Gould, again, perhaps the worlds leading evolutionist, even from his grave has this to say about the situation:

"... in defending gradualism as a nearly universal tempo, Darwin had to use Lyell's most characteristic method of argument -- he had to reject literal appearance and common sense for an underlying "reality." (Contrary to popular myths, Darwin and Lyell were not the heroes of true science, defending objectivity against the theological fantasies of such "catastrophists" as Cuvier and Buckland. Catastrophists were as committed to science as any gradualist; in fact, they adopted the more "objective" view that one should believe what one sees and not interpolate missing bits of a gradual record into a literal tale of rapid change( Gould, EEP )."
But why does Gould say that Darwin's scientific awareness was mythical, and that the Catastrophists were actually more scientific? Simply put, according to the prevailing view at the time, found in Genesis, the world was destroyed by a world wide flood. And, one would expect to see a massive and abrupt( due to the sudden catastrophe of the flood )fossil graveyard of animals of countless species found all over the world. One would not expect to see progressively, slow evolution. The anti-creationist Richard Dawkins, and a man who has clearly displayed his contempt for even mentioning God( i.e. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)( Dawkins BR , 3 ), made an extremely revealing statement, in saying that in the Cambrian explosion are the oldest rocks in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them 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( R, Dawkins, TBWM, 229 ).

The Cambrian explosion, is a time in the fossil record, in which all major body plans jumped onto the seen. Below the Cambrian none of these body plans are found. This is why Gould stated that the catastrophists were more scientific then Darwin, because the Flood could easily explain such an explosion of fossils. While Gould disagrees with the flood as an explanation, he freely admits the following:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed( EEP, 14 ).

Therefore, the fossil evidence does not support Darwinian evolution. And yet the textbooks show the fossil record as if it were fact( Campbell, 382 ). Gould addresses this by saying that, 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(IANTOEE, 13-14 ). How extreme, and complex were the organisms that sprang up in the fossil evidence during the Cambrian? Dr. Lewtin says that, " The body plans that evolved in the Cambrian by and large served as the blueprints for those seen today. Few new major body plans have appeared since that time. Just as all automobiles are fundamentally modeled after the first four-wheel vehicles, all the evolutionary changes since the Cambrian period have been mere variations on those basic themes (Lewton, AROADHW). "

Indeed, it appears that the catastrophists were closer then the gradual evolutionists.
The fossil evidence is tremendously lacking. Evolutionist, after evolutionist attests to this. But if this is the case, then what does Gould and other famous scientists such as the esteemed Niles Eldridge believe? They theorize that evolution took place in leaps, and this explains why we cannot see it in the fossil evidence. Dr. Eldridge states that, "Evolution in living things is not a series of changes constantly taking place, but one that proceeds by fits and starts. " Stephan J. Gould and Eldrige call their theory Punctuated Equilibrium. But, are they following Darwins same pattern, and basing their theory on myth or evidence? Interestingly enough, Neo Darwinianists fight ferociously to defend their evolutionary theory, as do the Punciationists. It would seem, that arguments on both sides are compelling enough to have to drop both choices. On the P.E. theory, Dr. Alters makes the assertion that

" By the same token, while many feel that punctuated equilibrium postulates how speciation occurs, its occurrence is not based on empirical evidence but on the apparent lack of evidence "

One must therefore ask, is a lack of evidence, proof that macro evolution happened quickly, or that it did not happen at all?

Darwin once again sheds light on this by saying that, " The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." Indeed, many would concur that it is true science to agree with his conclusion on utter rejection.


Next!

[ QUOTE ]
Another impressive example of incontrovertible transitional forms predicted to exist by evolutionary biologists is the collection of land mammal-to-whale fossil intermediates.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! They didnt just say this! Perhaps we will destroy this one latter, but it is hillarious that they even brought this up!

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the more renowned evidences for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology.

[/ QUOTE ]


I could refute this one all day long! Its the absolute weakest argument there is for macroevolution!

1. We see a loss of genetic information

Conclusion: This proves a gain in information!

You just once again proved the fall account

This should be titled, 29 evidences for creationism!

Next!

[ QUOTE ]
Prediction 2.3: Molecular vestigial characters
Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function


[/ QUOTE ]

Lets look at this argument

A. Humans cannot synthesize ascorbic acid

Conclusion : Therefore they evolved from a more primitive ancestor!

That argument speaks for itself. First, they do not know that we ever had that ability, secondly, if we did and lost it, how does that prove " a genetic increase in information "

Thats the opposite of evolution!!!!!

Next!

[ QUOTE ]
Ontogeny and Development of Organisms

[/ QUOTE ]

This has now turned into a complete and utter discrace!

This is perhaps a testimony to the lack of evidence, which the evolutionary theory can provide. Charles Darwin wrote that the embryos of mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar. This idea, which is called ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny( in other words, embryos go through their ancestral stages of life as they develop ) was one of his chief evidences for evolution.

Evidence that has now been disproved. Dr. de Beer of Oxford University stated that, Recapitulation does not take place (171). "Dr. Waddington asserts that, The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even very interesting to biologists (10. " And yet it is still on their website?

When analyzing the shocking truth behind how this theory popularized, one wonders to themselves how such discussion is still allowed legally in texts. You see, one of the most famous evolutionists of all time, and founding father of the theory of embryology, Ernst Haeckel, literally invented evidence for this theory through illegal lies and deceit (K. Thompson , OAPR). What occurred is shocking. Dr. Haeckel, drew the embryos of a fish, a salamander, a turtle, a chicken, rabbit, and finally a human. His drawings showed each having almost identical structures, as if they were literally going through their ancestral evolutionary stages

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/embryo4.jpg

<font color="green"> Above, top row: Haeckel's drawings of several different embryos, showing incredible similarity in their early tailbud stage.

Bottom Row: Richardson's photographs of how the embryos really look at the same stage of development
</font>

This seemed to be tremendous proof for the theory. However, it turned out to be nothing but a falsification of the truth. In 1868 L. Rtimeyer, professor of zoolology at the University of Basel, showed this scheme to be a blatant lie.

To seal the deal, an embryologist, Dr. Michael Richardson, and several biologists took actual photographs of each of the embryos drawn by Haeckel (N. Hawkes, TTL). This, of course showed that they were nowhere near the appearance found in his drawings. The fraud was so blatant, that Dr. Richardson had this to say about the matter: This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. Its shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't. These are fakes(N. Hawkes, TTL ). Yet, that site still uses gill slits as evidence for evolution? Stephan J. Gould reveals the ludicrously of this theory by briefly explaining that " In Down's day, the theory of recapitulation embodied a biologist's best guide for the organization of life into sequences of higher and lower forms. Both the theory (recapitulation) and the ladder approach to classification that it encouraged are, or should be, defunct today (DDS, 144)" In fact, these folds in the neck are simply structures which develop into the glands and structures in the ear and neck areas (Morris, DTHEGTAS). Dr. John Morris states that if they were gills that it would be expected that they would develop into the lungs, trachea, and the mouth (Morris, DTHEGTAS)." But, as discussed, this is not even close to being the case! It is for this reason, that the evolutionist, Dr. Blechschmidt stated that, the so-called law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong (Blechschmidt, TBOL)" Therefore, true science has eliminated this as being evidence for macro evolution.

The fact that they used an argument that old is pathetic.
I'll be back for more latter.

<font color="blue"> Old School, guess what they used as proof on their site.
Horse evolution, LOL!!!!!! Can you believe that! That was proven wrong in the 50's!

Too hillarious </font>

[President Wilson]

They actually say they have fossil evidence for Homonids. When evolutionists clearly admit the contrary.

[ QUOTE ]
John Reader "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, p. 802

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

[/ QUOTE ]

We already covered this

click here (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=560585&amp; Forum=bodybuilder&amp;Words=fossil&amp;Match=Entire%20Phra se&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=1week&amp;Main=560561&amp;Sea rch=true#Post560585)

click here (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=565798&amp; page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

To state what the discovery channel documentary willingly admitted

<font color="red"> " We have no evidence for our evolution "

" Therefore time wiped it out! " " Time is The enemy "

</font>

Great evidence there.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
In any case I think you've proved my point

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but you haven't proved any point.

[ QUOTE ]
I share Stephen Hawking's philosophical views - there's a lot we don't know, and it's possible that a God is the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stephen Hawking and George Ellis have written: '...we are not able to make cosmological models without some mixture of ideology'. Their work makes use of the Copernican Principle: the universe has no edges and no centre - it looks everywhere broadly the same. This principle, it is important to note, is not a conclusion of science, but an evolutionary assumption thought to be valid.

You do share seem to share his philosophical view. "It is scientific if it fits into evolutionary theory".

[ QUOTE ]
Just because I believe evolution to be the best theory doesn't mean I worship it, or admit that it is the only explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a contradiction. To say creation is a possibility but you believe in evoltion is a logical falacy. The two theories are polar opposite. I do not worship creation theory, nor do I admit all the creation theories are the only explanation.

But I ,just like you (see my above post) , base my explanations on beginning axioms.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually since neither of you are willing in the least to admit creationism may be wrong indicates a certain level of closed mindedness that is common among all religions - God's way or the highway so to speak.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the religion of evolution included.

You are only showing you haven't studied either topic very seriously(or at least creation). To say you "believe" in evolution, but creation is possible shows a lack of understanding. In fact if talkorigins has been your site of interest I can guarntee you know zero about creation.

But I am glad to see you want to learn about creation! /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If on the other hand you quoted a biologist studying evolution, who said that mutations cannot result in more complex DNA it would hold more weight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, but they do, and these quotes are from evolutionists.

<font color="red"> "If I were a creationist, I would cease attacking the theory of evolution-which is so well supported by the fossil record-and focus instead on the origin of life. This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."
(Horgan, John [Senior Writer, Scientific American], "The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age," [1996], Little, Brown &amp; Co: London, 1997, p138) </font>

<font color="green"> "If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atmos, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? ... I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
(H. J. Lipson, F.R.S. professor of physics, University of Manchestor, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, vol 31, p 138, 1980) </font>

<font color="blue"> Mr. Bird is concerned with origins and the evidence relevant thereto. He is basically correct that evidence, or proof, of origins-of the universe, of life, of all of the major groups of life, of all of the minor groups of life, indeed of all of the species-is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always was and will always be."
(Nelson, Gareth [Chairman and Curator of the Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History, New York], "Preface," in Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, pxii) </font>

<font color="brown"> To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
(Grasse, Pierre-P., [editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie", former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation", [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.107)
</font>

I can give many, many more.

Now on complexity...

<font color="red"> "The simplest bacteria is so **** complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it [the natural chemical origins of life] happened"
(Harold P. Klein, Santa Clara University, chairman of NAS committee that has reviewed origin-of-life research in "In the Beginning" by John Horgan, Scientific American, Feb 1991, pg. 120.)

</font>

<font color="green"> "We do not yet understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code. The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress."
(Orgel, Leslie E. [Adjunct Professor, University of California-San Diego, Resident Fellow, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, California], "Darwinism at the very beginning of life," New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.151) )

</font>

<font color="brown"> The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal) and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it. The discovery of ribozymes has made it easier to imagine an answer to the second of these questions, but the transformation of an 'RNA world' into one in which catalysis is performed by proteins, and nucleic acids specialize in the transmission of information, remains a formidable problem."
(Maynard Smith, John [Emeritus Professor of Biology at the University of Sussex] &amp; Szathmary, Eors [Institute for Advanced Study, Budapest, "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p.81 )
</font>

<font color="#666666"> "In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimate. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic."
(Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 39.)

</font>

<font color="red"> "... the gap between a rich organic environment with all the necessary precursors, including even polypeptides and nucleic acids, and the simplest organized life, remains immense ... even the simplest complete organisms we know of today are almost unbelievably complex. It is difficult to visualize the steps by which they may have originated because the various processes which occur in them are interdependent; none can function without the others"
(J. Butler, The Life Process (London, George Allen and Unwin, 1970), pp. 185, 188, 189. Cited by Wysong, ref [7], p. 191)

</font>

<font color="blue"> Natural selection is differential reproduction, organism perpetuation. In order to have natural selection, you have to have self-reproduction or self-replication and at least two self-replicating units of entities ... I would like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot use the words 'natural selection' loosely. Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms."
(T. Dobzhansky: The Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed. S. W. Fox (New York, Academic Press, 1965), pp. 309, 310. Cited by Wysong, ref [7], pp. 126-127.)
</font>

<font color="green">"It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction but the embodiment of life's mechanisms; the consecutivetriplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also guide the construction of proteins.
"So it is disappointing, but not surprising, that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."
(Maddox, John, "The Genesis Code by Numbers," Nature, vol. 367 (January 13, 1994) )

</font>

<font color="red"> "Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life."
(David A Kaufman, Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainsesville)

</font>

Let me know if you want more! /forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

But let's analyze your quote.

[ QUOTE ]
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, talk origins has shown their tactics of deciteful defenitions. Variation happens through natural selection, naturalistic increases in genetic information do not.

Many propagandists define evolution as ‘change in gene frequency with time’ or ‘descent with modification’ and use Darwin’s finches and industrial melanism in the peppered moths as clinching proof of ‘evolution’ and disproof of creationism! An example is the atheist Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the pretentiously named National Center for Science Education, the leading US organisation devoted entirely to evolution-pushing. She approvingly cited a teacher whose pupils said after her ‘definition’: ‘Of course species change with time! You mean that’s evolution?!’

Of course no creationist disputes that changes occur through time, but creationists disagree that the type of change required for molecules-to-man evolution occurs, i.e. changes that increase information content.

[ QUOTE ]
This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences

[/ QUOTE ]

Majority opinion is a useless arguement. A majority of very intelligent, well meaning men thought the doctrine of humurs was the correct way to cure diseases. They were wrong and killed George Washington.

[ QUOTE ]
1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science,

[/ QUOTE ]

What has been confirmed?

Rabbits, produce a variety of rabbits.

Dogs produce a variety of dogs.

Roses produce a variety of roses.

No one is going to argue with that. Cats produce a varitey of cats. But cats and banannas do not have a common ancestor. That is not been "confirmed from independent areas of science", that is not science that is nonsense.

What they are saying is "we predict dogs will produce a wide variety of dogs. That proves they all evolved from a rock 4 billion years ago!"

[ QUOTE ]
no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found,

[/ QUOTE ]

No contradictory evidence has yet been found to show that rabbits will produce anything other than rabbits, dogs anything other than dogs, man anything other than man.

The burden of proof is on them to show that all observational science of reproduction is wrong, and somehow someway "all plants and all animals throughout all time and space should be related". ie. dogs were at one time, non-dog.

This is their proof?

[ QUOTE ]
many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.


[/ QUOTE ]

All origins science is untestable.

[ QUOTE ]
a very interesting site about this topic)


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually talkorigins is very biased (as opposed to what they claim) and use outdated creation theories to attack creationism. See the alternative site, www.trueorigins.org (http://www.trueorigins.org) for complete rebuttals to their claims.

Also their whale evolution explanations are incredibely unscientific. Along with their futile attempt to discredit Dr. Gentry.

[enderwigginout]

I still take issue with the argument that evolution is a religion.

Why?

Basically because if your going to say that evolution is a religion, you must continue and say science is a religion. Any scientific endeavor has a series of premises. Take mathematics. First we assume there is such a thing as numbers and parts of numbers, even numbers we can’t count up to given a normal human life-span (up to infinities and discontinuities and all that fun stuff). Second, we assume there are ways in which you can work these numbers: associative property, communitive, distributive, and so on. Then we start using those premises to come up with theories about the natural world or to give evidence to the natural world. We’ve seen repeatedly that these work. It is recognized that animals and very small babies have an idea of quantity and can count to some small degree. This gives credence to a theory of numbers (alternatively not all babies have a knowledge of Jesus Christ and it would be impossible to get to a theory that Jesus Christ existed if the child had never seen a Bible). I think chemistry, physics, biology, geology, mathematics, psychology, and even philosophy (as it is based on certain premises of logic as well) seem to follow too.

The science of evolution takes things a step further. There are premises that we use to come up with theories about the natural world. There is little reason to doubt the premises and we have hope that we will find the evidence to back it up soon. This is similar to molecular theory, which has been with us since the Greeks (around 400AD I believe). We finally found a way to experiment with it and test it in the early 1900s. It was found to be an acceptable theory. But, before I’m sure it was thought there would be no way to test such a theory and that the idea that matter was made of atoms was a question of “faith.” Clearly, that idea was incorrect. The means were merely not devised at that time. Similarly since human knowledge doubles every six months, it is conceivable that someone will come up with more evidence for evolution or a way to test it out. Similarly for genetics. Mendelov found in the 1700s (give or take a hundred years or so) that wrinkled peas tend give rise to wrinkled peas and round peas tend to give rise to round peas and there was a certain probability associated with what would result when they were crossed. The theory was there, but it was only probabilistic and I’m sure people had their ideas of “gaps” in the theory. However, now it is accepted and is even testable on the basis of DNA.

This segues into another problem. Repeatedly, a quote is used from some evolutionist that uses the word “faith” to describe the belief that one day there will be more evidence to back up evolutionary theory. This isn’t used in the same way as it is within a religious context. Scientists don’t have “blind faith” or the “faith of a child” when assuming that at some point more evidence will be found. I have faith (or I don’t) that soon I’ll be at 20% body fat. That’s very different from saying I have (or don’t have) religious faith. Now, one might mention at this point that there are several posts, which contain quotes from evolutionists that more directly point to their belief that evolution is a religion or some quality that causes it to be similar to religious faith. But, I question that as well. Just like there are a lot of Christians on this site who would dispute that “days” in the Bible really means “eons.” But not all Christians do. Indeed, there are many Biblical scholars that would dispute “days” means “eons” and write papers about it that have the same diploma as those who debate it means “days.” However, not every Christian would grant him that point.

Let us look once again at science. It seems to me that it fits with the above idea of what a religion is. Thus, if someone is to say that any belief in something when the evidence does not fully support it is a religion, then there seems to be a problem. Can a Christian believe in science and the scientific process and still remain a true Christian? Can one believe the inferences of science on the natural world, when they are not directly listed in the Bible, if it should be held up as the starting point for information about the natural world? Further, if science is a religion and at times produces ideas contrary to what is in the Bible, it doesn’t seem to me that one can pick and choose those conclusions one likes and abandon the others, especially when logically speaking many things in the Bible and conclusions one draws from the Bible, can not be reconciled with logic.

Further, a scientific theory and creationism seem to come at odds. It is true evolution may be held up by “faith” that the gaps will be filled in. On the other hand, creationism is all about a different sort of faith. However, repeatedly science has been shown to prevail and fill in those gaps. Creationism adds nothing knew. It offers no more knowledge to us about the world. If you take it as your information about the natural world there are many, many gaps (how does a rainbow work, how do I heal a certain illness). So the question is: which religion does one accept?

Also I was under the impression that it has been discovered how to create the basic amino acids from non-life (am I wrong on that)? /forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I'll be back in a bit to discuss another interesting idea in this thread...but for now I need to eat.

[President Wilson]

You want Some of the top scientific journals in the world discussing the matter? Sure thing:

Dose, Professor Dr. Klaus, "The Origin of Life; More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4 (1988), pp. 348-356. Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University, West Germany.
p. 348

<font color="green"> p. 348
"Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationships in modern cells came into existence."
</font>

<font color="green"> p. 349
"It appears that the field has now reached a stage of stalemate, a stage in which hypothetical arguments often dominate over facts based on experimentation or observation."

p. 352
"In spite of many attempts, there have been no breakthroughs during the past 30 years to help to explain the origin of chirality in living cells."
</font>

Crow, James F., "Ionizing Radiation and Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 201 , pp. 138-160. Crow was Chairman of Medical Genetics at the University of Wisconsin.

<font color="red">p. 138
"The mutation rate affects not only the evolution of the human species but also the life of the individual. Almost every mutation is harmful, and it is the individual who pays the price. Any human activity that tends to increase the mutation rate must therefore raise serious health and moral problems for man."
</font>

<font color="red"> p. 160
"There can be little doubt that man would be better off if he had a lower mutation-rate. I would argue, in our present ignorance, that the ideal rate for the foreseeable future would be zero."
</font>

Curtis, Howard J., "Biological Mechanisms Underlying the Aging Process," Science, vol. 141 , pp. 686-694.

<font color="green"> p. 688
"Certainly the vast majority of mutations must be deleterious, so if the organs of older animals contain appreciable numbers of cells which are carrying mutations, it is a virtual certainty that the organs are functioning less efficiently than they otherwise would."
</font>

This aspect here is a true scientific statement

[ QUOTE ]
it is a virtual certainty that the organs are functioning less efficiently than they otherwise would."

[/ QUOTE ]



Drake, John W., "Environmental Mutagenic Hazards," Science, vol. 187 , pp. 503-14. Drake was Chairman of Committee 17 of the Environmental Mutagen Society.

<font color="green"> p. 512
"Human populations are now exposed to a wide variety of compounds never before encountered in the history of man. Many of these compounds are clearly mutagenic to lower organisms, and there are sound biological reasons to conclude that at least some are also mutagenic to man. Since the vast majority of detectable mutations are deleterious, an artificially increased human mutation rate would be expected to be harmful in proportion to the increase."
</font>

Hulse, Frederick S., The Human Species (New York: Random House), 524 pp.

pp. 61-2

<font color="green"> "Mutations occur at random, not because it would be convenient to have one. Any chance alteration in the composition and properties of a highly complex operating system is not likely to improve its manner of operation, and most mutations are disadvantageous for this reason. There is a delicate balance between an organism and its environment which a mutation can easily upset. One could as well expect that altering the position of the foot brake or the gas pedal at random would improve the operation of an automobile." </font>

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I was under the impression that it has been discovered how to create the basic amino acids from non-life (am I wrong on that)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey ender, here is a great article on that, Did scientists create life ...or did the media create hype? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3507.asp)

And here is another, Will scientists create new life forms, and what would it prove? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1122create_life.asp)


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/images/create_life.gif

[Adam Knowlden]

Hey Ender:

[ QUOTE ]
Basically because if your going to say that evolution is a religion, you must continue and say science is a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a distinction between operational and origins science. The contention is with origins science, not operational.

[ QUOTE ]
Take mathematics. First we assume there is such a thing as numbers and parts of numbers, even numbers we can’t count up to given a normal human life-span (up to infinities and discontinuities and all that fun stuff). Second, we assume there are ways in which you can work these numbers: associative property, communitive, distributive, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not get into quantam math! /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Here in lies the difference. Math is repeateable, provable, and testable. Molecules to man evolution is none of those things.

Here is a quote from Scientific American:

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.

</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

This misses the point—these cloud chamber experiments are still observations in the present and are repeatable. A dinosaur turning into a bird 150 Ma (million years ago) is neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable. It is a religious belief, backed by no operational science, whatsoever.

Yet here naturalism is mixed in with science as an absolute proof:

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing but double talk. This is the old trick of claiming ‘there is no doubt that evolution occurred; the only disagreement is about the mechanism.’

But modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining life’s complexity without God. If the disputes undermine favored mechanisms, then the materialist apologetic crumbles.

We can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science.

Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton.

However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation.

Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don’t teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences.

Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own ‘science’ and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so.

Origins science is inherently religious. All scientists can observe the same evidence--information in the genetic code. And from the evidence make predictions. But the origin of the genetic code is not testable, repeatable, or oberservable.

Evidence doesn’t speak for itself; it must be interpreted. This evidence is interpreted within a materialistic framework. Then materialists turn around and proclaim evolution as a major evidence for materialism, which was responsible for it in the first place!

And by evolutionary means this evidence can only be interperted through naturalistic and materialistic means.

Evolution also has a religious philosophy attached to it. The religion of secular humanism.

[ QUOTE ]
Scientists don’t have “blind faith” or the “faith of a child” when assuming that at some point more evidence will be found. I have faith (or I don’t) that soon I’ll be at 20% body fat. That’s very different from saying I have (or don’t have) religious faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and you are able to make that prediction based on emperical and observable evidences, via controls, ie. your diet, workout, goals. This is not in the same category as saying "I predict in the future we will have proof for abiogenesis". Again, your predictions of BF% are based on operational science, not origins science.

[ QUOTE ]
Can a Christian believe in science and the scientific process and still remain a true Christian? Can one believe the inferences of science on the natural world, when they are not directly listed in the Bible, if it should be held up as the starting point for information about the natural world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. We do not dispute operational science. See my above posts on this page. As I said in the above post, we base our axioms on the bible, we do not claim all creation theories are infallible. Just as evolutionist base all axioms on naturalism. See my above post.

[ QUOTE ]
However, repeatedly science has been shown to prevail and fill in those gaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolutionary Origins science can never be "filled in", and quit frankly it's predictions are absurd. You can't compare operational and origins science. Unless you invent a time machine.

[ QUOTE ]
Creationism adds nothing knew

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense. But I don't think you know much about creation, the theory has a lot to offer.

What you mean is since creation rejects naturalism we will never discover a natural means of the origins of life. In other words an explanation that suits evolutionists. If that is the case, you are correct! And exactly what we've been saying all along! /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
I still take issue with the argument that evolution is a religion.

Why?

Basically because if your going to say that evolution is a religion, you must continue and say science is a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunately we do not have to do this. Evolution is a religion, and based on the supernatural. i.e. life spontaneously generating. Belief in this is purely a supernatural belief against all scientific evidence.

You have zero evidence, and in fact all the evidence weighs against abiogenesis

I am simply quoting the scientific journals

Orgel, Leslie E., 'The Origin of Life on the Earth,'Scientific American, vol. 271 (October 1994), pp. 77-83.

p. 78

" It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

Scott, Andrew, "Update on Genesis," New Scientist, vol. 106 , pp. 30-33.

p. 30
"Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest. But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment."

p. 31
"We are grappling with a classic chicken and egg dilemma. Nucleic acids are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are needed to make nucleic acids and also to allow them to direct the process of protein manufacture itself."
p. 32

"The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery."

p. 33

"In their more public pronouncements, researchers interested in the origin of life sometimes behave a bit like the creationist opponents they so despise ;glossing over the great mysteries that remain unsolved and pretending they have firm answers that they have not really got. We still know very little about how our genesis came about, and to provide a more satisfactory account than we have at present remains one of science's great challenges."

[ QUOTE ]
Any scientific endeavor has a series of premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

The premise was that life could have spontaneously generated. That premise has been proven wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I think chemistry, physics, biology, geology, mathematics, psychology, and even philosophy (as it is based on certain premises of logic as well) seem to follow too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Each of these prove life could have never arrisen by chance, the evolutionists Sir Karl Popper states the following

<font color="red"> What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But ... the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics. </font>

Popper, K.R., Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science. In Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T., eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270.

[ QUOTE ]
The science of evolution takes things a step further. There are premises that we use to come up with theories about the natural world. There is little reason to doubt the premises and we have hope that we will find the evidence to back it up soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you have no evidence, but you have faith you will attain it in the future?

[ QUOTE ]
This is similar to molecular theory, which has been with us since the Greeks (around 400AD I believe). We finally found a way to experiment with it and test it in the early 1900s.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot test origins. Once again you are comparing operational science to origins science, they are markedly different

[ QUOTE ]
, before I'm sure it was thought there would be no way to test such a theory

[/ QUOTE ]

They have tested spontaneous generation and found it to be impossible

[ QUOTE ]
Scientists don&amp;#8217;t have blind faith or the faith of a childwhen assuming that at some point more evidence will be found.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it is quite blind. take homidid evolution. We have countless fossils, literally trillions and yet, there is no evidence for homidid evolution

[ QUOTE ]
John Reader "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, p. 802

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

[/ QUOTE ]

And, scientists now admit that they will probably never find any evidence in the fossils. Apparantly " Time is the Enemy "

Which is a cop out. Time is prescribed supernatural powers, it can create and eliminate evidence at the same time.

[ QUOTE ]
. I have faith (or I don't) that soon I&amp;#8217;ll be at 20% body fat.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a marked difference here. The methods you use have been tested and seen to work, and are in fact working on your body as we speak.

Our origins are non repeatable, and in fact, spontaneous generation is impossible

I can show you countless scientific journals to back that

[ QUOTE ]
Let us look once again at science. It seems to me that it fits with the above idea of what a religion is. Thus, if someone is to say that any belief in something when the evidence does not fully support it is a religion, then there seems to be a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, we are dealing with pure Origins here. Within this context, evolution is purely a religion. And it is based on no fossil evidence and no increase in genetic information. click here (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=562 019&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

As you will see from that link, he fails to give an example of an increase in genetic information. And myself as well as Old School have seen countless debates with some of the most funded and elite evolutionists in the world and no evolutionist has ever given an example on the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
Can a Christian believe in science and the scientific process and still remain a true Christian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed we can. I would suggest studying the information theory

[ QUOTE ]
? Further, if science is a religion

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is the religion, not science.

And again, the point here is a pure discussion on origins.

[ QUOTE ]
and at times produces ideas contrary to what is in the Bible, i

[/ QUOTE ]

Science does not contradict the bible.

[ QUOTE ]
it doesn&amp;#8217;t seem to me that one can pick and choose those conclusions one likes and abandon the others,

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, either life created itself or it was created. The former has been shown countless times to be false

[ QUOTE ]
Also I was under the impression that it has been discovered how to create the basic amino acids from non-life (am I wrong on that)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can summarize this with Miller, the most famous and up to date scientist on sponaneous generation

Scientific America, one of the top evolutionary journals out there. Discusses this below

Horgan, John, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264 (February 1991), pp. 117-125.

1. <font color="green"> p. 118
"None of these approaches has gained enough support to qualify as a new paradigm. On the other hand, none has been ruled out. That bothers Miller who is known as both a rigorous experimentalist and a bit of a curmudgeon. Some theories, he asserts, do not merit serious attention. He calls the organic-matter-from-space concept &amp;#8216;a loser,&amp;#8217; the vent hypothesis &amp;#8216;garbage&amp;#8217; and the pyrite theory &amp;#8216;paper chemistry.&amp;#8217; Such work, he grumbles, perpetuates the reputation of the origin-of-life field as being on the fringe of science and not worthy of serious pursuit."
</font>

2. p. 119
"DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins."

3. p. 119
"But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones."

4. p. 125
"About a decade ago Orgel and Crick managed to provoke the public and their colleagues by speculating that the seeds of life were sent to the earth in a spaceship by intelligent beings living on another planet. Orgel says the proposal, which is known as directed panspermia, was sort of a joke.

[Adam Knowlden]

Something else I wanted to add...

[ QUOTE ]
So the question is: which religion does one accept?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The religion of life, Jesus Christ or,

the religion of death, evolution.

According to Carl Sagan,

<font color="red"> "The secrets of evolution are death and time -the deaths of enormous numbers of life forms that were imperfectly adapted to the environment; and time for a long succession of small mutations that were by accident adaptive, time for the slow accumulation of patterns of favorable mutations1 </font>

If evolution is true, death is a good thing. That's how we get ahead!

If creation is true, death is a terrible thing, and Christ will stomp it out.

If creation is true, you have a purpose in life.

If evolution is true. There is no purpose. It's all about survival of the fittest, which doesn't mean who's the biggest and best, but who has the most kids. In other words you're only here to breed.

If creation is true, you need a savior.

If evolution is true, you don't need a savior. Saved from what? There is no sin!

For that matter what is good and evil, but what each individual decides it is. There is no accountability.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20010316_6.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
So the question is: which religion does one accept?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've made up my mind! /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[enderwigginout]

The crux of the argument, as I see it, when talking about evolution is twofold (at least from the discussion on this board). One, that the premise that life arises from non-life is problematic. Two, that macroevolution has yet to be observed. I take issue with each, but for the purposes of this debate in this reply I will accept both.

I don't think you can only attribute these to "origins science." There is no indication if or when time will end. I think it is conceivable that one may prove eventually if life arose from non-life. I don't see how this is an "origin science," for it is quite experimental.

"I want to prove that life arose from non-life," the bold scientist says and starts on his work. This does not necessarily mean he is proving that it DID happen that way. He can do many experiments to prove if this can happen. If he succeeds, then there is an alterative mechanism for life. It might not have been a diety which created life, since life was found to arise naturally. So I don't see how you can relagate this subject to "origins science" because we may never know what really happened with 100% accuracy (I believe you could extrapolate from known data and see what is most likely). One might say that the event itself is history, but the subject of life arising from non-life surely can't be neatly fit into that category.

Similarly with evolution. Time is at the core of the theory, and it is thought to work over millions of years. You can't observe it easily in 150 years when the theory clearly states the length of time the process involves (especially when some state it works in fits and starts and may require some ecological disaster for a plethera of mutations to occur). Just because there hasn't been enough time to observe this phenomena doesn't mean that it does not exist or is merely in the realm of "origins science." (Note: I think the cop-out you spoke of is a double edged sword and if relavant is in the opposite direction as well). For once you observe macroevolution can exist, then it is probable that macroevolution occured in the past, especially when microevolution is supported in the fossil record. And if the previous argument is also found to be a naturally occuring phenomena, then both together seem to form a different mechanism for life. Therefore, both seem testable, experimental, and observable, which seems at odds with saying both are "origin science."

Thus it seems to me that you can't neatly fit part of science in one category and call it a religion. In my opinion it's all or nothing.

[konaforever]

Post deleted

[enderwigginout]

[ QUOTE ]
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 Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Therefore, He had no beginning in time, has always existed, and so does not need a cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it is not unreasonable to assume otherwise. There are many arguments in philosophy for an infinite causal chain. One is the hotel analogy (I can’t think of the name of his thought experiment, but maybe someone here will remember—Higbert's Hotel? Hilbert's Hotel?). Suppose there exists a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. The hotel is completely booked. A man enters the lobby and asks for a room. He receives a room. How? Because there are infinite rooms. Everyone gets out of their room and moves down one and all rooms are filled again...until the next man arrives. Another analogy is the "chain" analogy. An infinite chain exists which hangs from nothing. You grab the end and begin to climb up. It does not fall. Why? Each link in the chain is linked to the previous chain and is supported by it.

It’s a mind [*%#*%*#]...but I think it is a valid argument.
Therefore, it is not clear if the universe actually requires a creator in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
"If God created the universe, then who created God?' But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question 'Who created God?' is illogical, just like 'To whom is the bachelor married?'

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask, 'If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?' The following reasoning stands up to scrutiny:
.
.
.
God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so does not need a cause...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 He has no beginning in time. Therefore He does not have, or need to have, a cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take issue with the above as well. I think the infinite causal chain "may" work for a reason why a god "may" exist with no direct cause (was that enough "may"'s /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif ), which I is a fascinating argument. However, you bring up an interesting point. It is logically not possible to ask who created God if God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe (as is the bachelor question). I meant to go back and discuss this topic in the free will post but I seem to have forgotten which one it was so I will discuss it here a little (the argument is in fact from Davis, but is quite lengthy).

God either is a temporal being or is timeless. If he is timeless then he can not interfere with human history (as he would be within time—which also undercuts the free-will argument once he steps within time as he knows what will happen and who will choose what). How would a timeless have a knowledge of "before" "after," "during" and how would he "respond" to anything? These are all rooted in time. If god were timeless he wouldn’t be able to experience these things and this would limit god’s power (and he fails to be omniscient) and he could not be the creator (as he would have no concept of "beginning"). If he is within time then there is the problem of divine fore-knowledge.

I know someone didn’t understand how God could both at once be in time and out of time. It is logically impossible, just as "to whom is the bachelor married" or "can God make a mountain he can not lift?" These are illogical, just as a god being both in time and out of time. It is either or not and. To say he is not limited by the time dimension I believe is just a way to preserve both options, but I believe you can’t go that far.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
The crux of the argument, as I see it, when talking about evolution is twofold (at least from the discussion on this board). One, that the premise that life arises from non-life is problematic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Life arrising from non-life is not only problematic it has been shown to be impossible. It must be accepted on faith, and not science. No scientific journal has ever presented anything other than more problems for this

[ QUOTE ]
. I think it is conceivable that one may prove eventually if life arose from non-life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dr. Don Batten states - " Unfortunately it is not even mathmatically concievable. The chances of life origionating from non-life only show that this could never take place.

The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional 'simple' cell, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10^57,800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros.

To try to put this in perspective, there are about 10^80 (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours, that would 'only' amount to 10^160 electrons.

These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, has used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For example, Hoyle said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time; and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world 'simple' bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life could not form by natural (random) processes. "

F. Hoyle, 'The big bang in astronomy' New Scientist, 92(1280):527, 1981

You can find more on the chance of life here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/probabilities.asp)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[falser]

Sorry, but I don't buy any of this stuff.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, this is a textbook attack. Once you can no longer defend your position, you attack the sourse. This tactic has historically been the weakest of them all and is certainly no way to gain support for your arguement.


[/ QUOTE ]

Often used when the debate is being lost.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/president/images/1201evolutionisreligion.jpg

[Adam Knowlden]

LOL! I must have struck a nerve! That confirms it, you are studying talk origins!!!LOL

How dare I question the "hard science behind whale evoluton!"LOL!

Before I dismantle falseorigins.org, allow me to explain the dilemia with whale evolution. If it's close to bed time, here is your nightly fairy tale to help you hit Z land...

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/wolf1.jpg

This wolf-like creature is supposedly the whale's great, great, great, great, ... great granddaddy! The evolutionist must make this leap of faith because the whale is a mammal. Evolutionists believe that certain fish a long time ago learned to walk out of the water and eventually evolved into mammals. Since there are mammals such as whales in the water, they were forced to postulate that a few of the land mammals became homesick and returned to the water and became whales! Wow!

The whale has many incredibly complex mechanisms that makes it vastly different than land-dwelling mammals. For example, whales have a huge chamber of sperm oil that allows adjustment of buoyancy at different depths, and are equipped with features that allow them to withstand the enormous amount of pressure they encounter at great depths. Their eyes have a far higher refractive index to allow them to see in water, and their ears can pick up airborne sound waves under high pressure. Whales also possess very complex sonar capability. Not to mention converting a land dwelling animal to a whale, you would also have to replace its sweat glands with thick layers of blubbery fat, change its eyes so that the light rays under sea water are still brought to focus on the retina, change its skin to produce a curious surface efficiently designed to streamline the flow of water, and also find some way to enable it to give birth to young which suckle under water without drowning, a rather essential 'adaptation'.

Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist, it cannot create new ones.

Mutations cannot add to the genetic information, they can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information to the genome (and which thus forms a new organ or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed.

So how did an alleged wolf-like whale ancestor begin this mind-boggling transition to whale? What prompted him to "dive in"? The following illustrates what the first saga of this adventure must have looked like!

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/wolf2.jpg

"This water's kinda cold, but I sure would like to be a sea creature. Maybe I'll find Atlantis."

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/wolf3.jpg

Poor wolf, foiled again! This aquatic lifestyle just doesn't seem to want to take hold. Time to go back to the Designer and demand swimming and scuba lessons!

With all that science it doesn't leave much to the imagination!!!

Let's look at the hardcore scientific evidence as presented by talkorigins, the source of truth:

[ QUOTE ]
How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Double talk. You have already made up your mind that there must be transitional fossils, because after all evolution is true!

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, for many years the fossil record for the whales was quite spotty, but now there are numerous transitional forms that illustrate the pathway of whale evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool! I can't wait to see all this evidence! Here he starts out with operational science, spouting off facts about mammals, then he sneaks in his origins science...

[ QUOTE ]
What is a whale?
A whale is first and foremost, a mammal - a warm-blooded vertebrate that uses its high metabolism to generate heat and regulate its internal temperature. Female whales bear live young, which they nurse from mammary glands. Although adult whales have no covering of body hair, they acquire body hair temporarily as fetuses, and some adult whales have sensory bristles around their mouths. These features are unequivocally mammalian....These, then, are the major features of whales.

Some clearly show the distinctive adaptations imposed on whales by their commitment to marine living; others clearly link the whales to their terrestrial ancestors. Others show the traces of descent from a terrestrial ancestor in common with several ancient and modern species. From all these features together, we can reconstruct the pathway that whale evolution took from a terrestrial ancestor to a modern whale confined to deep oceans.


[/ QUOTE ]

Typical falseorigins deception.

[ QUOTE ]
Some clearly show the distinctive adaptations imposed on whales by their commitment to marine living

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation- "There is a variation of whales...

[ QUOTE ]
others clearly link the whales to their terrestrial ancestors.

[/ QUOTE ]

That proves they used to walk on land!"

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking about the ancestry of the whale


[/ QUOTE ]

Finally the good stuff! /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Later, Flower (1883) recognized that the whales have persistent rudimentary and vestigial features characteristic of terrestrial mammals, thus confirming that the direction of descent was from terrestrial to marine species. On the basis of morphology, Flower also linked whales with the ungulates; he seems to have been the first person to do so.


[/ QUOTE ]

Vestigial organs, if they even exist, do nothing to support whale evolution. Vestigial organs are examples of loses of information, not gains, as would be required to turn a dog into a whale.

[ QUOTE ]
However, no such animal has ever been found. More recently, Van Valen (1966) and Szalay (1969) associated early whales with mesonychid condylarths (a now-extinct group of primitive carnivorous ungulates, none bigger than a wolf) on the basis of dental characters. More recent evidence confirms their assessment. Thus Flower was basically right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Neet-0! So the tale is in the teeth!

[ QUOTE ]
The paleontological evidence comes from studying the fossil sequence from terrestrial mammals through more and more whale-like forms until the appearance of modern whales.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow!

[ QUOTE ]
The characters that link Sinonyx to the whales, thus indicating that they are relatives, include an elongated muzzle, an enlarged jugular foramen, and a short basicranium

[/ QUOTE ]

That does nothing to show a link to whales...

Going from

http://www.pbs.org/edens/yellowstone/pics/pages/photos/wolf.jpg

to...

http://www.learner.org/jnorth/images/graphics/u-z/whale.07.jpg

better have more than " enlarged jugular foramen, and a short basicranium " to show a transition.

[ QUOTE ]
Pakicetus
The next fossil in the sequence, Pakicetus, is the oldest cetacean, and the first known archaeocete. It is from the early Eocene of Pakistan, about 52 million years ago (Gingerich and others 1983). Although it is known only from fragmentary skull remains, those remains are very diagnostic, and they are definitely intermediate between Sinonyxand later whales.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really?

First let's expose the truth:

Here is what falseorigins shows:

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/pakicetus.gif

Now let's see the truth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/pakicetus.gif

Gingerich discovered in Pakistan a few skull fragments of a wolf-like creature that allegedly had an inner ear like a whale’s. But this is far from conclusive. There wasn’t any post-cranial skeleton found, so we haven’t the faintest idea how it moved. However, this didn’t stop Gingerich from writing an article for schoolteachers with an illustration of an animal swimming and catching fish, and looking convincingly like an intermediate between land animals and whales. He also claimed, ‘In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales.’ The diagram shows the glaring contrast between reconstruction and reality.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/pakicetus2.gif

New research since this series was produced has blown away this reconstruction. This demonstrates an oft-repeated phenomenon in evolutionary paleontology. Many of the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on one’s axioms.

Evolutionary bias means that such remains are often likely to be interpreted as transitional, as with Gingerich, and is also prevalent in ape-man claims. But when more bones are discovered, then the fossils nearly always fit one type or another, and are no longer plausible as transitional. It’s also notable that alleged intermediate forms are often trumpeted in the media, while retractions are usually muted or unpublicized.

A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature. The commentary on this paper in the same issue says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’

This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an aquatic animal! But the evolutionary bias is still clear, describing Pakicetus as a ‘terrestrial cetacean’ and saying, ‘The first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners.’ But the term ‘whale’ becomes meaningless if it can describe land mammals, and it provides no insight into how true marine whales supposedly evolved.

Pakicetus, which is clearly a land dweller, as ‘walking whale’ simply on the structural features in its ear bones and molars, is nothing but another example of ‘sensational, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.’ In his article ‘The Overselling of Whale Evolution,’ Ashby L. Camp reveals the total invalidity of the claim that the Mesonychid class, which should include land mammals such as Pakicetus, could have been the ancestors of Archaeocetea, or extinct whales, in these words:

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> “The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.”[4] </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
A well-preserved cranium shows that Pakicetus was definitely a cetacean with a narrow braincase, a high, narrow sagittal crest, and prominent lambdoidal crests. Gingerich and others (1983) reconstructed a composite skull that was about 35 centimeters long. Pakicetus did not hear well underwater. Its skull had neither dense tympanic bullae nor sinuses isolating the left auditory area from the right one - an adaptation of later whales that allows directional hearing under water and prevents transmission of sounds through the skull (Gingerich and others 1983).

[/ QUOTE ]

A well preserved cranium!! LOL! Stop lying to the kids Raymond. Then the inferences you make! Terrible.

I'm sorry, how dare I question such hard science, please elaborate falseorigins...

[ QUOTE ]
Ambulocetus
In the same area that Pakicetus was found, but in sediments about 120 meters higher, Thewissen and colleagues (1994) discovered Ambulocetus natans, "the walking whale that swims", in 1992. Dating from the early to middle Eocene, about 50 million years ago, Ambulocetus is a truly amazing fossil.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny you should mention sediments. The Ambulocetus fossil was found in ‘lower to middle Eocene’ beds. Fossils of whales of the suborder Archeoceti have been found in lower Eocene strata, so Ambulocetus is unlikely to be an ancestor of modern whales, as claimed.

Again, let's see the imagination at work:

[ QUOTE ]
Thus Ambulocetus is best described as an amphibious, sea-lion-sized fish-eater that was not yet totally disconnected from the terrestrial life of its ancestors.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is obvious the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even wide claws on its feet and hooves on its hind legs. Apart from evolutionists’ prejudice however, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that it swam in water, or that it lived on land and in water (like an amphibian).

http://www.trueorigin.org/images/ng_whales0104.jpg

Note the imaginary webs added to claws, and rear legs made to look like fins.

If you look at it carefully you can easily see the two little visual manipulations that have been employed to ‘turn the land-dwelling Ambulocetus into a whale:

-The animal’s rear legs are shown not with feet that would help it to walk, but as fins that would assist it to swim. However, Carroll, who examines the animal’s leg bones, says that it possessed the ability to move powerfully on land.[5]

-In order to present an impression of adaptation for water, webbing has been drawn on its front feet. Yet it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of Ambulocetus fossils. In the fossil record it is next to impossible to find soft tissues such as these. So reconstructions based on features beyond those of the skeleton are always speculative. That offers evolutionists a wide-ranging empty space of speculation to use their propaganda tools.

With the same kind of evolutionists touching up that has been applied to the Ambulocetus drawing, it is possible to make any animal look like any other. You could even take a monkey skeleton, draw fins on its back and webbing between its fingers and present it as the ‘primate ancestor of whales.’

http://www.trueorigin.org/images/ng_whales0105.jpg

As the skeleton clearly shows, the animal’s feet were designed to carry it on land. There was no sign of the imaginary webs.

[ QUOTE ]
Rodhocetus
In the middle Eocene (46-7 million years ago) Rodhocetus took all of these changes even further, yet still retained a number of primitive terrestrial features (Gingerich and others 1994). It is the earliest archaeocete of which all of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral vertebrae have been preserved. The lumbar vertebrae had higher neural spines than in earlier whales. The size of these extensions on the top of the vertebrae where muscles are attached indicate that Rodhocetus had developed a powerful tail for swimming.


[/ QUOTE ]

Going from Ambulocetus to Rodhocetus is certainly no support for the claim, ‘front legs became fins, rear legs disappeared, bodies lost fur and took on their familiar streamlined shape’. Waving the magic wand of mutation/selection is hardly sufficient without an observable mechanism that would effect these changes.

[ QUOTE ]
rall, Rodhocetus showed improvements over earlier whales by virtue of its deep, slim thorax, longer head, greater vertebral flexibility, and expanded tail-related musculature. The increase in flexibility and strength in the back and tail with the accompanying decrease in the strength and size of the limbs indicated that it was a good tail-swimmer with a reduced ability to walk on land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is a whale of a tale!

The difference between the tail of a whale and a cow's tail (or that of any other mammal, for that matter) is quite simple. When a cow swats the flies from its back, it moves its tail generally from side to side. A whale, however, can't do this. Not that it has to swat flies, but it does have to move its tail up and down in order to swim.
Now while this differing way of moving a tail may sound insignificant, it isn't. It is enough to show that the supposed evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals cannot possibly be true. Why not? Simply because that little change of direction in the way the tail moves, could not happen without some rather elaborate changes between the side-swinging creatures and those which swing their tails vertically.

Any land-dwelling mammal wishing to evolve into a whale could certainly practise moving its left-right tail in an up-down fashion, and there is no doubt that it could certainly improve up to a point. Maybe even learn to swim faster and catch more fish. But after that its tail movement would begin to crush its reproductive apparatus against its pelvis. This would have a tendency to lower the animal's sexual urges somewhat and it would soon lose interest in reproduction -- not a very positive evolutionary step. Taken to extremes, this new tail movement would simply crush the whole pelvis. Such a transition would have no survival value whatsoever. The selective pressures of the environment, or natural selection, would work against any such change of tail on a land-dwelling mammal.

To make the claim as evolutionists do, that land-dwelling mammals evolved into sea-dwelling whales is to claim that there had to be simultaneous accidental genetic changes which allowed the tail to grow larger while the pelvis grew smaller. And all this ignores the problems caused as the ever shrinking pelvis or hip bones reached the point where they were far too small to support the creature's weight on its hind legs, and yet still too large to let the animal move its tail up and down with any efficiency.

Sorry this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/pakicetus2.gif

to this...

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/rodhocetus_science.jpg

needs a multiude of more transitions to even be laughable, let alone scientific. Currently, it is outright propoganda.

[ QUOTE ]
Basilosaurus
The particularly well-known fossil whale Basilosaurus represents the next evolutionary grade in whale evolution (Gingerich 1994). It lived during the late Eocene and latest part of the middle Eocene (35-45 million years ago). Basilosaurus was a long, thin, serpentine animal that was originally thought to have been the remains of a sea serpent (hence it is name, which actually means "king lizard"). Its extreme body length (about 15 meters) appears to be due to a feature unique among whales; its 67 vertebrae are so long compared to other whales of the time and to modern whales that it probably represents a specialization that sets it apart from the lineage that gave rise to modern whales.


[/ QUOTE ]

What Raymond did not tell us was that although hundreds of skeletons of Basilosaurus have been found, and hundreds of whale skeletons, nothing which would qualify as intermediate between these two has been found. Also, Basilosaurus was fully aquatic—not a part–land, part–sea dweller.

[ QUOTE ]
What makes Basilosaurus a particularly interesting whale, however, is the distinctive anatomy of its hind limbs (Gingerich and others 1990). It had a nearly complete pelvic girdle and set of hindlimb bones. The limbs were too small for effective propulsion, less than 60 cm long on this 15-meter-long animal, and the pelvic girdle was completely isolated from the spine so that weight-bearing was impossible. Reconstructions of the animal have placed its legs external to the body - a configuration that would represent an important intermediate form in whale evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, while it did have functional hind limbs, these were far too tiny to have anything to do with walking, and evolutionists themselves have said they were probably used for grasping in reproduction. Of course Raymond did not tell us that the tiny hind appendages are believed to have been useful 'grasping organs' during mating—they were not useless evolutionary leftovers.

[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion- Taken together, all of this evidence points to only one conclusion - that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals

[/ QUOTE ]

What emerges, if the evidence is looked at more objectively, is that different living groups emerged independently of each other in the past. This is compelling empirical evidence for accepting that God created all of these creatures.

[ QUOTE ]
How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you convince a person that waving the wand of time will not turn a dog into a wolf, or a frog into a prince.

Give up? You can not. Because to do otherwise would be to admit:

<font color="red"> 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


</font>

[President Wilson]

Outstanding article as well. We have documented several evolutionary sources as well though, and they also show that all scientific evidence contradicts spontaneous generation.

[Venom]

Great post O.S!

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I don't buy any of this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

You apparantly also do not by the scientific literature to which you claim to adhere to. Here is a source from one of the top scientists in the world on the probability of spontaneous generation

Francis Crick is indeed one of the most notable men in history, end of discussion

Crick, Francis, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon &amp; Schuster, 1981) 192 pp.
p. 51-2


<font color="red"> "If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be?

This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros.

Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense. The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time."


p. 88
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

</font>

That is straight from the source friend. If you do not agree with that, then you apparantly disagree with the plain scientific facts as described by evolutionists themselves.

Here is further statements made by a top Mathmetician

Wickramasinghe, C., Interview in London Daily Express (August 14, 1981), Wickramasinghe is Professor of Applied Math &amp; Astronomy, University College, Cardiff.

<font color="red"> "Each found that the odds against the spark of life igniting accidentally on Earth were '10 to the power of 40,000.'"

</font>

[Peter Jackson]

Evolution, such a cold idea. I said it before, I'll say it again though, "athiests need a religion too."

[Adam Knowlden]

LOL! I was just getting started!

Falseorigins is so full of propoganda.

They are extremely outdated, even by evolutionary standards, and attack creation with so false ad hominems.

Whale evolution is much like human evolution, it's all in the teeth!LOL

Here we see two people, "scientifically" built from a pig's tooth:

[ QUOTE ]
"The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear... This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man's descent from apes." - Professor Osborn


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/nebraska1.jpg

The Nebraska Man saga began in 1921 with the discovery of a tooth in western Nebraska by a geologist named Harold Cook. The tooth eventually found its way into the hands of Dr. Henry Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn excitedly postulated that the tooth belonged to an early ape-man, and his claim was bolstered by the support of scientist Sir Grafton Elliot Smith of Great Britain, a Professor of Anatomy at Manchester.

An all too familiar scenario was about to unfold. Several scientists make an interpretation based on the current scientific paradigm, and then the media assumes its role of conveying the "science" to the general public in typical media fashion! So from a single tooth, Nebraska Man, aka Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, was created! The picture above is the actual artist rendering, based on input from Smith, that was published in the Illustrated London Daily News. But 5 years later, a discovery was made that shed a bit of light on the real Nebraska Man...

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/nebraska2.jpg

That's right! If you haven't heard the story before, additional fossil fragments identified the tooth as coming from a pig!

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/nebraska3.jpg

Unfortunately, we have been force fed many similar monkey-man fairy tales over the last 100 years. Many of these fables have been discredited by even secular evolutionist scientists, yet they still pervade our media and education system.

[SirLiftsaLot]

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
Ender, the hotel analogy was first brought fourth by Hilbert and Bernays and the philosophical theory is called Hilbert's Program. His theories have long sinse been rejected as nonsence throughout the philosophic community. So this defense is without foundation.

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose there exists a hotel with an infinite number of rooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fine. A hotel with unlimited rooms.

[ QUOTE ]
The hotel is completely booked.

[/ QUOTE ]

So every room is filled. Or, from a skeptics standpoint, maybe every room is booked but not every room is filled. Someone may have purchased a room for a weekend but didn't show up so the room is still "booked" but empty.

[ QUOTE ]
A man enters the lobby and asks for a room. He receives a room. How?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if you are a skeptic then there may have been an empty room, even if the infinite number of rooms is booked. Here is where the theory really falls apart though, if there is an infinite number of rooms and they are all booked, then there is also an infinite number of bookings. Ergo, there is zero (0) space available for a man (potential booking) to get a room (since the infinite number of rooms are filled because of an infinite number of bookings).

Sorry Ender, this theory has been abandoned long ago, in fact, it never really heald much sway anyways.

[ QUOTE ]
An infinite chain exists which hangs from nothing. You grab the end and begin to climb up. It does not fall. Why? Each link in the chain is linked to the previous chain and is supported by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, another weak philosophical concept. Even if these held any sort of sway whatsoever, it still does not support the idea that life evolved from non-life. Again, your arguements lack any sort of foundation, even from a philosophic standpoint.

[ QUOTE ]
It&amp;#8217;s a mind [*%#*%*#]...but I think it is a valid argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simple really, and no it is not a valid arguement.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, it is not clear if the universe actually requires a creator in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on what? Your weak analogies?

[ QUOTE ]
God either is a temporal being or is timeless

[/ QUOTE ]

God is not "either/or" anything. God is eternal, everlasting. He is the God who is, the God who was, and the God who is to come - the Almighty.

The fallacy of "either/or" is one that has been used many times. Setting up two extreme positions as the only alternatives and denying any possible middle ground. This fallacy is often an assertion of an arguement that oversimplifies or seeks to intimidate.

[ QUOTE ]
I know someone didn&amp;#8217;t understand how God could both at once be in time and out of time

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been answered already so I will not address it.





[/ QUOTE ]

Remind me not to try to argue philosophy with Yu Yevon!! That was an awesome post Yu, you should think about doing something with philosophy, or maybe you should start thinking of going to seminary, it seemingly has been calling you IMO. You would make an incredible pastor at any church, as would Prez,OS, and Venom, but I feel Yu sometimes has a way with words, and could really inspire. Keep it up!!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Venom]

I agree SL, Yu is the man! I am going to start calling him Pastor Yevon. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[SirLiftsaLot]

Pastor Yevon, I like that, very catchy! What will the sermon be on this upcoming Sunday Pastor Yevon? On a serious note, could you add a section to the magazine or just an area of the site that could be updated with a basic sermon or area of bible that helps us deal with our daily lives? I know the lengthy bible discussions help, but sometimes as we all know it really touches us when we are sitting in church and the pastor hits a chord that is right on for you at that moment,and gives you guided message from the bible. I think this site could do the same for a lot of people that sometimes don't make it to church, or just need the inspiration. What do you guys think?

[falser]

Can any of you even make an argument without quoting a source?

In any case this argument can obviously go on for ever. It's unlikely that either side is going to convince the other of anything. But feel free to continue quoting sources that discredit evolution if that makes you sleep well at night...

BTW that wolf to whale example is not a sound argument. There is indeed nothing in evolution that says a wolf will mutate into a whale over time, it only states that have a common ancestor millions of years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
falser said:
Do you even see the hypocrisy in saying that I cannot doubt your sources, when this is exactly what your Christian sources do to evolution?


[/ QUOTE ]

It would be more accurate to have said Fundamentalist sources, or Fundamentalist Christian sources. I'm a little sensitive to this, because I have maintained all along that there is no inherent conflict between Christianity and the possibility of some form of evolutionary process.

To be sure, Darwinism is an atheistic ideology. But there are many theories of evolution that reject Darwinian ideology.

We may never know the mechanism the Almighty used to create the universe and man. The Bible tells us God did it, but it doesn't say how He did it. It's a mistake to believe otherwise.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Can any of you even make an argument without quoting a source?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't plagerize anything. This isn't a research paper. I was simply showing the errors in talkorigins, which by evolutionary standards is outdated. However, that is the main souce you aquire your information from. I have shown my sources multiple times, nor have I ever claimed to have created the research.

The fact of the matter is, the skull shown on talkorigins is misleading. They fail to tell that they only found two pieces of the skull, and from that inferences of mobility, hunting patterns, and other habits, characterizing them as whales are made.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you even see the hypocrisy in saying that I cannot doubt your sources, when this is exactly what your Christian sources do to evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have shown piece by piece why I doubted whale evolution from the talkorings website. Show me exactly what pieces of evidence that I gave that you contend.

This is right from the mouth of Gingerich:

[ QUOTE ]
Until now paleontologists thought whales had evolved from mesonychians, an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores, while molecular scientists studying DNA were convinced they descended from artiodactyls [even-toed ungulates].

‘“The paleontologists, and I am one of them, were wrong,” Gingerich said.’


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet false origins continues promoting mesonychians as a link between dog and whales.

I can find many more:

[ QUOTE ]
The opening segment presents the mounting evidence for the amazing transition from a terrestrial wolf-like vertebrate to modern aquatic whales. Lots of fossils and reconstructions are paraded before us, unfolding the supposed story of whale evolution. Complete skeletons are pictured with no indication that they are based on very partial fossil finds. The overall transitional series is discussed with certainty despite the fact that evolutionists themselves admit that the known members of the transitional series are not thought to be the actual members of the transitional series but just representative of what the actual transitional species may have looked like.{1} Also missing is the admission that, by the very nature of fossils, it can never really be known if any one fossil was ancestral to another.

[/ QUOTE ]

From PBS Evolution Series
Ray Bohlin Raymond G. Bohlin is executive director of Probe Ministries. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology). He is the co-author of the book The Natural Limits to Biological Change, served as general editor of Creation, Evolution and Modern Science, and has published numerous journal articles. Dr. Bohlin was named a 1997-98 and 2000 Research Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. He can be reached via e-mail at rbohlin@probe.org.

[ QUOTE ]
The story of whale evolution has indeed grown more sophisticated over the last 10-15 years. Indeed, this was one transition that many creationists had a great deal of fun with. How could a land mammal evolve into a whale? How could the transitional forms possibly be functional on land or in water? If one were to scan the presumed transitional series (found on page 138 of Evolution by Carl Zimmer, Harper Collins, 2001) it is quite impressive evidence for evolution. The transitional series, while a little jerky with certain gaps remaining, appears gradual enough and the fossils seem to appear in the expected order and strata. But as always, the truth is in the details. Two recent articles investigate the evidence with some detail and rigor. Ashby Camp has written a fine summary (last modified March 11, 2002) and critique of the fossil evidence for whale evolution that is available from the TrueOrigins website at www.trueorigins.org/whales.asp. (http://www.trueorigins.org/whales.asp.) Also, John Woodmorappe has analyzed the mixture of characters in some of the whale-like fossils in his article "Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist?" in TJ 16(1) 2002: 111-119. TJ was formerly Creation Ex Nihilo: Technical Journal.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is typical though. Instead of attacking the evidence I presented, attack me.

I attacked the illegitimacy of talkorigins whale evolution links(with evolutionary sources), yet instead of refuting any of the claims, I get personal attacks.

This is called an ad hominem attack and is typical when one is losing the debate.

Now to continue...

As far as Paketius being a half/water-half/land creature,

Thewissen, J.G.M., Williams, E.M, Roe, L.J. and Hussain, S.T., Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413:277–281, 20 September 2001

‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’

They are totally land dwelling, yet talkorings presents them as almost amphibian like, having webbing between their toes and fins.

Muizon, C. de, Walking with whales, Nature 413:259–260, 20 September 2001 (see PDF file).

As far as the baliosaurus having "vestigial hind legs" and Gingerich himself said‘it seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper’

The Press Enterprise, 1 July 1990, A-15

Not the way talkorings presents it.

So, now what specifics of the claims made do you dispute.

Stop with the ad hominems and defend your position.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
Can any of you even make an argument without quoting a source?

[/ QUOTE ]

We quoted the top scientists in the world, both evolutionary and creationist. And we continually show our sources

Both had the same clear and concise conclusion

- <font color="red"> Life could never have spontaneously formed. </font>

You have added absolutely nothing to this, except to complain that we have shown you this fact overwelmingly.
Which neither yourself, nor any evolutionist can contend!

Unless you would like to add to this conversation further, or lend any credence to your arguments, then save your reply.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
So exactly what tactic is there for refuting creationism?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have none, because you have no mechanism to naturalistically show how life could have arrisen. And in fact, science has shown the complete impossibility of this sceneneo

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
But feel free to continue quoting sources that discredit evolution if that makes you sleep well at night...

[/ QUOTE ]

You said, talkorigins, is a "very interesting site about this topic"

translation- "go there for your sources."

I simply showed, using evolutionary sources, they are not presenting all the facts.

If that is "discrediting evolutionary sources" I am guilty.

And that's what science does. Weighs all the evidences then makes a hypothesis.

What science is not is claiming two pieces of a skull is a link to early whales, fail to show the readers that only two pieces were found, or how wild inferences are made from two pieces and concluded to be a "walking whale".

As opposed to disputing the topics I present you slander the sources, although if you research the information all come from evolutionary sources, who are in much debate about whale evolution. However instead of admitting that, falseorigins likes to make whale evolution look like a nice neat package that is all figured out and backed with "scientific evidence". Very misleading.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW that wolf to whale example is not a sound argument. There is indeed nothing in evolution that says a wolf will mutate into a whale over time, it only states that have a common ancestor millions of years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right and wrong. Right in that evolution actually does claim everything had a common ancestor to a rock.

Wrong in that it defeneitly does claim a dog turned into a whale.

First mammals had to evolve from fish, then they had to re-evolve into water dwelling mammals:

It started as this:

http://whale.zo.ntu.edu.tw/_derived/evolution.htm_txt_mesonychidae1.gif

Notice the propoganda. The dog is in water, as though that somehow indicates he is "evolving" into a whale.

"Wow, I'd like to live in the water! Maybe I'll totally restructure my anatomy to turn into a whale!"

Here is the flow that evolutionists claim, straight from an evolutionary souce.

http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/whale1.gif

Showing a "clear transition" from dog to whale.

Here we are told whales have a vestigial pelvis:

http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio336/Bio336/Lectures/Lecture5/whale.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
Such structures are known as vestigial structures.

For example:

The pelvic girdle of a whale


[/ QUOTE ]

That is pure propoganda. The pelvis has essential muscles that are reqired for reproduction, they never had anything to do with walking. The author of zoology.ubc
is either ignornat about whale anatomy or lying.

[ QUOTE ]
you're just regurgitating propaganda. And you're patting eachother on the backs saying "good job on the cut and paste".

[/ QUOTE ]

So now let's stop with the ad hominem's. If you have a dispute with what I've claimed let's hear it. I gave multiple sources and have made multiple claims. Yet instead of calling me a liar, call the evidence lies and back those claims up.

[bigpoppadiesel]

science is not a religion. if someone proves a scientific theory to be wrong then it is changed. ive never seen the bible come out and say "aight, maybe that whole cramming 2 of every animal thing on a boat was a lil out there". instead they rationalize and give dimensions of a boat and if a giraffe bent its neck just right and a penguin was sitting next to spider monkey sharing a bannanna.... to make a long story short the bible was written thousands of yrs ago and they havent changed a **** thing its just been considered right right and more right. science has changed evolved and different theories have been discredited. if someone proves that evolution was in no way possible under any circumstances than science would say "good bye evolution" but then u would need another better "theory" adn thats all that evolution is right now is theory. if someone mathematically proves god then hey there u go u win. but until then evolution will be the "theory" science uses.

[falser]

Here is a fairly recent article in a well respected Scientific Magazine:
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&amp;pageNumber=1&amp;catID=2)

It covers some of the anit-evolutionist arguments you have been making, and counters them with examples that have solid scientific backing.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
science is not a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, Evolution is.

[ QUOTE ]
if someone proves a scientific theory to be wrong then it is changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no theory for how life could have arrisen and scientists admit this

[ QUOTE ]
ive never seen the bible come out and say "aight, maybe that whole cramming 2 of every animal thing on a boat was a lil out there".

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if you do the calculations the animals could have easily fit on the ark. Wev'e covered this already

[ QUOTE ]
instead they rationalize and give dimensions of a boat and if a giraffe bent its neck just right and a penguin was sitting next to spider monkey sharing a bannanna....

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The Bible Gives the dimensions of the boat.
2. Creation scientists document thousands of studies on exactly how animals are housed today in labs, farms, and what not. And show it under countless conditions that the scenereo is entirely doable.

[ QUOTE ]
to make a long story short the bible was written thousands of yrs ago and they havent changed a **** thing its just been considered right right and more right.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. So far all we have seen is that life can only beget life and that there is no case of vertical evolution. What is your point?

[ QUOTE ]
science has changed evolved and different theories have been discredited.

[/ QUOTE ]


Like life origionating from non-life. This was discredited by Pascal hundreds of years ago, and the law of BioGenetics was formed. A law that has stould the excrusiating test of time and the worlds top scientific experiments.

[ QUOTE ]
if someone proves that evolution was in no way possible under any circumstances than science would say "good bye evolution"

[/ QUOTE ]

Goo to you evolution could have never gotton off the ground.
Science has shown this. If life cannot even begin, explain how evolution has a leg to stand on?

[ QUOTE ]
if someone mathematically proves god then hey there u go u win. but until then evolution will be the "theory" science uses.


[/ QUOTE ]

Either life was created or it created itself. Science has proved life can never have done the latter. Intelligent design as well as the information theory are extremely valid.

Further, we are again dealing with " Origins " there is a marked difference between origins science and operational science.

[President Wilson]

Here is the rebuttle to that source,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp

[President Wilson]

Look at their first proof

[ QUOTE ]
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is called equivocation. If he means that animals change, sure. What types of change. Here is a scientific reference to show how:

Ayala, Francisco J., "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239, pp. 56-69.

p. 63

<font color="red"> " Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation."
</font>

The point? A recombination of " already existing " information is the source of change we see. That and degenerative mutations.

Scientific America equivocates change with " vertical " evolution. Something which has not been observed. As they themselves attest to!

Here is a quote from the very source you quoted

[ QUOTE ]
. Although no one observed those transformations,

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I want to clarify this for you. Realize that in a latter issue of Scientific America they stated, and I quote word for word from Their March Edition of Their journal:

<font color="blue"> How did these incredibly strong, wonderfully lightweight, amazingly intricate appendages evolve? Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.'
</font>


That is what creationists have stated for years! Thankyou for the source proving our point

[President Wilson]

Look at what they show for proof of evolution

[ QUOTE ]
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning:


[/ QUOTE ]

Then they go about proving that its not. So what?

Natural selection shows how variation with already existing information can create change. What is his point? Who doesn't agree with that? He is arguing with statements that creationists do not even make!

Once again, here is a scientific journal to show the point

Brace, C. Loring, review of Species, Species Concepts, and Primate Evolution, edited by William H. Kimbel and Lawrence B. Martin (Plenum Press, 1993, 560 pp.), American Scientist, vol. 82 (September/October 1994), pp. 484-486.

<font color="red"> p. 484
"Readers of American Scientist may not realize the extent to which a major part of the field of biology and almost all of paleontology has rejected Darwin's insights concerning organic evolution. Natural selection is dismissed as contributing nothing more than 'fine-tuning,' and adaptation is largely ignored in practice."
</font>

Look at this quote

[ QUOTE ]
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a completely false statement. The PBS special just on, recruited hundreds of scientists and stated and I quote:

<font color="red"> "We are putting up an honest hypothesis based on exhaustive consideration of all the theories,&amp;#8221; says series producer Peter Georgi. 'We had everyone from archaeologists to zoologists, from geneticists to palaeoclimatologists' experts on the weather millions of years BC. Basically, we scoured the world for the best available knowledge."

</font>

And what did they find? <font color="blue"> " All the fossil evidence for human evolution can barely fit in a small car trunk, time is the enemy "

</font>

That is how the program opened up, and they claim a clear pattern of decent?

It is clear, very clear that hominid evidence lacks horribly

And this is confirmed in the scientific journals

John Reader "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, p. 802

<font color="red"> "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man." </font>

Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776):382, 2000

<font color="blue"> Bipedalism has traditionally been regarded as the fundamental adaptation that sets hominids apart from other primates. Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking. At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism


</font>

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
It covers some of the anit-evolutionist arguments you have been making, and counters them with examples that have solid scientific backing.

[/ QUOTE ]

look at this quote from your article

[ QUOTE ]
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth

[/ QUOTE ]

Look how they answer it

[ QUOTE ]
The origin of life remains very much a mystery

[/ QUOTE ]

To the naturalist it does!

[ QUOTE ]
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, you cannot even get evolution off the ground, thankyou for confirming this!

[ QUOTE ]
even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago),

[/ QUOTE ]

You call that scientific, documented evidence against our arguments!?

It sounds more like " science fiction "

[2and16]

Someone may have mentioned this earlier in the posts, but there's so many, not really helpful, but even charles darwin decided that evolution was wrong a few years after he published it. So even its founder thinks its dinky dong spong le pong.

[President Wilson]

Darwin didn't recant, but he was puzzled at the fossil record. He wondered why it didnt support his religion.
The answer is obvious.

<font color="brown"> " The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly 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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Charles Darwin

</font>

[ QUOTE ]
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they never existed in the first place

However, lets see what Darwin stated further

<font color="brown"> The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
</font>

Lets freeze frame again!

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

1. Darwin said( I am translating ) - we have no evidence for evolution in the fossils

2. Therefore, it must be missing!

There is no science behind this!

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]

Here is a fairly recent article in a well respected Scientific Magazine:
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

It covers some of the anit-evolutionist arguments you have been making, and counters them with examples that have solid scientific backing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Solid scientific backing?

I beg to differ. Here is another link countering those claims from a different source:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-saintro.htm

But let's look at their "evidence that has stood the test of time."

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF_2.jpg

Finches with different beaks proves evolution?

We see varities of finches and that proves they are related to banannas? How about the obvious. All these finches had a common ancestor, and it was.....a finch.

That is the observational evidence. Finches produce a variety of finches.

[ QUOTE ]
The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fossil record does nothing to help evolution. Fossils as evidence for evolution wouldn't last 2 seconds in a court of law.

First off when you find a bone in the dirt all you know is, it died. You don't even know where it died, all you know is where it got buried.

Second of all you don't know that it had any kids, let alone different kids--and from that you have no idea who it married, yet this is the "hard evidence for evolution".

I'm sorry fossils do not prove or even substantiate evolution.

Then to claim 2 pieces of a skull proves whales used to walk on land, and use that as "evidence of dog to whale evolution" is a mockery of all that is science.

[ QUOTE ]
Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.


[/ QUOTE ]

Finally some truth. No one has observed this supernatural transformation, you have to imagine it. Evolution always takes place in the imagination. "Imagine whales use to walk, it's true!"

What makes you think bones in the dirt can do what animals today can not do. Dogs are still having dogs. Let's see on turn into a whale.

"well you can't see it it takes too much time"

So a lack of oberservation is your evidence?

Wrong. The "lack of time" is arugeing from silence and is a logical fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is comparing apples to oarnges. We can still perform experiments on the cloud chambes, and observe the emperical results. Again, this is operational science. We can see the results, and make scientific inferences.

Perform experiments breeding dogs and see how long it takes to get a whale. It can not be done, because the information to "make a whale" is non existent in the dogs gene pool. However, evolution must assume natural selection magically added the information. Natural selection can only select from what is there, it does not add genetic information.

[ QUOTE ]
Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Creationists have no beef with natural selection, we invented it, and it's necessary for the ark redistribution.

[ QUOTE ]
Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

2. Sir, it's still a finch. Variety happens. You are telling us that natural selection turned a non-bird into a bird. That is not the conclusion of the obersvation. No one has observed or experimented and come to the conclusion that a bird is anything other than a bird.

To say a variety of finches proves they all evolved from a rock is a giant leap of faith and logic.

[ QUOTE ]
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is embarassing is your switch and bait tactics.

Variation happens. Yet somehow that gets mixed in with goo to you evolution. The first is scientific, the second is religious, and not the observation of science.

I do not know why people here still insist on arguing with this stuff. It comes down to this......until We all either go to the Father in heaven, or evolution is proved with out a shadow of doubt, neither side can when this argument. Though it does make some intresting reading.....I just have to say that when you talk with absolutes (the bible is the only way to think) or (science is right and you who literaly believe the bible are wrong), well you open yourselves to be "slapped" awaked so to speak....

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
It comes down to this......until We all either go to the Father in heaven, or evolution is proved with out a shadow of doubt, neither side can when this argument

[/ QUOTE ]

God does not use death, as a mechanism. That is biblcal. The Father has already told us, "By His Word the heavens were of old". God spoke the universe into existance.

Death is a terrible thing and a curse, not a blessing as evolution preaches. That is why Christ died and resurrected. To prove he has conqeured death.

[SirLiftsaLot]

[ QUOTE ]
SirLiftsaLot said:
Pastor Yevon, I like that, very catchy! What will the sermon be on this upcoming Sunday Pastor Yevon? On a serious note, could you add a section to the magazine or just an area of the site that could be updated with a basic sermon or area of bible that helps us deal with our daily lives? I know the lengthy bible discussions help, but sometimes as we all know it really touches us when we are sitting in church and the pastor hits a chord that is right on for you at that moment,and gives you guided message from the bible. I think this site could do the same for a lot of people that sometimes don't make it to church, or just need the inspiration. What do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Repost, must have been lost in the heat of things, can someone tell if this could be an idea for the future? Thanks.

[Adam Knowlden]

Right here bro!

http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=357143&amp; page=0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=1&amp;PHPSESSI D=

[enderwigginout]

Well we may have come to an impasse, but I'm still not convinced that an "unproven" theory can't be tested by observation (and experimentation to some extent). Proven or disproven I don't think it can be relegated to origins science instead of operational science so easily. I take issue that there is a difference. I still see them as the same, though the premises are just greater for evolution than for other scientific theories. Its not to say there is no evidence for small scale evolution (wolves and dogs have common ancestor, cats both wild/big and domestic have one), so I don't think you can effectively scrap the whole theory without adequate testing (larger time scale) especially when the theory directly states such a large timescale and fossil evidence is quite limited. It's sort of like someone saying that on Friday they crashed their car into a brick wall while they were driving at 100MPH but the car burned up and so there's no way to tell if he acutally did it. Well, you could take the same kind of car, crash it into the wall given a narrow range of his velocity and a narrow range of the direction he claimed to go in and see if its possible that someone could make it out of there. You do this enough and you probably get a pretty good idea if it was possible or not. And let's say that in all that experimentation you did, it turn out it is not possible to crash a car with that velocity and that direction into such a wall and live. That doesn't mean that because the theory was disproven that it wasn't testable. I think the same holds with both of these theories (life-nonlife/evolution).

So, I'm still not sure why science isn't considered a religion by your definition. It's not a huge point I know, but something bothers me about the idea of picking out evolution and labeling it a religion instead of all of science. They work on the same basic principles afterall.

Also, if the infinite series argument (not just the analogies) has been discredited then that's a bummer. It's the only viable philosophical argument I've seen that gave credience (to me) to this concept of a uncreated creator (god, not God) and/or the idea that universe didn't actually need a "Beginning." Now, I'm don't know of even one philosophical argument that sways me to the existence of any god...and as "I am the kind of man* who listens to nothing within me but the arument that on reflection seems best to me" then I must confess I'm feeling a quite atheist atm.

*Yes, I am a woman, but I see no good reason to misquote someone just to keep it PC...[*%#*%*#] the wacko, militant feminists--they merely piss me off.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[enderwigginout]

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
How can you observe evolution? Were you there when the first cell came to be? Did you see the big bang? It is an impossability to observe. Stating otherwise defies all logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is impossible to make those observations(unless we invent a time machine). I'm making a different argument. That argument is that the THEORY of life arising from non-life is TESTABLE (indeed in your own opinion they have disproven it by testing and not coming up with positive results as of yet, which means the THEORY (not the event) is testable--you do experiments to see what works and what doesn't). They may or may not have been successful, but that is a different debate and a point I'm not arguing about.

The THEORY of evolution is observable. We have observed microevolution. Given enough time, if the theory is correct, one should be able to observe macroevolution. You may even be able to enduce some form of macroevolution in controlled laboratory situations. I'm not discussing the time scale of such an experiment because I don't need to go so far as to make the claim that macroevolution could be experimental (although I believe it could be). But it is observable, and I think that places it in the realm of science.

Again, I'm neither trying to prove or disprove the theories of evolution or life arising from non-life. I'm only making the claim that the THEORIES are a testable/observable phenomena, not the EVENT.

[ QUOTE ]
Why, the greatest scientific minds in the world make this distinction, why can't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. /forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif that's kinda low. /forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif I've never claimined to be a great scientific mind or even a philosopher (I've only had a couple of classes in philosophy anyway). I was trying to understand a few points that you were making. There are TONS of principles that some of the greatest scientific minds in the world can grasp that I can't. That is one thing that I CAN grasp. /forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif You don't have to imply I'm an idiot. /forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I take issue that there is a difference. I still see them as the same, though the premises are just greater for evolution than for other scientific theories

[/ QUOTE ]

You have offered no reasons why you believe this. Your arguement would be thrown out of any scientific circle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I discussed this idea before with my discusion of mathematics being based on the idea of number/quantity and a few premises (properties--associative, distributive, among others). If you accept that then you can extrapolate geometry and alegebra, and calculus. For something like evolution you have a great deal more premises. You have to posit that a certain shape of tooth means X, that a bone found in this strata means Y. There are a lot more premises to any argument. But, you have to do the same with even mathematics. You can't prove that one is one, is just is. Everything in science/mathematics is based upon a series of suppositions. The only difference that I see is the number of these suppositions and the degree of their credibility. But you have to accept them as true to get to whatever theory you are heading for. Which seems to be what you are talking about when you describe evolution as a religion, but I feel it describes science in its totality as well on that point.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not to say there is no evidence for small scale evolution (wolves and dogs have common ancestor, cats both wild/big and domestic have one), so I don't think you can effectively scrap the whole theory without adequate testing (larger time scale) especially when the theory directly states such a large timescale and fossil evidence is quite limited.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are not disputing MICROevolution. This is observable, testable and is even in accordance with the bible. MACROevolution, however, is niether scientific nor biblical.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY. MICROevolution is observable. But, if the theory is correct and given enough time we should see MACROevolution. If the theory is incorrect we should not see MACROevolution. But either of these instances are OBSERVABLE. It seems to be that the disproving of such a theory is very scientific. Unless you are saying that science can not disprove a theory that is incorrect? And I don't think you mean that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's sort of like someone saying that on Friday they crashed their car into a brick wall while they were driving at 100MPH but the car burned up and so there's no way to tell if he acutally did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif You need to work on your analogies. They have yet to bear any sort of relevance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was me trying to explain how someone can not know the acutallity of the EVENT, but can use operational science to see if it was possible. This is my whole point. Yes, unless we get into a time machine and go back to the time the first cell was created, we will never know with any certainty what really happened. But, we can test a few theories and see what is more probable. How do you "know" that the earth is 100,000 years old (sorry if I got the date wrong). Were you there when it was created? Was someone there recording it as it happened? No. When you look at your evidence for a 100,000 year old earth you are doing the EXACT same thing. You have a theory as discussed in the Bible that the Earth is probably around that age. The experiments are there, some apparently point to a 100,000 year old Earth. Therefore, you are drawing the conclusion that it is possible that the Earth is 100,000 years old. Once again, you aren't proving the EVENT, but you are making some guess to get you to an informed decision to make the inference that this data is consistant with the Bible and lends credience to the age discussed in the Bible. And you refer to it as a proven fact, proven by science. But this seems a dodgy inference to me...because it seems like it would fall through the same crack you're contesting that life/evolution falls through (that of origins science), except that it is testable and you attribute it to operational science.

One might say, you're not testing for the EVENT either. For instance, we can ask the age of the universe instead of when it was created (same question I would say). But, can't the same be done with the other two questions? Instead of "Did life arise from non-life?" We ask the far simpler "Can life arise from non-life?" Instead of "Did humans evolve from the same ancestor as apes?" we ask the far simpler "Can MACROevolution occur?" I don't see how these two questions can not be tested/observed. I don't see how they differ from the age of the earth question.

Again...

"I believe that life can come from non-life."
"I will do experiments testing this."
"I couldn't find the recipe for life."
"The theory must be unsound."

You can't declare it scientifically unsound if you have done no testing or observations of it. But you did. And they follow your definition for operational science. Again, we aren't saying they prove one way or another the EVENT, but it gives you an idea what may have happened. In your opinion there is no evidence for life arising from non-life. That's fine. But the THEORY has been tested. That's operational science. The EVENT is history and can't be tested. True. But that's not the argument I'm making.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, you could take the same kind of car, crash it into the wall given a narrow range of his velocity and a narrow range of the direction he claimed to go in and see if its possible that someone could make it out of there. You do this enough and you probably get a pretty good idea if it was possible or not

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so if we can create life enough then we will be able to accept naturalism. Not only has this been impossible, but scientists agree that life begats life. All attempts to create life from non-life have failed, and they will continue to fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already discussed this. That's not my point. My point is that it is testable. Which means its operational science. Which means that I don't see a distinction between origins science or operational science which means I don't see how you can relegate a branch of science (evolution) to religion (origins science) and say that science is not a religion as well.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean that because the theory was disproven that it wasn't testable. I think the same holds with both of these theories (life-nonlife/evolution).


[/ QUOTE ]

It's been tested, and it's been discounted.

[/ QUOTE ]

That means the THEORY falls under operational science. Which means that this isn't origins science.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, if the infinite series argument (not just the analogies) has been discredited then that's a bummer

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. It was discredited a long time ago and is considered a laughable concept among the worlds top philosophers. So implausable and easy to refute, in fact, that they don't even acknowledge it as a philosophical theory!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh thanx, now you are insulting a professor of my (I daresay prestigeous) university for spending a day in class on it? /forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's the only viable philosophical argument I've seen that gave credience (to me) to this concept of a uncreated creator (god, not God) and/or the idea that universe didn't actually need a "Beginning

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the only philosophic concept you could think of relating to a Creator? There are volumes written on the subject! The concept you cited has no relevance whatsoever!

[/ QUOTE ]

/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif Ummm...since I'm not a philosophy student then there not many I've seen. It is relevant to me, or was, but if it is discredited then there is no reason to explain why I believe it is relavant (which by the way it is/was).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, I'm don't know of even one philosophical argument that sways me to the existence of any god

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not meant to be swayed through philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this were you and I totally disagree.

For the record, I have read the Bible and found many problems/inconsistancies not merely with the text. The concept of God discussed in the Bible is deeply flawed and can not logically exist.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
It's actually more like 6,000-10,000. And there is overwhelming evidence to support this, as we have pointed out on numerous occasions

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is clearly is a misstatement of the facts.

If that were true, there would be no need for this debate. The fact of the matter is that there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is much older than that. You refute that evidence, because you believe it is inconsistent with the Bible.

The 'evidence' that you have provided thus far for a young earth is sketchy at best, and dismissed by virtually the entire scientific community.

If the 'evidence' were overwhelming, even an atheist would have to conclude the earth was no more than 10,000 yrs old. I'm sure an athiest would tell you that proving a young earth does not prove the existence of God.

Please note - I did not bring up evolution or big bang theories.....I'm referring to the overwhelming evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years.

Also note - I did not say that the earth is older than 10,000 yrs, only that the evidence overwhelmingly supports that assertion.

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that is clearly is a misstatement of the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read our bible studies, and refute what we have said than. You can start with this post.

[ QUOTE ]
If the 'evidence' were overwhelming, even an atheist would have to conclude the earth was no more than 10,000 yrs old. I'm sure an athiest would tell you that proving a young earth does not prove the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, you accuse us of taking a bias, and yet you dismiss them of the same. We go of the account of the biblical flood, creation, and that Christ is going to judge the world again. All of which they dismiss in their research, as prophesied by peter. Taking a uniformatarionism approach.

If you view the world from a biblical time scale, you get completely different results.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020809_131.jpg

Same World-Different Conclusions

Think about it. Both creationists and evolutionists study the same rocks, animals, fossils and Earth. In fact, they all look at the same UNIVERSE! Why is it then that both sides end up with such different conclusions about those same things?

All evidence must be interpreted. It's the ideas that are used to interpret the evidence that cause creationists and evolutionists to have such different conclusions. These ideas are called bias. Everyone has a bias and we all look at the world through our bias.

There are two lenses:

1. Secular - lens
This represents the beliefs that fallible humans use to try to explain how and why the universe exists. These beliefs cause us to 'see' these facts in a particular way, to view them through the evolutionary account of history.
2. Biblical 'lens'
A unique book, called the Bible, claims over 3,000 times that it is the Word of God written by an Infinite Being who used different people to write down what we need to know to understand the history and future of the universe. These beliefs cause us to 'see' these facts in a particular way, to view them through the Biblical account of history.

We have listed much evidence to show God is true, if you want to defend Darwin, and other atheists, than list yours.

[falser]

[ QUOTE ]
It's actually more like 6,000-10,000. And there is overwhelming evidence to support this, as we have pointed out on numerous occasions

[/ QUOTE ]

I wholeheartedly agree with BigFour, this another absurd claim that is based on very shakey ground. Overwhelming evidence? According to who? The bible? Talk to any geologist and I'm sure he'll explain with overwhelming evidence that rock formations such as mountains, volcanos, glaciers, sedeminatary deposits and the movement of tectonic plates cannot have all occured within 10,000 years. Talk to an astronomer and he'll show you more evidence that the earth could not have formed, in astronomical terms, overnight. Heck, we even have documented, historical PROOF from Egypt that humans had a civilization almost 6000 years ago. I apologize that I am not a geologist, nor an astronomer, and I do not have a collection of cookie cutter quotes to give as "evidence" - but this does not mean my statements are not valid.

[ QUOTE ]
Guess what, Ender? We do not see macroevolution! Even in the fossil record where we should be able to see clear transitional forms, but lo, there are none - not a single one ever found. According to the theory of evolution, there should be tens of millions of transitional forms, but not one has ever been found.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you taking the fact that fossils are relatively rare and using it to conclude that it is proof God exists? That is not a scientific way to approach a theory. Lack of enough fossils DOES NOT prove that God exists, and neither does it disprove that macroevolution occurs. And saying that transitional fossils have never been found is absurd. Lucy is a very good example, and she is most definitely older than 10,000 years:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/images/lucy.jpeg
(no doubt you will post a link to answersingenesis explaining why Lucy doesn't prove anything)

Sure, it's not enough to convince you that evolution is a sound theory. That is your opinion, and despite your claims is not agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community. There is no way we can have every fossil of every living thing that has ever existed on this planet, and I imagine until this happens your opinion cannot be swayed. And likewise until God himself comes down from the heavens and personally looks me the face and says that evolution is non-existant, I'm going to believe in evolution (or until a better theory is developed).

[ QUOTE ]
No, only God. But what we do know about Creation comes from not only His infallable Word, but modern science as well!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Modern science does not give any proof that God exists. It is only when science is looked through the eye of your bible that any scientific evidence points to that conclusion. If you do not start with the belief in God you will not end up with that conclusion based on any of the evidence. This is precisely why no creationist ideas are accepted by the modern scientific community and never will be.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you still have blind faith in your analogy's relevance when I completely blasted it and tore it to shreds?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not torn anything to shreds. You are using lack of proof, as proof that God exists. Over an over again you believe that giving a quote by a Christion that questions the validity of very specific parts of evolutionist theory makes the whole theory collapse, and somehow invadvertantly proves your claims. An example is how you state that we cannot observe life being born therefore it was the work of God. This is not the way scientists think, is only the way Christians think.

[ QUOTE ]
You have faith in all the wrong things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, only according to the bible.

[ QUOTE ]
Venom said:
[ QUOTE ]
Now that is clearly is a misstatement of the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read our bible studies, and refute what we have said than.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I did not realize that Yu was referring to biblical evidence. I thought he was referring to scientific evidence. Either way, as you know, I still don't believe the evidence is "overwhelming".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the 'evidence' were overwhelming, even an atheist would have to conclude the earth was no more than 10,000 yrs old. I'm sure an athiest would tell you that proving a young earth does not prove the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I may be wrong. But I expect that if the scientific evidence proved a young earth, an athiest would only say that consistency with your interpretation of the Bible is mere coincidence.

Perhaps one of our athiest friends could weigh in on this. Would a young earth prove the existence of God to you?

[ QUOTE ]

Think about it. Both creationists and evolutionists study the same rocks, animals, fossils and Earth. In fact, they all look at the same UNIVERSE! Why is it then that both sides end up with such different conclusions about those same things?


[/ QUOTE ]

You are trying to redirect the debate back to evolution vs. creation here. This has nothing to do with the point I made. If a lab tech performs a test on a fossil, or some rock, etc., and comes up with a test result that indicates it is older than 10,000 yrs, that does not make him an evolutionist. He might be an old earth creationist, right? In fact, he doesn't have to be either a creationist or an evolutionist. He may have no opinion at all on the origin of the earth. If he comes up with a test result that indicates the rock is 15,000 yrs old, all he has done is report the test result, he has not prescribed to any theory.

[ QUOTE ]

We have listed much evidence to show God is true, if you want to defend Darwin, and other atheists, than list yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically stated that my point had nothing to do with evolution. You are trying to deflect this by bringing up "Darwin, and other atheists". Why are you using this tactic?

[enderwigginout]

Hrmmm...you contine and continue to misunderstand what I'm saying. Please read carefully this time as I think I see a few places were you have misunderstood me. I'm sure you'll begin to understand the point I'm trying to make now.

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
[ QUOTE ]
Of course it is impossible to make those observations(unless we invent a time machine).

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why, pray tell, did you say (and I quote), " but I'm still not convinced that an "unproven" theory can't be tested by observation (and experimentation to some extent). Proven or disproven I don't think it can be relegated to origins science instead of operational science so easily"?

Contradiction is no way to win an arguement my friend. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not contradicting myself. The actual EVENT can't be tested. It's in the past. It's history. But you can see if the EVENT is possible by testing that THEORY. Like the car crash. You can't "know" if the crash happened, but you can test the THEORY that such a car crash could occur. I don't see why this part isn't clear.

[ QUOTE ]
We discuss how it was tested and concluded without a shred of doubt that from a scientific standpoint, we are not able to create life from non-life - if you can show scientific evidence otherwise, then please post it. All you have been doing, Ender, is posting your opinion. If you post an opinion, it is not valid unless you are able to back it up with evidence. You have done no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why bother? You'll just say your evidence is better or pull out a Bible verse to "contradict" me. I really don't want to bother. If it's been concluded without a "shred of scientific doubt" then why do people still continue to work on it in the scientific community? But this is beside the point.

[ QUOTE ]
Microevolution = variation and speciation, which is entirely biblical and scientific alike.

Macroevolution = life from non-life, rock to banana to man. This is neither scientific nor biblical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is where you may be misunderstanding me. MACROevolution upthread was discussed as both non-life to humans AS WELL AS whale-wolf ancestor to whales and wolves. I'm bring up this second concept, that one animal can evolve into a different animal, not that non-life can evolve into humans. Thus, given a great time scale if the theory is correct you should be able to observe evolution occuring that causes such a change from one animal to another. If this change does not occur then the theory is not sound.

It's a ridiculous idea to say that we could observe non-life to humans. The odds of it happening in exactly the same way are probably staggering.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For something like evolution you have a great deal more premises

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, incorrect. Jacob pointed this out earlier in this very thread: The premise was that life could have spontaneously generated. That premise has been proven wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying the nature of the premises dictate that evolution is a religion? I think that's not a very good definition...too easily swayed. I could say that I disagree with number theory or the properties of numbers so that I feel calculus is a religion. That's my point. I think you have to take it on faith that all the premises are true, which is why all of science must be a religion. And I do think there are quite a good deal more premises to evolution or even chemistry than mathematics. I don't understand why you need evidence for such a basic fact. For evolution, for instance, you have to assume that the gaps in the fossil record are indeed filled. That's at least one more assumption than mathematics and you have to use mathematics to even begin contemplating evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Then why is it that the most famous and most renound evolutionists agree and support the idea of evolution as religion? Do you not think they would put up an arguement and stick to their "science is not religion" premise? Why would they flat out agree that evolution is religion? I'll answer that for you because it is blatantly obvious - because evolution IS religion!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...because maybe theres equally as many who do not support it. Besides, if you haven't been following my ENTIRE argument, its that I think you have to say that SCIENCE in this totality is a religion. Have you been following the thread?

[ QUOTE ]
Ender, again with the contradictions. First you say we cannot observe macroevolution ( <font color="red"> Of course it is impossible to make those observations(unless we invent a time machine </font> ) and now you say it is observable. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you understand my point now, because I'm getting tired of repeating it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to be that the disproving of such a theory is very scientific. Unless you are saying that science can not disprove a theory that is incorrect? And I don't think you mean that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just because science can disprove a theory does not make the theory scientific in itself. Essentially, the mere fact that it is proven wrong is due to the fact that it is not scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying the theory is scientific. Please listen to what I'm saying. The scientific PROCESS is the scientific part. The idea that THEORY can be tested.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you "know" that the earth is 100,000 years old (sorry if I got the date wrong).

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, your not the only one who got the date wrong! Seriously though, we have posted on the fallacies of the dating methods. There is no question that they are severly flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the dating method that "proves" the idea of a young earth is swell and just fine by you I'm sure. I was only attempting to use the age that has been posted several times on these boards, and age I do not agree with.

[ QUOTE ]
But what we do know about Creation comes from not only His infallable Word, but modern science as well!

But I can make the same arguement - were you there too? Of course I know the answer, so it is pointless to ask and adds nothing to the discussion and certainly brings forth no knew evidence to support either side. So let's avoid using such arguements in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, lets not. Because this was my point. Basically I think this whole evolution as a religion idea is a semantic argument. You've defined evolution as "origins science" to keep "operational science" because evidence some from "operation science" meshes with Biblical theory. An instance of this is the age of the Earth question. I think it could be relagated to "origins science" by reforming the question. Instead of "when was the earth created?" you ask "how old is the earth?". Similarly with the macroevolution and life question.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, you are drawing the conclusion that it is possible that the Earth is 100,000 years old. Once again, you aren't proving the EVENT, but you are making some guess to get you to an informed decision to make the inference that this data is consistant with the Bible and lends credience to the age discussed in the Bible. And you refer to it as a proven fact, proven by science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither side has been proven, and neither side will be proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this as an inconsistancy. You repeatedly say that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the young-earth, and cut and paste your evidence for such a theory on the boards. Then you ask others for evidence, but you say the testing methods aren't accurate or find some other fault with the evidence when the same could be said of yuor evidence. Yet you still maintain that science meshes with your concept of a young earth. Yet it hasn't been proven. You can't have it both ways.

[ QUOTE ]
This is called the fallacy of begging the quetion. This fallacy occurs in an arguement in which no arguement is really offered in the premise; the conclusion is only asserted and then reasserted.

Rephrasing the question will not, 1) make it true, and 2) not make us approach it in a way which will make it true (change the premise).

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! We have come to another of our misunderstandings. I think the whole argument for differentiating between "origins science" and "operational science" is a semantic argument.

You know, you guys have sold me on the idea that evolution is a religion, given your definition. I don't see why you hesitate go all the way and conclude all of science is a religion as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Another contradiction. This is really bad Ender. Your arguement is extremely weak. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif I thought you agreed that it has been tested. This is a fact - life from non-life has been scientifically tested and likewise scientifically disproven.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did for the purpose of that argument. But, you could say the same for cancer or AIDS. It's been tested and no answer has been found. Are they done testing it? No. Are they confident they will find a cure? Yes. It's just a matter of time (it's always five-ten years away, you know). This doesn't mean that because they haven't found a cure yet that they never will.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, we aren't saying they prove one way or another the EVENT, but it gives you an idea what may have happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the bible gives you an idea of how it happened as well. It takes faith on both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is my point. Science is a religion too under your definitions.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you still have blind faith in your analogy's relevance when I completely blasted it and tore it to shreds?

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't blast it. You misunderstood it. There is a big difference.

[ QUOTE ]
You have faith in all the wrong things.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where we disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
Your philosophical analogy was not only false, but irrelevent given the topics presented. If you like, I can PM you more sound philosophic thoughts on a Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fine idea. Only philosophical arguments please, no Biblical verses.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I have read the Bible and found many problems/inconsistancies not merely with the text. The concept of God discussed in the Bible is deeply flawed and can not logically exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show the problems and inconsistancies and we will show you that you left the bible open to private interpretation. If you were better versed, you would see know problems/contradictions whatsoever - because there are none!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep...I have a major problem with organized religions that offer to "clear up" inconsistencies because one isn't reading it "correctly." Here's an inconsistency for you though. Why does the Christian God go through such a severe personality change from the Old Testament to the New Testament? If he's timeless why he is he portrayed so differently?

[ QUOTE ]
In closing, I will no longer address topics in which you have already exhausted, for I have already answered them. If you repeat the same question again, I will simply link it to this discussion and the one I made previous to this one.

Ender, I emplor you to take more time to compose your arguements better. This way you get your point across without stumbling over fallacies and contradictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't feel I have made any contradictions in my argument. I think in your rush to prove me wrong you aren't even listening to the argument that I'm making. But, its also tedious for me. I'm tired of being told I'm an idiot when the person makes no time to even try to understand what I'm talking about.

[President Wilson]

Interesting statements, but ultimately false. Lets analyze your statements

[ QUOTE ]
Talk to any geologist

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect statement number 1. You would do well to do research on the subject before making blank statements! You stated to talk to any geologist and ask if it is possible for quick formations? Even in site of the Uniformitariun view, Geologists are forced to reckon with the fact of catastrophism.

What I will do is reference scientific journals to show how false your statement is.


Ager, Derek V., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 1993), 151 pp. Ager was Professor and Head, Department of Geology and Oceanography, University College of Swansea.

p 65
" The point I am trying to make all the time is that erosion and deposition have frequently in the past been very short-term phenomena."

p 65
"In the late Carboniferous Coal Measures of Lancashire, a fossil tree has been found, 38 feet high and still standing in its living position. Sedimentation must therefore have been fast enough to bury the tree and solidify before the tree had time to rot. Similarly, at Gilboa in New York State, within the deposits of the Devonian Catskill delta, a flashflood (itself an example of a modern catastrophic event) uncovered a whole forest of in situ Devonian trees up to 40 feet high."

Similarly, it has been shown that tsunami, or 'tidal waves' as they were for long mis-named, have an immense effect on shorelines, both in erosion and in the shifting of great quantities of sediment. To quote a recent author on the subject: ' the action of tsunamis is short and extremely violent.' It has been suggested that sea-floor sediments as deep as 1000 metres may be disturbed. <font color="red"> Waves up to 40 metres high have been recorded rushing inland, carving out valleys, stripping off deltas and wiping out hills. The resultant mass of land, beach and shallow water sediments is just as violently carried out to sea and dumped
</font>

what about Grand Canyon?

p 80
One of the most spectacular sights ever seen by man must have been the mile-high fiery cascade when a lava flow poured into the Grand Canyon in Arizona. Earlier lava flows, before the coming of man, date back a million years, but since that time the Colorado River has only cut down about 50 feet. <font color="red"> So here too three must have been some very rapid erosion at some time." </font>


Do you understand the above concepts at all? We see rapid
" catostrophic formations everywhere including Grand Canyon!

Scientists today, as illustrated above cannot even apply
Uniformitariun views to it.

[ QUOTE ]
Talk to an astronomer and he'll show you more evidence that the earth could not have formed, in astronomical terms, overnight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Astronomers cannot even tell you when the Laws that Govern the Universe Came to be! Scientists do not even know how the moon formed! You actually believe they have all the answers. You may not like what the actual scientific journals have to say, but here is the real facts from Nature, one of the leading journals in the world

<font color="red"> Hecht, Jeff, 'The Making of a Moon,' New Scientist, vol. 155 (August 2, 1997), p. 8.

p. 8
'The leading theory of how the Moon formed is in trouble. A physicist announced this week that if it was born after a planet-sized body collided with the Earth in its youth, as many scientists assumed, the Earth and Moon should have far more angular momentum than they do today.'
p. 8
'[Robin] Canup isn't about to abandon the giant impact theory because all the other theories have even more severe problems,she says. But, she concedes, this does raise important questions.
</font>

Hughes, David W., 'The Open Question in Selenology,' review of Origin of the Moon, edited by W. K. Hartman, R. J. Phillips, and G. J. Taylor (Houston: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 1986, 781 pp.), Nature, vol. 327 ,p. 291.

p. 291
<font color="red"> 'In astronomical terms, therefore, the Moon must be classed as a well-known object, but astronomers still have to admit shamefacedly that they have little idea as to where it came from. </font> This is particularly embarrassing, because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme.'


Ask any astronomer about Origins? That statement is false.

Jeffreys is one of the most respected Planetary Scientists the world has known, what does he have to say?

Jeffreys, Sir Harold, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution (Cambridge, England: University Press,), 525 pp. p. 359 <font color="blue"> </font>

<font color="blue">"To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist." </font>

Would you like more scientific journals? Which you claim to believe. Here is one from Science

Kerr, Richard A., "The Solar System's New Diversity," Science, vol. 265 (September 2, 1994), pp. 1360-1362.

<font color="green"> p. 1360
"The solar system used to be a simple place. Before any spacecraft ventured forth from the Earth, Venus seemed likely to be a warmer, wetter version of Earth. Small, more-distant Mars seemed chillier and drier, though conceivably habitable. Little Mercury might resemble Earth's moon, only hotter. And the four giant planets all big balls of gas presumably were much alike, except that those farther from the sun had less energetic weather.

But 30 years of planetary exploration have replaced that simple picture with a far more complex image. The most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets, says planetary physicist David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology. Ross Taylor of the Australian National University agrees: &amp;#8216;If you look at all the planets and the 60 or so satellites, it's very hard to find two that are the same."

p. 1360
"Such discoveries are turning the field of comparative planetology on its head, as evidenced by a recent meeting where the focus was on planetary differences. The challenge will be to understand how, as Stevenson puts it, <font color="blue"> you can start out with similar starting materials and end up with different planets.</font> Stevenson and others are puzzling out how subtle differences in starting conditions such as distance from the sun, along with chance events like giant impacts early in solar system history, can send planets down vastly different evolutionary paths." </font>


Translation? If you asked an astronomer, they would tell you in the published journals that they do not have a clue of why the planets are so diverse, considering their so called evolutionary origin.

Once again your statements are off, research them before making them.

What does Nasa have to say?

NASA, Mars and Earth (US GPO, NF-61, ), 8 pp

<font color="red"> p. 1
"It is important to be aware that there is no one theory for the origin and subsequent evolution of the Solar System that is generally accepted. </font>

Lets analyze your next fallacious statement

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure he'll explain with overwhelming evidence that rock formations such as

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure he'll explain with overwhelming evidence that rock formations such as...sedeminatary deposits

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot believe you just mentioned that sedeminatary deposits take long to form, on the contrary. I would destroy all your other arguments, but this here needs singling out, it shows you know nothing of sedementation.

Krynine, P. D., Paleontology, vol. 30 . Krynine was a member of the Geology Faculty, Pennsylvania State University.

p 1004

<font color="red"> "Conventional uniformitarianism, or gradualism,i.e., the doctrine of unchanging change, is verily contradicted by all post-Cambrian sedimentary data and the geotectonic histories of which these sediments are the record. Thus, quantitative interpretations of the Ordovician from the Recent are meaningless."
</font>


You say layers take long to form? Interesting?

Fritz, William J., "Stumps Transported and Deposited Upright by Mount St. Helens Mud Flows," Geology, vol. 8, pp. 586-588.

p 586
"During several visits to Mount St. Helens, Washington, from July to September 1980, I observed numerous stumps that had been deposited upright after being transported many kilometres by streams and mudflows resulting from the May 18, 1980, eruption. These observations support the conclusion that mud flows and streams of the same variety transported and deposited stumps that are preserved in a vertical position in the Eocene Lamar River Formation.
p 588

"Deposits of recent mud flows on Mount St. Helens demonstrate conclusively that stumps can be transported and deposited upright. These observations support conclusions that some vertical trees in the Yellowstone 'fossil forests' were transported in a geologic situation directly comparable to that of Mount St. Helens."

He is speaking of polystrate fossils. You state sedementation is a long process and yet this formed in a few hours!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/112cli%7E1.jpg


Here are more references from evolutionary sources

Ager, Derek V., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: John Wiley &amp; Sons, 1993), 151 pp. Ager was Professor and Head of the Department of Geology and Oceanography, University College of Swansea. He had also served as president of the British Geological Association.

p 69

I would like to suggest that, in the first half of the last century, the 'catastrophists' were better geologists than the 'uniformitarians.'

p 80
"The hurricane, the flood or the tsunami may do more in an hour or a day than the ordinary processes of nature have achieved in a thousand years. Given all the millennia we have to play with in the stratigraphical record, we can expect our periodic catastrophes to do all the work we want of them."

p 141
"In other words, the history of any one part of the earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of long period of boredom and short periods of terror."

In other words, he realizes, even as an evolutionist that catastrophism is a better explanation for what we see. He then inserts dormant periods to favour his evolutionary theory, yet concedes to the catastrophic formations everywhere!

[ QUOTE ]
Are you taking the fact that fossils are relatively rare and using it to conclude that it is proof God exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you taking the fact that fossils are rare and using it to support evolution!

Last I checked, you are the one who needs the evidence from them!

[ QUOTE ]
That is not a scientific way to approach a theory. Lack of enough fossils DOES NOT prove that God exists

[/ QUOTE ]

It proves evolution doesnt!

[ QUOTE ]
and neither does it disprove that macroevolution occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

It shows you have zero record of it ever occuring!

[ QUOTE ]
And saying that transitional fossils have never been found is absurd. Lucy is a very good example, and she is most definitely older than 10,000 years:


[/ QUOTE ]


LOL! I cannot believe you just said that!

You have No evidence for Homonid evolution. And the fact that you mentioned Lucy shows you are not up to date

<font color="red"> Truth About Lucy</font>

Lucy was a Knuckle walker

Long-armed, Short-legged, Knuckle-walker," Science News, vol. 100 p. 357.

" limb bone fossils have been rare finds, but Leakey now has a large sample. They portray as long-armed and short-legged. He was probably a knuckle-walker, not an erect walker, as many archaeologists presently believe."

Take a look at this scientific journal

Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776):382, 2000

<font color="blue"> Bipedalism has traditionally been regarded as the fundamental adaptation that sets hominids apart from other primates. Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking. At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism </font>

Translation - Its Pure Imagionation!

More on Lucy

"A UPGMA clustering diagram illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes, indicating that these hominids retain the derived wrist morphology of knuckle-walkers " 287

<font color="blue"> Cartmill, Matt, Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad Natural History, vol. 92 (November 1983), pp. 65-79.
</font>

p. 77
A myth, says my dictionary, is a real or fictional story that embodies the cultural ideals of a people or expresses deep, commonly felt emotions. By this definition, myths are generally good things ;and the origin stories that paleoanthropologists tell are necessarily myths.


Cartmill, Matt, David R. Pilbeam, and Glynn Isaac, One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology, American Scientist, vol. 74 (July/August 1986), pp. 410-420.
p. 416

"It is now known that these so-called robust australopithecines coexisted with for over a million years. The marked anatomical differences between the two imply that they were different species with quite different adaptations. Thus, the notion of one general adaptive niche for hominids must be a mistake. Whatever explains hominid origins cannot also be a sufficient explanation of human origins, for not all hominids became human."


Translation - Lucy was completely different from humans. We lived at the same time as they did, and they are just an extinct form of ape!

More on Lucy!

Gould, Stephen Jay, "A Short Way to Big Ends," Natural History, vol. 95 (January 1986), pp. 18-28.
p. 28

"Oxnard is our leading expert on the quantitative study of skeletons. He has used the techniques of multivariate analysis a set of statistical tools, forming the basis of my own technical work as well, that can integrate large suites of measurements and extract general estimates of similarity and difference from all measures considered together. Oxnard has spent years studying the australopithecines, the group of African hominids considered by all experts to be our closest genealogical cousins (probably our ancestors as well). Oxnard has argued in several books and articles that australopithecines are anatomically more different from us than other experts imagine. In short, he sees australopithecines as uniquely different from apes and humans, not as imperfect people on the way up."

More on Lucy

Dr Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex -- New perspective on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227.


"The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been".


Oxnard's firm conclusion? 'The australopithecines are unique.'3


Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.


Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of "missing link" status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

Its nothing more than a unique ape

However, I will close by confirming what the program began with!

Gould, Stephen Jay, "Empire of the Apes," Natural History, vol. 96 (May 1987), pp. 20-25.
p. 24

" The Holy Grail of human evolution the period when our lineage began its separate end run to later domination, and a time for which no fossil evidence exists at all."


[ QUOTE ]
Sure, it's not enough to convince you that evolution is a sound theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a valid statement

[ QUOTE ]
That is your opinion, and despite your claims is not agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

The majority of the scientific community admits to having pathetic fossil evidence! And this has been since Darwins day!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[President Wilson]

By the way falser, you still have not responded to the Alien statement. The site you sent us to, that you claimed was scientific, said they have no clue of any naturalistic mechanism for how life could have formed( which is what we have been saying all along, there is no naturalistic mechanism ). Then they said, maybe Aliens came and brought life.

You call that science?

By the way, that is not only bad science fiction, but it only transfers the problem somewhere else!


http://www.bayhouse.com/images/aliens.gif Science???

[falser]

[ QUOTE ]
We just ask to show us ONE! And yet this has not been done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucy is well known, and it is an example. I read the above links you posted and I do not feel they support your argument.

From one of those links:
[ QUOTE ]
Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice how they did not state that Lucy is 100% proof that man didn't evolve from apes? Your source has taken quotes from the scientists doing the work out of context, and then turn around and say that Lucy is 100% proof that evolution didn't occur. Of course it doesn't 100% prove anything, but that doesn't mean it is not evidence of evolution - it most definitely is by the scientists studying these fossils. Your sources could be considered spin doctors, and somehow you have bought into what they say with such conviction that you take it as truth rather than listening to the opinion of more the informed scientists doing the actual work. Not only is it closed-minded thinking, it's being ignorant to science.

The other link:

[ QUOTE ]
Bipedalism has traditionally been regarded as the fundamental adaptation that sets hominids apart from other primates. Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking. At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this was a quote taken out of context. The quote was from Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., I found another FULL LENGTH article here that quotes them also:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/010712/010712-14.html

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, all of the fossils are extremely fragmentary - a few teeth and scraps of bone. What's more, telling the difference between an ancestral chimp and an ancestral hominid immediately after the split will be extremely hard, as they will inevitably look very similar. So it will remain difficult to establish beyond dispute that a hominid-like creature from this period is more closely related to chimps or humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

They admit themselves that proving this theory is "difficult to establish beyond dispute", but they in no way say that they support that Lucy is not an example of evolution. So your whole argument about "scientists not supporting evolution" is untrue.

For kicks here's another such fossil record that supports evolution:

http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/1996jaw.html

I'm sure if I search the net longer I would find example after example. But I see no reason why, when clearly no matter how many pieces of evidence is brought forth you will say the same thing "it's not proof, try again".

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You are using lack of proof, as proof that God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is valid. Sinse there are only two possabilities, disproving one proves the other.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not valid by scientific terms. You are trying to discredit the Science of Evolution by using non-scientific means. You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

JW - you always try to drown out the discussion by using endless amount of pre-fabbed quotes, and it really doesn't help your argument. It's really difficult to understand your opinion when you do not take the time to write concise paragaphs. In any case I'll respond to these ones:

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of the scientific community admits to having pathetic fossil evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And again I do not see how this proves that God exists, or how it proves that Evolution is an unsound theory.

[ QUOTE ]

Then they said, maybe Aliens came and brought life.

You call that science?

By the way, that is not only bad science fiction, but it only transfers the problem somewhere else!


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I do not take that statement as blind truth. Just as I never take anyones opinion as blind truth.

One other thing I'm not sure was touched on is how evolution is a complete theory. None of the evidence proves anything without a doubt, and that is taken as granted. But when you put together all the evidence based on astronomy, geology, biology, palentology etc., they all fit into the global theory of evolution. Creationism, as you all have presented, seems to only be about Christians that try to debunk Evolution. It seems to put forth no theories of it's own except that God created it all. I do not see how this is scientific in the least, or how it helps human understanding of our planet and universe - rather it only helps understanding of the Bible and God.

I would be interested in criticizing any well formulated theory of Creationism as long as it does not put it into the context of Christianity - because for me it goes off the deep end as soon as non-science is involved. But I have seen no such thing, all I've seen are individual quotes and articles that discredit very specific evidence of evolution.

I guess a blanket conclusion of this argument could be:

"Athiests believe Creationism is a science as much as Fundamentalist Christians believe Evolution is NOT a religion"

Edit: fixed last line

[President Wilson]

Showing the scientific concensus does indeed support my point. I clearly stated that you have no naturalistic mechanism for life to arrise.

This has been shown clearly and concisely.

[ QUOTE ]
Your sources could be considered spin doctors, and somehow you have bought into what they say with such conviction that you take it as truth rather than listening to the opinion of more the informed scientists doing the actual work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious! My sources are from the scientists doing the work!

I will repeat the quote

<font color="red"> Gould, Stephen Jay, "A Short Way to Big Ends," Natural History, vol. 95 (January 1986), pp. 18-28.
p. 28

"Oxnard is our leading expert on the quantitative study of skeletons. He has used the techniques of multivariate analysis a set of statistical tools, forming the basis of my own technical work as well, that can integrate large suites of measurements and extract general estimates of similarity and difference from all measures considered together. Oxnard has spent years studying the australopithecines, the group of African hominids considered by all experts to be our closest genealogical cousins (probably our ancestors as well). Oxnard has argued in several books and articles that australopithecines are anatomically more different from us than other experts imagine. In short, he sees australopithecines as uniquely different from apes and humans, not as imperfect people on the way up." </font>

Those are the top scientists performing the work!

here is the another one

Dr Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex -- New perspective on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227.

<font color="red"> 'The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been' </font>

In short, they are completely different animals, and as stated, show no signs of turning into humans. They are an extinct animal, and offer no support to humans decending from apes.

As for your statements about evolution being a complete theory we have dealt with this in detail extremely. You cannot even get evolution off the ground. End of discussion. And even your top references that you gave us confirmed this fact.

In finality, your faith is no different than any other religion. You have no natural mechanism, and must rest all your thoughts on faith, as does every evolutionist.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess a blanket conclusion of this argument could be:

"Athiests believe Creationism is a science as much as Christians believe Evolution is a religion"


[/ QUOTE ]

In conclusion, Atheism, the believe that all life is related to a rock is a faith based religion. And you have no way to show otherwise. As the top sources you showed me attest, you are operating on blind faith. Which actually contradicts scientific evidence.

[enderwigginout]

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
We did not define evolution as orgins science, evolutionists did. So are you attacking supporters of your own side? Not very good debate tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not "my" side. Wow, if you don't know that by now then you really haven't understood what I was saying. I'm trying to understand how one can claim that evolution is a religion without saying all of science is a religion. My contention is that given that definition, all of science must be considered a religion as well (its only the degree to which you carry it). I think that only taking some evidence science has produced and labeling it "origins science" is dodgy. I, of course, do not believe that evolution or science really is a "religion"...because I find fault with your definitions. I assume you ascribe to this theory too and they are "your" supporters as well since 50% of the posts replied to state very clearly that you think of evolution as a religion. If that is your claim then you must support the assumptions of that claim, namely the defintions involved. I stress this point because I see that there are problems with it and you must make the claim that all of science is a religion.

But, anyway, on a happy coincidence I was able to find the same arguments I'm making from a philosophical source. You are free to say he is making contradictions in his argument if you wish, but its very nice to know now that I'm in good (and learned) company with my contradictions.

But first, some "evidence" from a creationist on evolutionary theory:

[ QUOTE ]
From Duane T. Gish, who has a PhD in biology and is Associate Director of the Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA. He is the author of numerous books and articles defending creationism against Darwinian evolution.

Taken from "Creation-Evolution"

Whle it is true that most biologists accept evolution as a fact, there is a significant minority of competent biologists who do not accept this theory as the best interpretation of the known data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welp, there is a CREATIONIST saying that most biologists at least accept evolution as a FACT. Not a theory, and certainly not as a religion. It does take issue with some of your evidence I believe...

And here is the evidence to support my differentiation between theory and event. He explains this much better than I and goes into my difficulties with operational science and origins science (though not in name).

[ QUOTE ]
From David Kline, a philosopher and provest and vice president for academic affairs at the University of North Flordia.

Several general points on the theory-data distinction are in order. First, data are typically used to support or justify a theory. Exactly how the data must be related to a theory in order to provide support is a compklicated issue in inductive logic and, fortunately, one with which we need not be concerned here. Second, since it would be pointless to use a to justify b if a were less well established than b, typically the data are better established than the theories they support. Third, nevertheless, data are not certain or indubitable. The data are often discovered to be mistaken. The source of error can be faulty instruments, false auxiliary assumptions, poor experimental design, and so on. The point is that for data to be used in a justifying role requires that the data be correct, not that they be certain or indubitable. if the data are correct and if they are related to the theory in the proper way, the provide some justification for the theory. Finally, justification is a historical process as well as logical process. Although initially the data are supposed to be much better established than the theory they support, they need not remain so. As the theory becomes supported by numerous data and explains more and more, our confidence in it rises. It can rise to such an extent that there is little difference between our confidence in the data and our confidence in the theory. Theories can come to be well established, and transmission genetics are examples of such theories.

The last point is the important one for understanding the spat over whether evolution is a theory or fact. Let us label the scientific sense of theory, theory. The crucial conceptual truth is that to claim a that a theory is well established, even beyond reasonable doubt, is not a contradiction.

Then how shall we speak of evolution? All should agree with the creationists that it is a theory, in that evolution is a systematically related set of regularities that allegedly exaplin numerous and diverse phenomena. But the creationist concludes straightway that evolution is not well established, a move made plausile only by an equivocation on the meaning of theory. The creationist's conclusion follows only on the supposition that evolution is a theory(sub-o) [if something is theory(sub-o) then it is not well established]. But when biologists call evolution a theory, they mean that is a theory(sub-s). And on theat reading the creationist conclusion does not follow. One cannot reason that since the theory of evolution is a theory, it is not well established.

The creationist may admit that the evolutionary account is a theory(sub-s), yet not a well-established one. This point could be true of course, but if so, it becomes and empirical, not a philosophical point. The claim that evolution is not well established thus requires emperical justification.

[/ QUOTE ]

Furthermore:

[ QUOTE ]
Creationists charge that evolutionary theory has a special difficulty in conforming to one of the canons of scientific method. As Duane Gish notes: "Another criterion that must apply to a scientific theory is the ability to repeatedly observe the events, processess or properties used to support the theory. There were obviously no human witnesses to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or in fact to the origin of a single living thing." Gish's point, which is widely echoed in the popular creationist literature, seems to come down to this. Consider some scientific regularity--for example, that arsenic poisons or that copper conducts electricity. To have confidence in the truth of such a regularity or law, the creationists argue, one must be able to repeatedly observe instances of it. In the case of regularities that make up the theory of evolution, it is in principle impossible to observe instances of them, since evolutionary history consists of a unique serious of events.

This argument has two flaws. First, the canons of scientific method do not require that one be able to observe the instances of the regularities or the particular event in order to justify one's belief in them. It is acceptable and standard practife to justify belief in a regularity by deducing certain observable consequences from it and certain auxiliary assumptions. The same procedure hold for establishing the occurance of particular events. To insists that instances of the laws be observed would eliminate not only much f the theory of evolution but nearly the whole of modern physics. The kind of reasoning illustrated by the Sternberg experiments is standard fare in scientific inquiry. Sternberg did not observe the serial exhaustive search said to take place in the brain but observed consequences of it, namely, reaction times. Similarly, one does not observe interaction of elementary particles but, rather, certain consequences or effect of those interactions.

Second, even when instances of a regularity are observable--for example, Snell's Law (sin i/sin r = constant) or the gas law (PV= NrT)--one cannot repeatedly observe the same events being instances of the regularity simply because every event is unique. No event occurs twice. So if we adhere rigorously to Gish's demand, no law can be confirmed.

Of course, given some notion of relevant similarity, relvenatly similar events can occur an indefintely large number of times. It is by observing such event-types that scientists confirm observational laws. But there is no reason that evolution cannot meet this demand. He claims that the same regularities hold now as in the past. Of course, he cannot observe past instances of the regularityes. That is a trivial truth. Neither can he observe past instances of Newton's laws. But he can confirm Newton's laws in the laboratory and in nature. The same situation hold for the evolutionary regularities that have observable instances.

In summary, Gish's supposed canon of method is far too strong. If confirmation requires the observation of instances of regularities, most of science will not meet the requirement. Even if we restrict the requirement to observational regularities, it is still too strict since events do not recur. If we weaken the requirement to event-types then there is no a priori reason that evolutionary regularities cannot meet the condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

[President Wilson]

Lets analyze your rebuttle to another one of my references

I showed this reference

[ QUOTE ]
Bipedalism has traditionally been regarded as the fundamental adaptation that sets hominids apart from other primates. Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking. At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism


[/ QUOTE ]

YOu stated

[ QUOTE ]
Again, this was a quote taken out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so, I merely quoted the reference, then you backed up your statement with this quote

[ QUOTE ]
The quote was from Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., I found another FULL LENGTH article here that quotes them also:


[/ QUOTE ]

You then showed this quote to support what you said

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, all of the fossils are extremely fragmentary - <font color="red"> a few teeth and scraps of bone. </font> What's more, telling the difference between an ancestral chimp and an ancestral hominid immediately after the split will be extremely hard, as they will inevitably look very similar. So it will remain difficult to establish beyond dispute that a hominid-like creature from this period is more closely related to chimps or humans.


[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize you just supported my reference. I merely showed this point in the first quote

At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism

regardless of the obfusication your quote still flat out stated this

Unfortunately, all of the fossils are extremely fragmentary - a few teeth and scraps of bone.


Thankyou for the confirmation! Then you conclude that you still have support for your religion because

[ QUOTE ]
They admit themselves that proving this theory is "difficult to establish beyond dispute", but they in no way say that they support that Lucy is not an example of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Niether do they support it! Again, you are arguing from a lack of evidence. A few fragments here and there does not lend credence to evolution.

Once again, this goes with another reference I pointed out

<font color="red"> John Reader "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, p. 802

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
</font>


Explain how that statement can be taken out of context! It looks as clear as crystal!

[ QUOTE ]
The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table,

[/ QUOTE ]

Moreover, the Discovery channel Documentary, rounded up the top scientists in the world for their presentation and opened their show up by stating " the fossil evidence for human evolution I quote is " barely enough to fill the back of a pickup, time is the enemy "

Those sources are some of the top journals in the world. And that show was backed by hundreds of the top scientists in the world.

I'm reading your article which you claimed as proof and they continue to confirm my point!

[ QUOTE ]
Fossil evidence is scant, and controversial.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The resolution of this debate, if any comes, may have surprising consequences. At least one of these very ancient creatures could, in fact, be more closely related to chimps than humans. This would be an exciting result: fossils of hominids are notoriously rare, but fossils of chimpanzees are non-existent.

[/ QUOTE ]

[enderwigginout]

Also from Kline:

[ QUOTE ]
The philosophical arguments used by creationists to refute the theory of evolution--that it is merely a theory, that is is about nonrepeatable phenomena, that it is unfalisfiiable--are woefully inadequate. The dust raised by these arguments was agitated by various confused or uncritically held views about the nature of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Big Dan]

My brain hurts. /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[falser]

[ QUOTE ]
Niether do they support it! Again, you are arguing from a lack of evidence. A few fragments here and there does not lend credence to evolution.
...
Explain how that statement can be taken out of context! It looks as clear as crystal!

[/ QUOTE ]

I will try to explain one last time by analogy why your argument doesn't hold up to logic or science (or mathematics for that matter):

You remember the board game "Clue" right?

If you know that either Col. Musturd or Ms. Scarlet committed the murder, and you are able to prove Col. did not use the candlestick to commit the murder, it DOES NOT prove by default that Ms. Scarlet committed the murder.

For some reason you are not able wrap your head around this, or I have failed to explain it properly.

[President Wilson]

You are not seeming to get my point. All experimentation has proved that life can never spontaneously generate. This means that evolution cannot even get off the ground.

Naturalism does not have a leg to stand on, above the level of blind faith.

[falser]

[ QUOTE ]
President Wilson said:
You are not seeming to get my point. All experimentation has proved that life can never spontaneously generate. This means that evolution cannot even get off the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the entire theory of evolution does not revolve around the spontaneous generation of life, or any one particular process. And again, you have taken a very specific part of the whole picture and said that because it cannot be proven, the whole theory falls apart. This doesn't follow logical thinking. And unfortunately I have run out of further ways to explain it.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the entire theory of evolution does not revolve around the spontaneous generation of life

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are an atheist, you must believe in spontaneous generation. Let me define this for you

Websters, heads it under " abiogenesis " the more technical name

<font color="red"> abiogenesis </font> - the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

[ QUOTE ]
. And again, you have taken a very specific part of the whole picture and said that because it cannot be proven, the whole theory falls apart. This doesn't follow logical thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say this is not logical. Here is the point.

Life can never arrise spontaneously, explain how an atheist can give me an alternative view. This is what science hass shown

spontaneous generation violates the laws of science
Life cannot arrise from dead matter

Your conclusion: this doesn't mean that life cannot arrise from dead matter?

That is the only argument that can be made. In other words, you take the opposite side of what has been tested.

[ QUOTE ]
And unfortunately I have run out of further ways to explain it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, neither yourself nor any evolutionist has ever answered this question. Its simple, you have no mechanism, and all the sources you gave me confirmed this.

My conclusion is simple. You must have blind faith that life could have origionated by chance. And you have yet to show different. You might as well conclude what the Evolutionists conclude. Francis Crick, one of the most well renowned evolutionists said life forming would be a " miracle "

The Eminent evolutionist and " Nobel Prize Winner " and Former Harvard Professor George Wald sums up your argument perfectly in The Physics and Chemistry of Life on page 270

<font color="red"> " One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
</font>

The Nobel prize winner himself however admitted the following in Scientific America

<font color="red"> The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. George Wald, 'The Origin of Life,' Scientific American, Vol. 190, </font>

The great scientist Louis Pasteur to which Wald refers in the 1800's confirmed what is known as the biogenetic law: Life comes only from life. To this day, all experimentation has only proven this, leaving the atheist with only faith to hold onto his beliefs. A faith which is in direct opposition to Science.

Spontaneous Generation is a religous belief system. I have no problem with a person believing that life came from a rock. However, it is not scientific, no matter how many ways you attempt to make it so. Nor is it logical to believe what has been disproven.

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]
My conclusion is simple. You must have blind faith that life could have origionated by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely! Why someone would hold so tight to such horrible religion, which offers absolutely nothing accept freedom to sin, and is completely devoid of evidence, is beyond me. If you guys want more answers, review this thread and our bible studies.

Romans 1:19-32
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Philippians 3:17-21
17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. 18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

Jude 1: 1 - 25
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

2 Peter 2:10-22
10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. 12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb *** speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. 17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Luke 10:10-16
10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, 11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. 13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. 15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. 16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/president/images/1201evolutionisreligion.jpg

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Talk to any geologist and I'm sure he'll explain with overwhelming evidence that rock formations such as mountains, volcanos, glaciers, sedeminatary deposits and the movement of tectonic plates cannot have all occured within 10,000 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you even understand sedemintary deposits? Plate tectonics? Uniformity?

There is substantial evidence, for a young earth. For example Dr. Gentry has vast evidence from polonium halos in granite for rapid formation of the earth.

[ QUOTE ]
Talk to any (editor's note--evolutionary)geologist

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we are seeing your biased mentaility.

One has to believe in evolution to be a geologists...

therefore all geologists believe in evolution.

You have already defined the parameters for the arguement.

For example if we start with the pre-assumption of catastophism we see entirely different theories of plate tectonics:

http://www.icr.org/research/as/platetectonics.html
In 1859 Antonio Snider proposed that rapid, horizontal divergence of crustal plates occurred during Noah's Flood. Modern plate tectonics theory is now conflated with assumptions of uniformity of rate and ideas of continental “drift”. Catastrophic plate tectonics theories, such as Snider proposed more than a century ago, appear capable of explaining a wide variety of data — including Biblical and geologic data which the slow tectonics theories are incapable of explaining. We would like to propose a catastrophic plate tectonics theory as a framework for earth history.
Geophysically, we begin with a pre-Flood earth differentiated into core, mantle, and crust, with the crust horizontally differentiated into sialic craton and mafic ocean floor. The Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic floor broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins. Deformation of the mantle by these slabs raised the temperature and lowered the viscosity of the mantle in the vicinity of the slabs. A resulting thermal runaway of the slabs through the mantle led to meters-per-second mantle convection. Cool oceanic crust which descended to the core/mantle boundary induced rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field. Large plumes originating near the core/mantle boundary expressed themselves at the surface as fissure eruptions and flood basalts. Flow induced in the mantle also produced rapid extension along linear belts throughout the sea floor and rapid horizontal displacement of continents. Upwelling magma jettisoned steam into the atmosphere causing intense global rain. Rapid emplacement of isostatically lighter mantle material raised the level of the ocean floor, displacing ocean water onto the continents. When virtually all the pre-Flood oceanic floor had been replaced with new, less-dense, less-subductable, oceanic crust, catastrophic plate motion stopped. Subsequent cooling increased the density of the new ocean floor, producing deeper ocean basins and a reservoir for post-Flood oceans.
Sedimentologically, we begin with a substantial reservoir of carbonate and clastic sediment in the pre-Flood ocean. During the Flood hot brines associated with new ocean floor added precipitites to that sediment reservoir, and warming ocean waters and degassing magmas added carbonates — especially high magnesium carbonates. Also during the Flood, rapid plate tectonics moved pre-Flood sediments toward the continents. As ocean plates subducted near a continental margin, its bending caused upwarping of sea floor, and its drag caused downwarping of continental crust, facilitating the placement of sediment onto the continental margin. Once there, earthquake- induced sea waves with ocean-to-land movement redistributed sediment toward continental interiors. Resulting sedimentary units tend to be thick, uniform, of unknown provenance, and extend over regional, inter-regional, and even continental areas.
After the Flood, the earth experienced a substantial period of isostatic readjustment, where local to regional catastrophes with intense earthquake and volcanic activity were common. Post-Flood sedimentation continued to be rapid but was dominantly basinal on the continents. Left-over heat in the new oceans produced a significantly warmer climate just after the Flood. In the following centuries, as the earth cooled, floral and faunal changes tracked the changing climate zonation. The warmer oceans caused continental transport of moisture that led to the advance of continental glaciers and ultimately to the formation of polar ice caps.


Predictions

This model, like many Flood models, predicts the following: a) a consistent, worldwide, initiation event in the geologic column; b) most body fossils assigned to Flood deposits were deposited allochthonously (including coal, forests, and reefs); c) most ichnofossils assigned to Flood deposits are grazing, moving, or escape evidences, and not long-term living traces; and d) sediments assigned to the Flood were deposited subaqueously without long-term unconformities between them. Since Flood models are usually tied to young-earth creationism, they also claim that it is possible on a short time scale to explain a) the cooling of plutons and ocean plate material; b) regional metamorphism (see, e.g. [95,96]); c) canyon and cave erosion; d) sediment production and accumulation (including speleothems and precipitites); e) organismal accumulation and fossilization (including coal, fossil forests, and reefs); (f) fine sedimentary lamination (including varves); and g) radiometric data.

This particular model also predicts a) a lower earth viscosity in pre-Flood times; b) degassing-associated subaqueous precipitate production during the Flood; c) (possibly) east-to-west dominated current deposition during the Flood; d) (possibly) degassing-produced atmosphere argon and helium levels; e) a decrease in magnitude and frequency of geologic activity after the Flood; f) flood basalts that correlate with mantle plume events; g) a sedimentary unconformity at the Flood/post-Flood boundary on the continents not reflected in ocean sediments; h) current geologic activity is the result of relict, isostatic dynamics, not primary earth dynamics; and i) a single ice age composed of a single ice advance.

CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY
by (in alphabetical order)
STEVEN A. AUSTIN, Ph.D.
JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER, Ph.D.
D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS,Ph.D
Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D
LARRY VARDIMAN, Ph.D.
KURT P. WISE, Ph.D.

However, "as they don’t accept uniformity as a beginning axiom, that of course proves they aren’t geologists/scientists."

[ QUOTE ]
Talk to an astronomer and he'll show you more evidence that the earth could not have formed, in astronomical terms, overnight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the same fallacy. I've already showed that if you start with different preassumptions and plug those into Einstien's equations, you get entirely different cosmoloigies. Do you understand what assumptions I'm talking about? Or anything regarding cosmology?

Again, majority opinion is not proof.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you taking the fact that fossils are relatively rare and using it to conclude that it is proof God exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are showing they do not support evolution, however they continue to be used as the best evidence. Do you even understand fossils as evidence?

[ QUOTE ]
Lack of enough fossils DOES NOT prove that God exists, and neither does it disprove that macroevolution occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the fossil record is used as evidence at all it clearly shows a more favorable trend towards created kinds, more-so than goo to you evolution.

Let me give you a quick lesson.
/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

If macro changes as claimed as evidence for evolution via the fossil record have actually occurred in the past and all living organisms share a common ancestor then one should find the fossilized transitions between one form and another in the fossil record.

If dogs really did evolve into whales, then there should to be evidence of such a large progression.

The fallacy you are presenting is as follows:

“I am buried on top of an earth worm, that proves he is my grandpa”

"there may not be all the steps between, but he's on top so that settles it"

There is much more to claiming transitional fossils than what layer it’s found in.

In order for evolution to be the scienticially inferred explanation, not only must

(1) key expected fossil transitions have to be found

(2) The correct amount of biological change must be mathematically possible given the size, reproduction rate, and mutation rate(based on assumption anyway) of the evolving populous, the supposed time allowed for the change in the fossil record, and the rules of population genetics, (many of these characteristics may be dependent upon one another, but the point is that in the end, the numbers must add up) also

(3) ALL supposed stages of intermediate macro- and micro- morphology of the transitional organisms must be functional and advantageous for survival.

If one of the above criteria is not met, then it is not possible that evolutionary processes could have caused the transformations.

Furthermore, one might claim to have transitional fossil that led from a dog to a whale. Let me explain.

If the fossil record demonstrates that the evolution was astronomically rapid, it could not be evidence as transitional.

--such as the case with baliosaurus to whale, “although hundreds of skeletons of Basilosaurus have been found, and hundreds of whale skeletons, nothing which would qualify as intermediate between these two has been found. Also, Basilosaurus was fully aquatic—not a part–land, part–sea dweller.” Nor did falseorigins.com tell us that “the tiny hind appendages are believed to have been useful 'grasping organs' during mating”- 'Humpback', New Zealand Geographic, 30: 20–48.

Evolutionist whale expert Philip Gingerich in The Press–Enterprise, July 1, 1990, p. A–15 as saying, 'It seems to me that they could only be some kind of sexual or reproductive clasper'. )

Of course, falseorigins, presents it as a "vestigial leg".

or the necessary changes were beyond genetic limitations it could not be evidence as transisiton--such as the case Pakietus/Ambulocetus to Rhodocetus:

“‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’-Muizon, C. de, Walking with whales, Nature 413:259–260, 20 September 2001”

Translation- Pakicetids was totally a land animal.

http://www.trueorigin.org/images/ng_whales0104.jpg

This propaganda attempst to claim there was webbing between the feet of Ambulocetus.

“Yet it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of Ambulocetus fossils. In the fossil record it is next to impossible to find soft tissues such as these." Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Process of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.333

Translation- we "scientifically" drew the webbing in, without one shred of evidence to back it up.

or that it took place in the sort of populations which could never undergo large scale macro evolutionary change it can not be evidence of transistional---the entire dog to whale scenario:

Then there is no right to claim, "whale to dog transitional fossils"

Which is why these quotes, from evolutionary sources, are accurate and not mis-representations. These are scientists who understand and apply the matematics behind assuming transisitions.

It’s not as simple as saying, “he’s on top that proves hes the ancestor.”

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> "Given a simple little rodent like animal as our starting point, what does it mean to form a bat in less than ten million years, or a whale in little more time ... If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years ... then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end -to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. This is clearly preposterous ... A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodent like form to a slightly different one ... but not to a bat or a whale!"
(The New Evolutionary Timetable by Steven Stanley, Basic Books, Inc. Publishers, 1981. Pg 93-94)

</font>

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green"> “"...we have no certain knowledge of their origin [the cetaceans], for the earliest-known fossils from the Eocene are already unmistakably whales, and we can only guess at their evolutionary history by inference."
“We are ignorant of their terrestrial forebears [cetaceans and sirenians] and cannot be sure of their place of origin."
(Alfred Sherwood Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, University of Chicago Press, 1974, pg. 339)”
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> “Researchers who learn how living animals are related by studying their DNA have tended to group cetaceans ... with even-toed ungulates, or artiodactyls. By some analyses, hippos are the closest living whale relatives. But to paleontologists, who study fossils, that conclusion has long been anathema. Instead they contend that cetaceans descended from an extinct hyena-like mammals called "mesonychians" [which were NOT artiodactyls]."
"...Thewissen thinks the morphological evidence, although mixed, opens the door to some kind of relation between the whales and the ungulates. He adds that there is now "considerable doubt" that cetaceans are closely related to mesonychians. That conclusion got a thumbs up from paleontologists at the meeting. For example, John Allroy of the National Museum of National History in Washington, D.C, says pulling the mesonychians out of the picture makes a closer cetacean-artiodactyl link plausible. But O'Leary says "it's [still] difficult to connect hippos with whales in the fossil record." The molecular camp, for its part, viewed Thewissen's conclusion as just a first step toward ultimate vindication. As Norihiro Okada, a molecular biologist at Tokyo Institute of Technology, put it: "I think paleontologists may discover more [features common to early cetaceans and early hippos] in the near future."
(Normile D., "New Views of the Origins of Mammals," Science, Vol 281, 7 August 1998, pp.774-775)”

</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

From the last quote you can see, the evolution camp is in no agreement about whale evolution.

Using these criterias then it is impossible to conclude common desent through evolution, regardless of what fossils may or may not be found.

So instead of false origins.com saying, “How do you convince a creationists you have transitional fossils? Give up, you can’t”. Raymond should have said,” how do we get the other evolutionary camps to accept transitions my theory of dog to whale? Give up you can’t.”

We of course believe both evolutionary sides show enough envidence against each other to disprove both. They do the job for us most of the time.

So, let’s see what the evolutionists, who actually apply the assumed mathematics have to say:

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="brown"> “"Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group. Thus, it has seldom been possible to piece together ancestor-dependent sequences from the fossil record that show gradual, smooth transitions between species."
(Hickman, C.P. [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Washington and Lee University in Lexington], L.S. Roberts [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Texas Tech University], and F.M. Hickman. 1988. Integrated Principles of Zoology. Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, ([---]). Louis, MO. 939 pp.; (pg. 866)) “

</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="#666666"> “It is sometimes suggested that Darwin's theory is systematically irrefutable (and hence scientifically vacuous), but Darwin was forthright about what sort of finding it would take to refute his theory. "Though nature grants vast periods of time for the work of natural selection, she does not grant an indefinite period" (Origin, p. 102), so, if the geological evidence mounted to show that not enough time had elapsed, his whole theory would be refuted. This still left a temporary loophole, for the theory wasn't formulatable in sufficiently rigorous detail to say just how many millions of years was the minimal amount required, but it was a temporary loophole that made sense, since at least some proposals about its size could be evaluated independently."
(Dennett D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," 1996, p.46)”

</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [i.e., a species becoming a new species] accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
(Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977), p. 39)”
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> “""The following phenomena are of particular concern to biologists:
1. The origin of major new structures: Biologists have long struggled with the conceptual gap between the small-scale modifications that can be seen over the short time scale of human study and major changes in structure and ways of life over millions and tens of millions of years. Paleontologists in particular have found it difficult to accept that the slow, continuous, and progressive changes postulated by Darwin can adequately explain the major reorganizations that have occurred between dominant groups of plants and animals. Can changes in individual characters, such as the relative frequency of genes for light and dark wing color in moths adapting to industrial pollution, simply be multiplied over time to account for the origin of moths and butterflies within insects, the origin of insects from primitive arthropods, or the origin of arthropods from among primitive multicellular organisms? How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?
2. The extremely irregular occupations of the adaptive space as opposed to the nearly continuous spectrum of evolutionary change postulated by Darwin. Although an almost incomprehensible number of species inhabit earth today, they do not form a continous specrum of barely distinguishable intermediates. Instead, nearly all species can be recognized as belonging to a relatively limited number of clearly distinct major groups, with very few illustrating intermediate structures or ways of life. All of us can immediately recognize animals as being birds, turles, insects, or jellyfish, and plants as conifers, ferns, or orchids. Even with millions of living species, here are only a very few that do not fit into recognizable taxonomic categories. Of all living mammals, only the tree shrews are difficult to classify....Even among the hundreds of thousands of recognized insect species, nearly all can be placed in one or another of the approximately thirty well-characterized orders.
One might hypothesize a very different pattern among extinct plants and animals: Fossils would be expected to show a continuous progression of slightly different forms linking all species and all major groups with one another in a nearly unbroken spectrum. In fact, most well-preserved fossils are as readily classified in a relatively small number of major groups as are living species....
Compared with the millions of specimens of trilobites that have been collected, there are very few that might be thought to bridge the gap between tribolites and any other group of extinct anthropods. The number of species that bridge the gaps between dinosaurs and more primitive reptiles and between dinosaurs and birds is very small compared with the number that everyone recognizes as dinosaurs. How do we account for the extremely irregular distribution of basic body plans in space and time under a theory of evolution based on gradual and continuous change?"
(Robert Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 8-10)”
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="brown"> “There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist writing in English (R. Carroll, 1988), French (J. Chaline, 1983), or German (V. Fahlbusch, 1983) denies this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict"
(David Berlinksi, mathematician and not a creationist in Commentary, Sept. 1996 pg. 28)”
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as “lucy” being transitional? Sir, I beg to differ, and so do the evolutionists.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> “it is difficult to pin down the precise identity of ancestors, and there is a good case for not even trying to do so."
(Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 284)”
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green"> “The missing link between man and the apes...is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated...Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school..."
(John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)”
“"There are no fossils available as plausible ancestors of the primates, leaving the primate tree without a trunk."
(Martin, R. D., 1993. Primate Origins: plugging the gaps 363:223-233)”
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="#666666"> “"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans--of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings--is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Lyall Watson (anthropologist), 'The Water People,' Science Digest, Vol 90, May 1982, pg. 44)”
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">“"[P]erhaps generations of students of human evolution, includ- ing myself, have been flailing about in the dark; . . . our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather, the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about our past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about."
(David Pilbeam, "Book Review of Leakey's Origins," 66 _American Scientist_ (1978): 379 [cited in Bird, 1:226]).”
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[IronKnuckle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hacobo said:
Maybe I'm reading wrong, but are you guys saying evolution doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Macroevolution does not exist. There is no arguement as to the existance of MICRO evolution and variation in the species. But if you look at the mechanisms behind macroevolution, they are all completely based on faith and not science. In fact, modern science points against macroevolution, even further confirming Creationist beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly!! We were created by a perfect being. So in order for a creation to be perfect, it must have the abilty to adapt. O the mercy and wisdom of our Creator!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[IronKnuckle]

yeah i started reading and couldn't help it.

[NJIron]

wow.....what a thread

[ QUOTE ]
My brain hurts. /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I can relate to this guy.

Fortunately, understanding Christ's message is much easier on the brain than this stuff.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Fortunately, understanding Christ's message is much easier on the brain than this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. However, unfortunately, His message is compromised just as Genesis is.

<font color="red"> John 5:45-47
46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”
</font>

Many are tricked from the simplicity that is Christ,

for example the notion that a day is not a day, compromising God's Word. A simple concept, yet made complex through the subtily of the serpent.

<font color="green"> 2 Corinthians 11:3

3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
</font>