Question about evolution

[Line6]

Hi! I have a question. I came across this site here which makes evolution look so ridiculous.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/giraffe1.htm

I wonder do the evolutionists really imagine it this way?
Do they really think that somehow a giraffe came into existence and then over the centuries the "fine-tuning" happened over many generations? But this doesn't work as the site also shows. Is this theory really so absurd or is it just me and I am making a mistake and don't really understand how they think it worked? Cause it seems so absurd that I think to myself that it cannot be so absurd cause then people should realize how stupid it is but since so many people believe it I rather think that I am making a mistake.

[Mavrick]

wrong forum..

[TForce]

That series is absurd. Do you know how many different processes are involved with the recovery from DOMS? Just the very phenomenon of it is miraculous and defies all notions of the realistic chances of it happening without a massage therapist, hormone injections, extreme nutrient supplementation, and a new protein synthesis catalyst that they really have not even invented yet. There is just no possible way whatsoever that DOMS recovery could happen in the wild. Impossible. It is most certainly a miraculous process that can never be explained.

[Adam Knowlden]

The Prez and I were just discussing how complex elastic energy and the human body are. There is no way these complex processes evolved. Our bodies make space age technology look like a joke.

Even though ID theory is being mocked and banned from public schools, its just the beginning because people are beginning to question evolution, even though they're trying to censor this questioning it won't work because truth will prevail. Eventually the truth of God will prevail in the scientific community.

"There are many devices in a man's heart, nevertheless the counsel of the Lord will stand"

[kokokolo]

I love that website, it really got me thinking. And that picture of the giraffe's head exploding ... wow ! Then again evolution doesnt exaclty explain anything at all, except microevolution/variation within species.

[ QUOTE ]
but since so many people believe it I rather think that I am making a mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

there are so many things I see now that make me wonder how anyone could accept something like evolution, its a wonder I ever assumed it happened. There are examples of faults in evoltion in everything you look at...

One of the first things that got me questioning this was actually the anatomy of the back series on this website of all things. How random right? By the end I was a little in awe. To completely refute evolution in my mind I merely pick up a copy of grays anatomy and look at the pictures !

[ QUOTE ]
Romans 1:20 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:

[/ QUOTE ]

[TForce]

Intelligent design will be transformed into a slightly different intrepretation that actually reverts more closely to evolution, adhering more to the word of free will than outright control. There are way too many factors to even encapsulate the subject into a subsection of philosophy. It is like trying to define God. The more complex you get, the more you find yourself in over your head. Chaos theory will rule the day.

[Adam Knowlden]

Interesting idea, but I don't believe it will because of that nasty ol' second law.

Patterning is of a different dimension entirely from information-bearing chemical sequences that characterize living things.

[ QUOTE ]
Chaos theory: no help for evolution
Occasionally it is claimed that the discovery of patterns of order in seeming chaos is a bright star of hope for evolutionists. They feel it holds promise for their struggle to explain how disordered chemicals could have assembled themselves into the first self-reproducing machine, in opposition to the relentless tendency to universal disorder.

However, present indications point to this being an illusory hope. One of the classic examples of such ‘order out of chaos’ is the appearance of hexagonal patterns on the surface of certain oils as they are being heated. The minute the heating stops, this pattern vanishes once again into a sea of molecular disorder.

These patterns, like the swirls of a hurricane, are not only fleetingly short-lived, but are simple, repetitive structures which require negligible information to describe them. The information they do contain is intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the matter involved, not requiring any extra ‘programming.’

Living things, on the other hand, are characterized by truly complex, information-bearing structures, whose properties are not intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the substances of which they are constructed; they require the pre-programmed machinery of the cell.

This programming has been passed on from the parent organisms, but had to arise from an intelligent mind originally, since natural processes do not write programs.

Any suggestion that the two issues are truly analogous denies reality.


[/ QUOTE ]

For those interested here is why:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/answersm...Submit22=Search (http://www.answersingenesis.org/answersmedia/searchProcess.aspx?keywords=Miracles+and+the+Laws+ of+Nature&Submit22=Search)

[TForce]

This is just a matter of semantics. This idea of chaos theory represents chaotic evolution, whereas my idea of chaos theory represents involuntary processes, kind of like DOMS recovery. However, I was just about to backtrack a little.

He says to himself, let's make a new species. His will causes a mutation and presto, we have a new variation. God's will carries over into the following generations, making that particular gene dominant and presto, we have a new species. Does God have to make all of these decisions on a continual basis? Maybe not. Maybe He just decides that from now on, that particular gene will be dominant, at least until we have a new species, kind of like posing. Does God relax and let it all hang out, or does he flex and concentrate? It could be that simple and that particular judge could be wrong.

[TForce]

Maybe those particular lawyers just were not very good.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Does God have to make all of these decisions on a continual basis? Maybe not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

I would listen to the series I posted to get the clear answer! /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TForce]

I'm glad you brought that up. This whole premise about evolution not creating new information just sounds like complete rubbish. Nothing personal, but I don't want to have anything to with that kind of ideology. A mutation occurs, information changes, nothing more, nothing less.

[kokokolo]

0_o umm bro "just sounds like complete rubbish" being on abc you should give thing more of a critical look than that ! especially on things that are based on science ...

If you were readinh JHR you wouldnt just say "consuming at least 1gram of protein per lb of lean mass just sounds like complete rubbish"

for something to be complete rubbish there should be a reason, so for instance if it is wrong that evolution can not creat new information, give an example of a way we have seen evolution produce new genetic information.

"A mutation occurs, information changes, nothing more, nothing less." dna mutations occur yes ... but as far as I know there is never added information. information simply changing I dont think could account for all the species. so all life would be the same amount of information just changed ? ? ?

[TForce]

Of course, I would never have anything to say like that about a JHR, and yes, it was a bit strongly worded, but I felt that strongly about it. And yes, actually, you are right. If a mutation occurs, as is commonly accepted among millions of full-fledged scientists everywhere, new information is not exactly created. The information changes, so again, we can chalk it up to semantics. I have barely glanced the surface at answersingenesi.org, so I can't tell you much about what is wrong with what they preach, probably not much. Old School used that premise as a selling point to refute the idea of evolution on a couple of occasions, which I didn't really agree with. But since I have not explored the entire message of answersingenesis, it would not be appropriate for me to blindly bash the entire website. It seems to be that the website promotes questioning more than answers, which is all fine and good, but sometimes if you want to develop a spiritual backbone, you have to decide what it is that you actually believe in, as is the case with anybody, or we would be lost in limbo for our entire life. I will stick to what is commonly accepted unless it is clearly spelled out with irrefutable proof.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
If a mutation occurs, as is commonly accepted among millions of full-fledged scientists everywhere,

[/ QUOTE ]

As you know this is majority opinion is not evidence for evolution.

Please give me an example of a evolution creating new information.

[Line6]

Hi!

They will never teach that God created us. Even if the switch to intelligent design they will rather teach that aliens created mankind. This is very well possible, even though it solves nothing cause who created the aliens?
But the alien stuff is also pretty serious and there are also christians which deal with these things. When you keep in mind that 1 out of 40 Americans has seen a UFO or many millions have been abducted you cannot simply ignore this anymore. Even a Harvard professor dealt with this phenomena and said that it's not just imagination.

Check this site out for more infos. It's a christian site.

http://www.ancientofdays.net/

We must not be ignorant about these things cause many people which have seen UFOs or even small green men are bound by this cause for them it's reality. You cannot go to somebody who has seen an "alien" and tell him aliens are not real. This doesn't work.


I also have another evolution question. If evolution was true then shouldn't there be missing links all over?

And if for example a child was born with a third eye on the back of his head would this be evolution or only a disability? /forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Adam Knowlden]

Sorry bro, but that UFO and the bible stuff is complete heresey. That looks like some weird cult, no way is that stuff biblical.

[ QUOTE ]
1 out of 40 Americans has seen a UFO or many millions have been abducted you cannot simply ignore this anymore. Even a Harvard professor dealt with this phenomena and said that it's not just imaginatio

[/ QUOTE ]

A UFO does not mean its alien at all.

Millions have been abduted? I find that hard to believe.

[ QUOTE ]
We must not be ignorant about these things cause many people which have seen UFOs or even small green men are bound by this cause for them it's reality. You cannot go to somebody who has seen an "alien" and tell him aliens are not real. This doesn't work.


[/ QUOTE ]

They may believe it but that does not mean the event they are describing are based on reality.

[ QUOTE ]
If evolution was true then shouldn't there be missing links all over?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and they explain this via random saltations. These are changes by large "jumps" in a single generation, either by "borrowing" genetic material from another organism, frame shifts in the genome, increase in chromosome number, etc.

"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."

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802"

[ QUOTE ]
And if for example a child was born with a third eye on the back of his head would this be evolution or only a disability?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be a mutation, which 99% of the time are harmful.

Dr. Crow <font color="red">, 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 (IRAE,161). </font>

Dr. Muller in American scientist states the following: <font color="blue"> "Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99 per cent, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences ."
</font>

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 "

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).

[Line6]

Hi Old School!

I have listened to the MP3s from these people and they are no heretics. Maybe it seems like this but they are christians which simply deal with the UFO phenomena. And this one bald guy also had alien encounters himself before he became a christian. I don't think it's so easy and can simply be debunked as imagination or fiction. I have also been to boards where people which want to have seen UFOs post stuff. They are quite a few. But when you get into all this stuff it's really disturbing.

Do you know Chuck Missler? He also talks about UFOs. I have read one of his books and he says that many astronauts also have seen UFOs. And what about Roswell? And Area 51? I think there is too much stuff going on to still call it fiction.

[Adam Knowlden]

Hey bro,

I've seen no real scientific evidence of this "UFO phenomena".

Furthermore, biblically, there is zero evidence ET does or even can exist.

So their beginning assumpion that UFO's exist is illogical from a biblical vantage point.

What is their basic doctrine?

[Line6]

Basically they say that UFOs are demonic deceptions.
UFO scientists like Jacques Vallee' who was not a christian also said that UFOs might be a demonic deception since they seem to kind of play with us. They perfectly fit into our society and our conceptions. ET, ID4, Star Trek and all this. They totally fit into this.

As far as ET appearances go...

There are different theories. Some christians say aliens are demons. Others say it's not so easy because demons do not have a body. Others say aliens are fallen angels which appear to us in whatever shape they want. And again others say aliens are hybrid life forms like the nephilim which were created through genetic engineering. I know this sounds really crazy. But there are christians which believe that Satan is trying to create a hybrid race and the reason why they believe this is that pregnant women for example are abducted and their child is removed or eggs are removed and so on.

If this really interests you I can give you a few links to a few good MP3s which deal with this stuff.

[Adam Knowlden]

There are plenty of deceptions, but no way is this biblical that satan is trying to create a hybrid race.

We do not war against flesh and blood/

The "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are the descendents of Seth.

This whole doctrine seems based on that one statement in the bible which has been completely misconstrewed.

There's no evidence for this at all biblically or scientifically.

And you are right bro that is beyond far-fetched.

I've read "chariots of the gods" and its wrong is so many ways.

[Line6]

Of course it is. Daeniken only wanted to make money. This is not the Daeniken stuff. Anyway, you can have your opinion. I don't believe in the Seth explanation. The early church fathers did not believe in the Seth stuff. They church came up with this a few hundred years later. This is what I know and I have no problems believing in nephilim, why not? After all giant sceletons of giant people have been found. Those were most likely nephilim.

[Adam Knowlden]

"The early church fathers did not believe in the Seth stuff. They church came up with this a few hundred years later. "

I would ask for references but the arguement is irrelevant anyway.

Several of the church fathers have made many wrong claims through the ages. Because they formed an opinon does not mean it holds true; they can be wrong and have been on many occasions. Furthermore, because a view is formed later does not mean it is wrong either.

We could debate the "sons of God / daughters of men" phrase, but the scriptures are vauge to support any theory, so its all opinion, however I am confident I can demonstrate that biblically ET does not exist in the strictest sense.

If you want to argue ET are not really from another planet but are just demons, that is fine, however we do not struggle against flesh and blood.

If we were to watch for this type of deception I am confident God would have warned us and prepared us and gave us a way to combat it. However, He only gave us power to wage war in the spiritual realm. This is all Christ did as well, and it was sufficient to thwart satan and eventually defeat Him.

If you want to post the links to the audio I will listen however and get back to you.

[Line6]

Okay, if you want to listen to this (but only if you really want to you don't have to do it only because of me) then I would suggest these 2 files here:

http://www.peeringintodarkness.com.nyud.net:8090/radio/pidradio004.mp3

http://peeringintodarkness.com.nyud.net:8090/radio/pidradio012.mp3

[TForce]

I would like to know more about this giant skeleton business. If this came from a good source, I would have to change everything.

Thanks for the clarification Old School, regarding new information. Now I understand that perspective. However, the fossil record still outweighs all of these hypotheses, in my opinion.

As far as the alien business goes, man you've just got to see how much energy it requires to make your own wormhole, unless your going to spend 5,000 years travelling 4.3 light years to a solar system which probably couldn't even support life, unless of course, you have really thick skin with no H20 in your body and you can survive 800 degrees Fahrenheit, or maybe 100 degrees below zero. Have you ever seen the Russian pictures of the Venus landscape? It looks just like Mars, no vegetation, no life, no nothing. Maybe these aliens have really tough skin and can survive zero degrees Kelvin for a few light years while hanging on for dear life after all his comrades threw him out. Maybe they really have tough skin and really do live to be 50,000 years old. Only thing is where did they go? Why would they leave the best place to live on this side of the galaxy? Maybe they have a secret base on the moon that we still have not discovered and are conducting all of these missions, because they have such tough skin and don't need the fancy, schmancy accomodations of a leisurely world filled with puny little, soft-skinned earthlings.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/scales.html

[Adam Knowlden]

No I would listen for my own edifcation. Sorry bro, I think this is very taboo and I do not believe this is biblical. I would label those following these ideas as adhering to a cult of Christianity.

[kokokolo]

ok heres the thing,

you either belive in evolution
or you believe in god

2 choices, god created life, or
life formed randomly also stated as "life created itself"
seems like following humans from aliens theory is a neat way of following evolution without any evidence for evolution itself

[Line6]

@ TForce

Here we go.
Look at these skulls! /forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

http://www.stevequayle.com/index.html

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/index2.html

[TForce]

[ QUOTE ]

For those interested here is why:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/answersm...Submit22=Search (http://www.answersingenesis.org/answersmedia/searchProcess.aspx?keywords=Miracles+and+the+Laws+ of+Nature&amp;Submit22=Search)

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried listening to this series and it is saved in an alien file format, even though it claims to be able to be used by the standard Windows operating system.

[TForce]

[ QUOTE ]


Please give me an example of a evolution creating new information.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians.
From amphibian to reptile: Seymouria, according to Alfred Romer, "exhibits such a combination of amphibian and reptilian characters that its proper position in the classification of vertebrates has been much disputed" (Romer 1966:94).
From reptile to bird: Archaeopteryx displays a distinct blend of major reptilian and avian characteristics, and highly resembles the theropod reptiles of its time.
From reptile to mammal: Probelesedon and Massetognathus exhibit both reptilian and mammalian characteristics. Probainognathus even has two sets of jaw joints (one reptilian and one mammalian).
From hominid to human: The transition from our "ape-like" ancestors to us is so well documented in the fossil record, with so many fossil forms so clearly intermediate that, as Jim Foley has shown, even creationists cannot agree with one another about which ones are purely human and which ones are purely ape (Foley 2005). Such confusion, of course, is exactly what we would expect if the fossils truly are intermediates.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why, oh why do some of the smartest people, unencumbered by religious restrictions succomb to being enthralled by opposite extremism?

I did find this website which offered a plethora of information, easily accessible. Being a former atheist myself, I am amazed at how atheists can write such unbiased works about things related to God. Of course, I am wondering why they would stoop so low as to call themselves infidels.org, as if that is somehow supposed to boost their credibility. Nevertheless, most of the arguments on this page seem quite middle-of-the-road and easy to read. I am still trying to figure out why these 4 prehistoric authors keep having their names abbreviated. Possibly, to avoid confusion as to who the actual authors were. Nevertheless, evolution is the main topic of discussion today.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html

In Defense of Evolution (2003, updated 2006)
Mark I. Vuletic


Introduction[1]
The world presents to us vast evidence confirming the evolutionary history of life, and nothing even remotely resembling a disproof of it. This is an inexplicable mystery if, as creationists insist, God created the variety of life through a means other than evolution. Had God done so, it would scarcely be possible for the world not to abound with clear evidence decisively refuting evolution; it would, in fact, be possible only if God deliberately rearranged the world after creation to make it look as though evolution had occurred, so that His poor subjects might be misled and thereby condemn themselves to an eternity in Hell. In other words, assuming God exists in the first place, either He used evolution as His means of creating the diversity of life on Earth, or else He is an abhorrent liar and deceiver--titles which have traditionally been reserved for the Devil.

What are some of the places where creationists should expect to find a smoking gun against evolution?[2]

The Fossil Record
One of the crucial predictions of evolutionary theory is that one should find a general progression of increasingly diverse and complex life forms when one traces the fossil record through progressively higher strata of sedimentary rock. This is not to say that major extinctions cannot occur, or that simpler life forms cannot persist alongside more complex ones, but merely that the more complex ones should not appear before the less complex ones have appeared.[3] The appearance of organisms in the fossil record should reflect the branching, treelike structure of evolution.

Thus, had God wished to supply humanity with decisive evidence refuting evolution, He could have done so easily by depositing, preserving, and later exposing to paleontologists numerous mammalian fossils in the oldest rock strata (no difficult feat for the omnipotent creator of the universe). In fact, had God desired, He could have inverted the entire sequence of fossils with no more than a twitch of His little toe, placing all of the fossils of austalopithecines and rhinosceri in the oldest strata, and every last vestige of blue-green algae in the newest.

Yet, when we examine the fossil record, we find a distribution that matches the predictions of evolution, not one of the countless distributions that would not. Creationist spokesmen are forced to seize upon any ad hoc explanation they can think of to explain this; for instance, that Noah's Flood somehow sorted the fossils into exactly the pattern expected by evolution, or that God, for some strange reason, decided to create life over the course of aeons in a sequence matching the predictions of evolution (in either case, God presumably did not care that the resultant fossil patterns would cause us to be deceived). Surely it is more sensible simply to conclude that evolution has occurred.

A second prediction of evolution is that the fossil record should yield transitional forms. Evolution does not require the fossil record to yield transitional forms as plentiful as the stars, since the conditions of fossilization are severe, and some organisms fossilize less easily than others, but one would reasonably become suspicious if, after more than a century of work, paleontologists had not discovered any transitional forms at all. A complete absence of transitional forms, in fact, is precisely what creationists should expect. Paleontology, however, has yielded plentiful transitional forms, of which a mere handful is listed here:

From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians.
From amphibian to reptile: Seymouria, according to Alfred Romer, "exhibits such a combination of amphibian and reptilian characters that its proper position in the classification of vertebrates has been much disputed" (Romer 1966:94).
From reptile to bird: Archaeopteryx displays a distinct blend of major reptilian and avian characteristics, and highly resembles the theropod reptiles of its time.
From reptile to mammal: Probelesedon and Massetognathus exhibit both reptilian and mammalian characteristics. Probainognathus even has two sets of jaw joints (one reptilian and one mammalian).
From hominid to human: The transition from our "ape-like" ancestors to us is so well documented in the fossil record, with so many fossil forms so clearly intermediate that, as Jim Foley has shown, even creationists cannot agree with one another about which ones are purely human and which ones are purely ape (Foley 2005). Such confusion, of course, is exactly what we would expect if the fossils truly are intermediates.
If we look to some of the less prominent transitions in life, we find equally astounding transitional forms. For instance, evolutionists have hypothesized that whales evolved from ancient ungulates.[4] Since the ungulates include such creatures as cattle, camels, and hippopotami, this is a hypothesis which many creationists have ridiculed, and virtually all have thought implausible. However, there is ample evidence for the transition in fossils ranging from Pakicetus (a land creature that does not look like a whale at all but has an ear region and teeth resembling that of fossil whales) to Ambulocetus (an intermediate with well-developed legs, capable of motion on land, but better suited to an aquatic life) to Basilosaurus (a primitive whale with small hind legs), demonstrating a full range of transitional characteristics between land-going creatures and whales.

Given that creatures such as these, which creationists expect not to exist at all, exhibit obvious transitional characteristics and exist in the places and time periods in which evolutionists expect to find them, we again have no option but to conclude either that evolution took place, whether through God's design or not, or else that God created all of these creatures directly, transitional characteristics and all, so that man might be deceived into rejecting the true history of creation.

Patterns in Genetic Material
Had God created life through means other than evolution, He could have used the faintest whisper of His boundless power to endow each kind of creature with a different form of genetic material, or a completely different genetic code. But all life forms on Earth use DNA and RNA as genetic material, with a code that admits of only very rare and insignificant alterations, which is what one would expect had all life evolved from a common ancestor.

There is, furthermore, a high degree of correspondence between molecular phylogenies and evolutionary expectations, even for nonfunctional changes in DNA. Especially puzzling for creationism is the question of why these evolutionary expectations are borne out in the case of similar species living in similar climates on different continents: creationists should expect the DNA of such creatures to closely match, if DNA was designed for functionality. However, we find instead that these species often have DNA more closely resembling that of different species in adjacent environments than that of the similar species in distant locales. The appearance of the similar species is the result of convergent evolution: the species have managed to adapt in similar ways to their environments, but they remain genetically closer to the different species near them, with whom they share a more recent common ancestor. The manner in which such genetic correlations match evolutionary expectations is independent confirmation of evolution that would serve absolutely no purpose but deception in a world in which all life was created directly by God.

Evolution and Atheism?
Sometimes, especially when addressing religious audiences (from whom they draw the most funding and political clout), creationist spokesmen drop their scientific pretenses and reveal their narrow religious motivations by attacking evolution as atheistic. These creationists would have one believe that evolution presupposes and promotes atheism simply because it contradicts their particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Apparently they have decreed through their own infallible, godlike powers, that their human interpretation of Genesis is infallible, and that all who disagree with them must therefore be atheists and enemies of religion, or at least the unthinking dupes of such sinister forces, which they alone have had the moral and intellectual fortitude to resist.

Evolution, however, poses no special problem for the religious believer; most evolutionists have no problem reconciling their scientific knowledge with their belief in God. Creationist leaders attempt to frighten the believers they address by pointing to atheistic evolutionists such as zoologist Richard Dawkins (1986), philosopher Daniel C. Dennett (1995), and historian William Provine. Seldom, however, do they seem to mention believing evolutionists such cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller (1999), theologian James F. Haught (2001), or philosopher Robert T. Pennock (1999). They ignore statements by church assemblies supporting evolution.[5] Nor do they point out polls that show that a full 40% of scientists believe that a god guided the process of evolution (Witham 2002:54). Even many of those who believe that evolution proceeds without divine input simply do not understand what evolution is supposed to have to do with whether or not God created the universe, whether or not He forgives us our sins, or whether or not He was incarnated, crucified, and resurrected. While it is true that evolution knocks down one traditional argument for the existence of God (the argument from biological design) there are still plenty of other arguments left over upon which evolution has no bearing. Apparently, what creationist spokesmen really mean when they aver that evolution is atheistic, is that evolution is incompatible with the exact doctrines which they have chosen to enshrine as infallible. Most people, however, consider it rather arrogant to declare that any deviation from your personal interpretation of a religious text amounts to atheism.

But isn't the wastefulness and arbitrariness of evolution incompatible with the existence of God? Atheists, naturally enough, tend to think so; but for the believer, the wastefulness and arbitrariness of evolution can present no special problem not already presented by the events of everyday life. Consider, for instance, the wastefulness and arbitrariness present in the rape and murder of a child: on the one hand, a person who is inclined to view such things as incompatible with the existence of a loving god is already at the doorstep of atheism, and will hardly be moved by the comparative tameness of the evolutionary history of life. On the other hand, it would be a sick joke beyond measure to suggest that anyone capable of genuflecting at the altar of God after considering the rape and murder of a child could possibly have his or her faith shaken by the cruelty of the evolutionary process. As far as the matter of atheism versus theism goes, the wastefulness and arbitrariness of evolution is either redundant or irrelevant.

The Bible and Creationism
Creationist leaders conclude from their interpretation of the Book of Genesis that evolution cannot have occurred. However, in doing so they presuppose that their personal interpretative powers are infallible. In asserting that God must have inspired the creation stories in Genesis, that He could not have inspired mythological creation stories for any purpose, and that He could not have meant for the creation stories in question to be interpreted in any other way than that which the creationist leader finds most intuitive, these creationists seem to place very severe constraints upon what God can and cannot do. Stranger still, these typically are the same people who loudly berate evolutionists for supposedly trusting human reason over the word of God. These creationists do not seem to realize that their judgement that Genesis is the word of God, and their judgement about how Genesis is to be interpreted, both are products of their own distinctly human reasoning. To reason is inescapable, whether there is a god or not.

Hence, instead of immediately declaring our first impressions about the Book of Genesis to be infallible, and then refusing to budge regardless of evidence, let us not be afraid to embrace the faculty of reasoning which, if God exists, can have come from no one but Him. Let us consider what our most cautious scholarship tells us at this point about the creation stories in the Book of Genesis.

The current consensus among biblical scholars regarding the first five books of the Bible is embodied in what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis. For the purposes of our discussion, we need only note that the Documentary Hypothesis detects the hands of four distinct authors (or sets of authors) in the Book of Genesis; these authors are abbreviated to J, P, E, and R, for reasons we need not get into. According to Richard Elliott Friedman, P is responsible for the first creation story in Genesis, which runs from 1:1 to 2:3, and J is responsible for the second one, which runs from 2:4b to 25 (Friedman 1996:246). When P wrote his account, he was apparently familiar with, and in fact following a synthesis of, J and E (JE) which contained the J creation story (Friedman 1996:188). But P was intended as an alternative to, not a supplement of, JE (Friedman 1996:188-206). A later editor (R) fused together the JE and P accounts while adding a few sentences of his own. If you have ever noticed how uneasily Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-2:30 sit together, and how different they sound from one another, this is why: they are, in fact, two distinct creation stories, the former being written as a later alternative to the latter.[6]

It is, of course, always possible with sufficient ingenuity to interpret any two passages of any two texts so that they form a single narrative, and this is the standard strategy among creationists with respect to the J and P creation stories. The question is whether this is the right strategy. Supposing God had wished to give us the one true account of creation, and that it was an important matter for salvation, why would He give what creationists consider the first part of the story to J, later give what creationists consider the second part of the story to P (even though P was trying to write something to replace JE), and then leave it to the human ingenuity of R to later fuse the two accounts together as well as he could? If it were important to God that intelligent people believe the creationist interpretation of Genesis, wouldn't He give the entire account to a single person all at once (like to Moses, as tradition has it)? Instead, we are left with a process that has all of the hallmarks of human political maneuvering and none of the appearance of inspiration by God.

The problem is exacerbated when we notice that some of the statements in Genesis directly contradict modern science beyond evolution. Genesis 1, for instance, places waters above the stars, and has the Earth, grass, herbs, and fruit trees existing before both the sun and the stars. Of course, if we have decided in advance to fit the words of Genesis to the findings of modern science by any means possible, we can certainly make the fit. However, given that every religious person denies the rationality of this method when people of other religions use it to demonstrate the truth of their holy texts, accepting such a method when considering one's own holy text would be hypocritical. If we refuse to embrace this double-standard, then we must concede that the Genesis creation stories have the appearance of pre-scientific mythology. Therefore, again, if the creation stories of Genesis were inspired by God in the first place, it is apparent that they were not likely intended by Him to offer an entirely true account of creation.

What, then, could their function be, if they were inspired by God? I can only speculate. Perhaps they were meant to give the ancient Jews another strong element of culture to rally to in times of crisis. The Jewish people and national identity have survived through conditions in which countless others have been destroyed or assimilated, and their shared creation myths may be part of the reason why. Perhaps these myths have served their purpose, and were never meant to be collected into a book and preached as infallible truth forever. I do not know; I am not a theologian, nor even a believer, and am personally content to accept the stories as myths in which no god had a hand. But were I a believer, I would see some wisdom in the old dictum that Scripture tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go. I would recognize that I would still have faults and shortcomings even if there had been no historical Adam and Eve to somehow pass their own sinfulness to their descendants. I would recognize that the arrival of a Messiah, or the return of a once-resurrected one, would be no less possible even if God never said "Let there be light." And I would recognize, above all, that to insist upon binding God to one's first impression of a text, disregarding His gift of reason, would be a sign of arrogance rather than piety.

Conclusion
To the rational believer, science is a means of using the God-given gift of reason to understand how God has actually done things. At one point in history, believers used to think that the Sun revolved around the Earth, because they thought the Bible revealed this infallible truth. Science, however, revealed that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Although some believers resisted this discovery bitterly at first, mistaking their own interpretations for the infallible word of God, virtually all eventually came to understand that God simply could not have set things up the way they had thought. Now few believers think the Bible contains such a teaching at all. While believers will find the scientific view of the world enhanced and enriched by their religious beliefs, it is sheer folly to insist upon a point of doctrine, grounded in intuition and the authority of tradition, when scientific evidence indicates its falsity. The time will hopefully come when the creationists, like the geocentrists of old, set aside their dogmas and follow the light of reason so that they, too, may learn the great wonders science teaches of the universe, and, if He exists, of God.[7]

Notes
[1] This article is a revision of a pamphlet I wrote in 1994. I have rewritten it in part to clarify my main line of argument and to offer new lines of argument and exposition where my thinking has changed, but primarily to correct parts where the tone of the pamphlet was overly hostile. The reader should understand that I was reacting to creationists who painted evolutionists as inveterate sinners and arrogant buffoons who hated God and loved sin, and were responsible for every single evil, real or imaginary, that had ever appeared on the face of the Earth. In light of such creationist excesses, I hope I may be forgiven for retaliating in kind in my youthful exuberance. I continue to believe that such creationists, who unfortunately still seem to comprise a substantial proportion of the creationist vanguard, deserve every insult I have thrown back at them. However, I have also come to realize that the average creationist on the street is just like everyone else: someone with limited time and resources, who is doing his or her best to discover the truth and navigate an uncertain world. I do not believe such people are stupid, even when they have been convinced by self-important propagandists in their religious communities to reject sound science, and I therefore regret that the earlier version of this article tarred all creationists with the same brush.

[2] What follows is not by any means intended to be a comprehensive catalogue of such places; instead, it offers only a couple of representative examples, which more or less make the point.

[3] Except where this can reasonably be explained by the incompleteness of the fossil record. Human fossils in Precambrian strata, for instance, could not be explained in this way.

[4] Because of new molecular and fossil evidence, the working hypothesis that whales evolved directly from the mesonychids (a now extinct kind of ungulate) is no longer accepted. Instead, the evidence indicates that whales evolved from artiodactyls (another kind of ungulate), which are themselves descendants of early mesonychids.

[5] One example among many: the 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) passed a resolution the second article of which "Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator" (National Center for Science Education 2002:7).

[6] Friedman's book is highly recommended to those who want to understand who the different writers were, what their different concerns and motivations were, and how this is known.

[7] This article is, of course, brief, based as it is upon a mere pamphlet. I have not come even close to listing all of the lines of evidence for evolution, nor have I taken up many creationist objections and replies. For the first, I would recommend visiting the Talk.origins archive at www.talkorigins.org. (http://www.talkorigins.org.) For the second, I have done extensive work at www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/. (http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/.)

References
R. Dawkins. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: W. W. Norton.

D. C. Dennett. 1995. Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon &amp; Schuster.

J. Foley. 2005. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html.)

R. E. Friedman. 1997. Who Wrote the Bible? San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco.

J. F. Haught. 2001. Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution. New York: Paulist Press.

National Center for Science Education. 2002. Presbyterian resolution on evolution. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22(4):7.

R. T. Pennock. 1999. Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

A. Romer. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

L. A. Witham. 2002. Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


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

Copyright © 2003 &amp; 2006, Mark I. Vuletic. All rights reserved.

[Adam Knowlden]

I'm not sure why it won't save, just hit "Play". It worked fine for me in RealPlayer. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Adam Knowlden]

Thank you for providing this, let's look at this article:

First let me give a few statements.

You cannot turn a hand held calculator into a supercomputer by simply changing already existing information in the calculator. So the point is. In order to go from one animal which contains a smaller amount of information to an animal with a larger amount of information, one needs to gain information. That is a fact.

I'll even give you an example:

Mankind, preserves dogs that lose information, and preserves mutations. No new information is added, but the animal continues to have detrimental mutations, and continues to lose all its useful genetic information.

For example, A Chiwahwa! Sure, lots of change just took place, but it was all lost information.

What do you Get? - An animal that is 100 percent useless. How long would a Chiwahwa last in the wild? about 5 minutes.

What would it take for a land animal to become a whale?

Lets do the math here on the statement that all you need is change in information content to gain information, and see whether you agree or disagree.

The organism with the least amount of information in the world is a myoplasm. We shall compare them to a human.

1. myoplasma with 580,000 letters ( adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine )

2. Man 3 billion letters

How complicated is the mycoplasm? Simply put, those 580, 000 letters comprise 482 genes, which code for proteins. Each have an average sequence of 400 amino acids each!
And each aspect of those sequences is vital to the survival of the organism. However, it pales in comparison to mankind

For there is a massive amount of information gain that must occur for the animal to increase from a cell, to a man, period!

Simply changing around already existing information will not change that cell to a man. That is a fact.

In other words the argument is this

Animal A - 580, 000 letters

According to this statement, in order to gain

2, 999, 420, 000 letters, yet you do not need a gain of information???

That is an impossibility! You must gain information to gain information.

If you mean that an animal can lose information and change drastically. Sure. Look at the chiwawa. You cannot go from a mycoplasma to a human by drastically losing information. It will never happen.

In 2004 Scientific America stated they have no mechanism for increasing information:

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green"> 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>

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, when we state increased genetic information, we mean a new feature, such as the evolutionary journal Scientific America stated had no explanation for!

Not only does the human have more genes, but it codes for thousands upon thousands of different " features " that is new information which must be accounted for.

Mutations must create new features such as feathers, and this in no way, shows how that information was created. Nor does it account for new information

I would recommend reading this regarding mutations adding information:

http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp

[ QUOTE ]
The Number of Mutations NeoDarwinism
Requires to Evolve a Species
A total of 1.7 million species of animals have been identified from comparative studies of preserved specimens (Blackmore, 2002). Researchers estimate that somewhere between 3 million and 30 million species now exist. The most common estimate is around 13 million (Margulis and Schwartz, 1998, p. 3; Blackmore, 2002).

According to an Amersham bioscience report (2001, p. 1), it is estimated that there are thousands of different proteins used in the human body (see also “Preteome” AAAS Science Netlinks). Nuclear pore complexes alone comprise 50 to 100 different proteins (Allen, 2000, p. 1651). All of them are produced by the estimated 35 to 45 thousand human genes that, according to neoDarwinists, evolved from other, less-complex, and often shorter genes. Shermer (2002, p. 229) estimates that “trillions of distinct modifications” were required to evolve humans alone. Presumably, each modification would require many mutations.

A significant fraction of open reading frames has been judged not to match any another sequence in the database, indicating that a significant number of all proteins may be unique to each genus of animal (Bailey, 2001; Siew and Fischer, 2003, p. 7). Thus, as many as 200 million different proteins may exist. From 150,000 to 250,000 extinct animal species have also been identified and reported in the paleontological literature. NeoDarwinists estimate that as many as 99 percent of all species that have ever lived are extinct (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, p. 52; Raup, 1977, p. 50). Although some claim the number is far lower, assuming this estimate to be valid would put the number of species that have ever lived at over 200 trillion!

Given the estimate that roughly an average of 1,000 transitional forms are required to evolve a species (a number that is a rough estimate and is dependant on various assumptions)—this would mean that 2x1017 transitional forms have existed. If 1,000 mutations are required for each transitional form, this would translate into 2x1020 beneficial mutations that are required. And not one clear beneficial mutation or transitional form has yet been convincingly demonstrated, although likely some do exist. The paucity of clearly helpful mutations must be considered in context with the estimate that 2x1020 mutations that are required to produce the natural living world existing today and the number of animals that are speculated to have once existed.

Given a low estimate of 1,000 steps required to evolve the average protein (if this were possible) over 2x1014 beneficial mutations would have been needed to evolve just the proteins that are estimated to exist today. So far only 60 species, including the nematode worm, humans, yeast, rice, mustard plant, and bacteria have had their DNA fully sequenced. As more life forms are sequenced, the above estimates may go either up or down. The same evolutionary problem exists in attempting to use mutations to explain the origin of the genes required to make fat, nucleic acid, carbohydrate families, and other compounds that are produced by living organisms and are necessary for life.


[/ QUOTE ]


Now let's look at this first paragraph of your quote.

First even starting with fish is a huge jump.

How did fish evolve? Here is an article from New Scientist:

[ QUOTE ]
Fish origins scaled back
The discovery of two fossilised fish in ‘lower Cambrian’ rocks pushes their supposed age back more than 50 million years on the evolutionary time scale.

The problem for evolution is that this finding makes it even harder to explain fish origins. This is because it further reduces the time available for them to have theoretically ‘evolved’ from non-fish, and to have developed their highly complex nervous system and mode of breathing along the way.

With the fossil record acknowledged as ‘far from complete’, these two fish add to the evolutionists’ difficulties of explaining what they call the ‘Cambrian explosion’ — a ‘seemingly abrupt’ explosion of life.

New Scientist, November 6, 1999, p. 27.
Nature, November 4, 1999, pp. 42–46.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Cambrian explosion is a huge problem for evolution...the fact that fish now appear in this strata compounds the dilemma:

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="brown"> “the Cambrian strata of rocks...are the oldest 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.”
— Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987) p. 229 </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Basking up the evolutionary tree
Numerous ideas have been proposed as to why aquatic creatures with backbones evolved from the sea up onto the land. Some say that fish first hauled themselves onto dry land to escape predators; another suggestion is that it allowed them to scavenge stranded fish.

The latest idea is that fish dragged themselves out of tropical Devonian waters ‘365 million years ago’ in order to bask in the sun. It is claimed this gave the fish an energy boost that made them more agile in the water, and it was ‘the evolutionary milestone that heralded the rise of all land vertebrates, including us’. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

New Scientist, 31 July 2004, p. 13.
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> 'All three divisions of the bony fishes appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armoured. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier intermediate forms?'
G. T. Todd, American Scientist 20(4):757, 1980.


[/ QUOTE ] </font>


Evolutionist love to make statements in neat packages, however they vastly oversimplify the scientific barriers in the claims they make.

[ QUOTE ]
From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, if fossils were presented as evidence for evolution in any court of law, they would be dismissed immediately!

There is no way to prove a fossil in the ground had offspring, let alone different offspring.

Moreover, the lack of transitional fossils is staggering!

This fits fine with the creation model but does nothing to promote Darwinian evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">p. 127
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Paleobiology, vol. 6, pp. 119-130.
p. 122

<font color="brown"> "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Stanley, Steven M., Pattern and Process (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., ), 332 pp.
</font>

Fossils as evidence for evolution would not last one second in a court of law, but let's entertain this case and see what the evidence demonstrates.

[ QUOTE ]
From fish to amphibian

[/ QUOTE ]

Ichthyostega, already has fully formed legs and shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the Rhipidistians.

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler &amp; Adler, 1986, pp. 218-9.

Research clearly shows Ichthyostega is an undisputed tetrapod, Eusthenopteron, is 100% fish.

A virtual bridge! There must be impressive evidence! Let’s see what the experts say:

<font color="brown"> [ QUOTE ]
“We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians”
— Carroll, Robert L., Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1988), p. 138

[/ QUOTE ] </font>

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> R.L. Carroll: ‘When they first appear in the fossil record, both frogs and salamanders appear essentially modern in their skeletal anatomy. … Despite these similarities, frogs, salamanders, and caecilians are very different from one another in skeletal structure and ways of life, both now and throughout their known fossil record … we have found no fossil evidence of any possible antecedents that possessed the specialized features common to all three modern orders. … In the absence of fossil evidence that frogs, salamanders and caecilians evolved from a close common ancestor, we must consider the possibility that each of the modern orders evolved from a distinct group of Paleozoic [supposedly 200 million to 500 million years ago] amphibians.’
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green">evolutionists E.H. Colbert and M. Morales ‘Despite these similarities, there is no evidence of any Paleozoic amphibians combining the characteristics that would be expected in a single common ancestor. The oldest known frogs, salamanders and caecilians are very similar to their living descendants.’ </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Encyclopaedia Britannica claims that amphibians evolved from lobe-finned fishes of the early Devonian epoch

Yet: [ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">‘The biologist interested in evolution finds a vast array of interesting, and often perplexing, problems in the study of frogs, a highly specialised group of amphibians’ </font> The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 13:429, 1992.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="brown"> the statement that ‘fish gave rise to amphibians and amphibians gave rise to reptiles’. Such a statement gives the illusion of phylogeny — that there is here an evolutionary sequence — and yet no sequence has been identified. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
From amphibian to reptile: Seymouria, according to Alfred Romer, "exhibits such a combination of amphibian and reptilian characters that its proper position in the classification of vertebrates has been much disputed" (Romer 1966:94).

[/ QUOTE ]

Seymouria is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30 million years younger than the earliest true reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris.

Also, it was probably completely amphibian in its reproduction - the jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistry.

This is extremely lacking as evidence of transition.

<font color="brown"> [ QUOTE ]
“Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian-reptilian transition unanswered.”
— Carroll, Lewis L., “Problems of the Origin of Reptiles,” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 44 (1969). p. 393


[/ QUOTE ] </font>

evolutionist Ernst Mayr <font color="green"> [ QUOTE ]
The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection; the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles

[/ QUOTE ] </font>

Dr. Marulis and Dr. Sagan, both evolutionists recognize this problem in their discourse entitled " Acquiring Genomes. A Theory of the Origins of Species "

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green">deficiencies. Furthermore, this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes
happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers
of sickle cell anemics. Another mutation converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing.

Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
From reptile to bird: Archaeopteryx displays a distinct blend of major reptilian and avian characteristics, and highly resembles the theropod reptiles of its time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> 'Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. <u> It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.'</u>

Virginia Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259:764–65.
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Archaeopteryx is a bird, nothing more.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green"> Archaeopteryx had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings. Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status — a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves. Feduccia further criticises the dinosaur-to-bird theory:

Dr. Safarti </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">'It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails', exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.'

Alan Feduccia, 'Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx, Science 259:790–793
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1352.asp

[ QUOTE ]
From reptile to mammal: Probelesedon and Massetognathus exhibit both reptilian and mammalian characteristics. Probainognathus even has two sets of jaw joints (one reptilian and one mammalian).


[/ QUOTE ]

Mammal-like reptiles are asserted to be transitional, the fossil record does not support this!

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">'each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, without leaving a directly descended species …'

Tom Kemp, 'The Reptiles that Became Mammals', New Scientist 92:583, 4 March 1982

</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

There are gaps between all 32 mammal orders,

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> 'The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.'evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson

G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), pp. 105–6.

</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

For example, the Icaronycteris essentially identical to modern bats, with fully developed wings and sonar.

[ QUOTE ]
From hominid to human: The transition from our "ape-like" ancestors to us is so well documented in the fossil record, with so many fossil forms so clearly intermediate that,

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope he’s joking!

<font color="red"> [ QUOTE ]
Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776):382, 2000

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 ] </font>



Translation - Its Pure Imagination!

<font color="blue">[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ] </font>

<font color="brown"> [ QUOTE ]
Lewin, Roger, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 348 pp.
p. 27

"It is an unfortunate truth that fossils do not emerge from the ground with labels already attached to them. And it is bad enough that much of the labeling was done in the name of egoism and a naive lack of appreciation of variation between individuals; each nuance in shape was taken to indicate a difference in type rather than natural variation within a population. This problem has in some part been eased in the half-century since Hooton made his pithy remarks. But it remains inescapably true that applying the correct label is astonishingly difficult, not least because such labels are in a sense arbitrary abstractions; and especially so when the material on which the analysis is being done is fragmentary and eroded. "It is an incredibly difficult problem; says Lord Zuckerman. "It is one so difficult that I think it would be legitimate to despair that one could ever turn it into a science."

[/ QUOTE ] </font>

[ QUOTE ]
as Jim Foley has shown, even creationists cannot agree with one another about which ones are purely human and which ones are purely ape (Foley 2005). Such confusion, of course, is exactly what we would expect if the fossils truly are intermediates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see which examples he is referring to because I know of no such debate in the creationist camp.

[ QUOTE ]
The transition from our "ape-like" ancestors to us is so well documented in the fossil record

[/ QUOTE ]


<font color="red"> [ QUOTE ]
"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."

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

[/ QUOTE ] </font>

If people want to throw out God's Word based on a pile of bones that would barely fit a billiard table which numerous, reputable specialized scientist dismiss as evidence of human evolution, then that is their choice.

The bible is clear this is a choice they are making and the evidence of creation is clear there is no excuse:

<font color="red"> 20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],

21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

22Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].

</font>

Pick any of the fossil "ape-men", we can analyze it...I guarntee the scientific community is not in this unanimous agreement these evolutionism sites propogate.

Lets look at this paragraph from beginning to end to get to the bottom line of all this:

[ QUOTE ]
From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians.
From reptile to bird: Archaeopteryx displays a distinct blend of major reptilian and avian characteristics, and highly resembles the theropod reptiles of its time.
From reptile to mammal: Probelesedon and Massetognathus exhibit both reptilian and mammalian characteristics. Probainognathus even has two sets of jaw joints (one reptilian and one mammalian).
From hominid to human: The transition from our "ape-like" ancestors to us is so well documented in the fossil record, with so many fossil forms so clearly intermediate that, as Jim Foley has shown, even creationists cannot agree with one another about which ones are purely human and which ones are purely ape (Foley 2005). Such confusion, of course, is exactly what we would expect if the fossils truly are intermediates.


[/ QUOTE ]

Evolutionism preaches that you are related to a fish! That is what this entire belief is really about, if you look from beginning to end, its stating we are related to fish. That is a religion, not science. Here it is stated blantanly:

[ QUOTE ]
"Although humans do not usually think of themselves as fishes, they nonetheless share several fundamental characters that unite them inextricably with their relatives among the fishes"
Clack, Ref. 3, pp. 17, 18

[/ QUOTE ]

[kokokolo]

well done,
complete refutation of evolution yet again !

where do you go to get so many quotes of them putting thier foot in thier mouth?

they might as well just say "I believe evolution despite that there is no evidence"

[Adam Knowlden]

The problem is that these evolution sites often times package evolution like it is all so clear.

The reality is evolutionary scientists are not in agreement about these topics, and most of the time do most of the work for us. Also some of the information presented is flat out wrong.

So its not really them putting their foot in their mouths, there are a huge amount of different beliefs in the evolution camp and from a creationists standpoint it demonstrates a lack of clear evidence.

[kokokolo]

this morning on public access I was watching this show from the athestic center or something, they honestly said they wanted to discuss the evolutions fossil record of birds to show people how birds evolved because " the human ape to man record is allready so complete and obvious" I wanted to bust in there and start debating them :/

[TForce]

I still have not had the time to read and digest this. However, I think you are overemphasizing the inability to create new information and the idea that all mutations are purely destructive, not to mention leaving out any potential influence by God's will.

Forcing a choice between evolution and God is a farce, like trying to say that every single Moslem in the world is an atheist.

The genome has only been decoded within the last few years, so there is still lots of work to be done to fully understand this field. Everything that has ever been printed in the past has been based on Darwin's big picture, with all of the supporting information created along the way to back it up. Nevertheless, the big picture is right there and is so much more believable than saying that there are no answers. When I get more time to read about this, rest assured that I will give both sides equal time. As always, we can cut and paste little tidbits from here and there of science, religion, law, any field of knowledge to promote any given position on any given topic. The ammunition is there, the information exists, it's just a matter of organizing it, and I have better things to do. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Forcing a choice between evolution and God is a farce, like trying to say that every single Moslem in the world is an atheist.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are simply wrong here and your statement lacks a valid analogy. If you wolud like I can give an huge teaching on this topic. These world views could not be any more opposite. If you think the Word of God promotes man is related to fish, I'd like to examine the bible you are reading. /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I am made in the image of God, not Timmy the tuna fish.

[ QUOTE ]
The genome has only been decoded within the last few years, so there is still lots of work to be done to fully understand this field

[/ QUOTE ]

And all we have discovered is that the vast complexity of DNA is beyond our comprehension.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information. Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome. This is the opposite of the predictions of the neoDarwinian origins model. Such genome degradation is counteracted by natural selection that helps maintain the status quo. Degradation results for many reasons, two of which are reviewed here. 1) there is a tendency for mutations to produce a highly disproportionate number of certain nucleotide bases such as thymine and 2) many mutations occur in only a relatively few places within the gene called “hot spots,” and rarely occur in others, known as “cold spots.” An intensive review of the literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation. Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial. These findings support the creation origins model. </font>


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> All of the beneficial mutations located in my search of the literature involving almost 20 million references were loss mutations and mutations such as sickle cell anemia that have a beneficial effect only in very special circumstances. In most situations they have a decidedly negative effect on the organism’s health. Not a single clear example of an information-gaining mutation was located. It was concluded that molecular biology research shows that information-gaining mutations have not yet been documented. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

This above quote is from a creation scientist Jerry Bergman,

[ QUOTE ]
Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics. He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals

[/ QUOTE ]

Creation scientists are well eduacated, qualified and published and they are "coming out of the closet" so to speak.

The more we unravel DNA more and more scientists are seeing flaws in evolution.


[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green"> most of the remainder seem to have neither positive nor negative effect. Mutations that are actually beneficial are extraordinarily rare and involve insignificant changes. Mutations seem to be much more degenerative than constructive... (Batten, 2002, p. 163).
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Everything that has ever been printed in the past has been based on Darwin's big picture, with all of the supporting information created along the way to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give me this "big picture" which <u>clearly</u> demonstrates I'm related to a fish.

Furthermore, you know majority opinion is not evidence for evolution.

But if you want to go with a majority, a majority of people DO NOT believe in evolution and a large number of scientists do not believe it either.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Fifty studies were reviewed that surveyed opinions on teaching origins in public schools. The vast majority found about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools. About 90% of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In America, about 15% of high school teachers teach both evolution and creation, and close to 20% of high school science teachers and about 10,000 scientists (including more than 4,000 life scientists) reject both macroevolution and theistic evolution. Although the vast majority of Americans desire both creation and evolution taught in school, the evolutionary naturalism worldview dominates, revealing a major disparity between the population and the ruling élite. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Surveys of scientists found 5% believe that ‘humans were created in their current form less than 10,000 years ago.’ [19],[20] This means 10,000 of the 213,000 scientists working in academic and basic research were creationists, including 4,200 life scientists </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of scientific research done by creationists, you are just not reading it. /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
As always, we can cut and paste little tidbits from here and there of science, religion, law, any field of knowledge to promote any given position on any given topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, there can only be one truth here.

In a court of law, experts are called to the stand and asked their opinion of the evidence. That is what I have done here, given expert opinions on these evidences for evolution. Attempting to demean them by reducing them to "copy and paste jobs" does little to counter any arguement I've presented.

I've provided quote upon quote of scientists who do not agree with the statements you have given about man being related to fish.

[ QUOTE ]
The ammunition is there, the information exists, it's just a matter of organizing it, and I have better things to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ammunition you are firing is all blanks. There's no legal way to support "molecule to man" evolution from the fossil record, no viable naturalistic mechanism to increase information has been demonstrated, and we see no "macro" evolution occuring today.

Its a blind faith based on fantasy.

[TForce]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forcing a choice between evolution and God is a farce, like trying to say that every single Moslem in the world is an atheist.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are simply wrong here and your statement lacks a valid analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonderful. Now, I don't have to be associated with Islam! It's my lucky day! God driving evolution works for me, at least until somebody throws out a more feasible SOLUTION. I happen to believe that God is capable of lots of things, and the Devil, well whoever dreamt up the idea of a Devil even existing in the first place? /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Adam Knowlden]

So by God driven evolution, you are stating that evolution can't occur according to Darwinian mechanisms but requires supernatural inspiration? Sounds like you're a misguided creationist to me. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[TForce]

Life cannot occur without divine inspiration. Am I right or am I right?


[ QUOTE ]
No I would listen for my own edifcation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I really needed to listen to it for my own edification, I gave it a spin, and was a bit disappointed in the validity of it. How can he even compare thermodynamics to evolution? They are two distinct, separate processes which can only be attempted to be compared analogically. As with all attempts of analogical comparison, a level of detail disappears, rendering the comparison useless. Of course, if he would have just explained all of it in english, then he might have persuaded me easier, but I am not exactly rushing out to buy the entire 10 volume set until it becomes a bestseller. This reminds me of me, when I became more and more convinced that man could never erect pyramids and the Temple of Jerusalem and the Temple of Jupiter. I did take a step further and listened to something a bit more current, and once again, it offered no answers, was only intentively destructive, in nature, war on the very foundations of science, for no other reason than to try and back up a 100% literal intrepretation of creation, which is, in essence, attempted magic in itself, for that is exactly what putting your faith in man's inspiration is. I have nothing more to say on this topic and will not belabor the point.

[Adam Knowlden]

I don't really see the need for the sarcasm in your response. If you don't agree, ok, as it relates to my life, its neither here nor there.

I was under the impression you were honestly approaching both sides openly.

[ QUOTE ]
I have nothing more to say on this topic

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a God! /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

See I can be funny too. /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[TForce]

No heavy sarcasm intended.

[EscapeSolutions]

I don't belive in evolution or aliens. There should be missing links everywehre!!!!!!!!! come on! and aliens?? theres how many estimated planets?? the univers is infanant?? shouldn't there have been intelegent beings laready here and they there selves persent?? ufo sights doesn't really do it for me or some crack pots that worship aliens that want to be abducted so badly that they do. just garbage!

the reason god will never be in public schools is because of the fact no one wants to be acountable for their own actions. No one is the boos, there isn't anyone that makes the rules or guides thier lives. thats why people want to be blind so they belive easy sounding things like evolution to cop out, be gay party all night long steal cheat do drugs lie and so on.

[kokokolo]

good point. If the universe in infinite and life evolved by chance, and there are other planets out there with advanced life, they probably would have made themselves known. Not just these "sightings" and whatnot

[jeffrobodean]

I would tend to agree with the alien things. Unless they are of higher moral character than humans - and they are supposedly of higher intelligence and technology - why wouldn't they have come here and already made slaves of us all? If they have visited so often, you'd think at least one would remember how to get back. There's got to be something worth taking off this big rock, and the labor to do it is already here.

[Adam Knowlden]

What cracks me up is that millions are spent by SETI, to detect life. If they get one blip that is proof of intelligence, but scientists can look at the complex information in DNA and say , "blind random chance", its pretty dumbfounding honestly.

[kokokolo]

sigh, by looking for life out there, they are really trying to prove evolution takes place I think, thus showing there is no god.

by looking out into space, all we will see is God looking back at us.

the eye of God
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2003/11/images/a/formats/640_wallpaper.jpg
no, no intelligence there at all /forum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

so far they have found no life whatsoever right?

[William Ustav]

[ QUOTE ]
I would tend to agree with the alien things. Unless they are of higher moral character than humans - and they are supposedly of higher intelligence and technology - why wouldn't they have come here and already made slaves of us all? If they have visited so often, you'd think at least one would remember how to get back. There's got to be something worth taking off this big rock, and the labor to do it is already here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Erich von Daeniken has a few interesting theories regarding that. He's basically not your regular evolutionist, but he's not a creationist either. He believes extraterrestrials visited the Earth before during history, and this has been recorded in many holy books, like the Bible. His theories are pretty much deeply flawed in many ways, but nonetheless are very interesting and offer views you wouldn't normally see. I'm currently reading his first book, actually, from the 60's.

[Adam Knowlden]

Yeah the 60's that makes sense, they smoked strong stuff in those days. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[William Ustav]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah the 60's that makes sense, they smoked strong stuff in those days. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I think that guy still does /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jeffrobodean]

Okay. This is loose, but if we are so much like primates - why aren't the monkeys in a coma? Are we "evolutionary mistakes"? ;p

Two men remain in coma after drug trial
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:30 AM
LONDON -- They were chosen because they were fit and healthy, but minutes after being injected with a test drug designed to combat leukemia and other diseases, the men went into convulsions as their internal organs began to fail.

Two men were still in a coma Tuesday and four others were seriously ill but improving after participating in the trial last week. The drug sent the men into vomiting fits; they removed their shirts in panic as their bodies seized up with pain.

Fresh questions are being asked about the safety of clinical trials and whether the tests draw vulnerable people with promises of pay. Parexel, one of the makers of the drug, paid eight men 2,330 pounds (US$4,092) each to participate, said Raste Khan, 23, one of two patients who had been given a placebo.

He described the gruesome scene in the hospital ward.

"It felt like we stepped into some sort of horror film," Khan told The Associated Press. "The three other men in my ward started vomiting, then they began to fall in and out of consciousness. The person on my left was begging doctors to help him. I was really scared and was just waiting for it to start happening to me."

After taking the drug the men lapsed into comas as their organs failed, forcing doctors to put them on organ support machines, said Dr. Ganesh Suntharalingam, who was treating the men at Northwick Park hospital in London.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency - which authorized the trial - said there was nothing unusual about the results of laboratory and animal tests on the drug or the methodology for the human trials provided by Waltham, Massachusetts-based Parexel and the other maker, TeGenero AG of Wuerzburg, Germany.

TeGenero's chief scientific officer, Thomas Hanke, said the drug TGN1412 - designed for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases and leukemia - had been tested on rabbits and monkeys with no "drug-related adverse events."

MHRA spokeswoman Sara Coakley said the reaction of the six study participants was "completely unheard of."

"There could have been a manufacturing problem, some form of contamination, a problem with the drug's administration, or ... it could be that (defects with the drug) just didn't show up in preclinical data from the tests on primates," she said. "It will be weeks before we find out exactly what happened."

Some experts, however, said the six men should not have received doses within such a short period.

"The idea you give six people an injection at the same time is unusual," said Kate Law, head of clinical trials for Cancer Research U.K. - Britain's largest cancer charity. "In any of our tests we never test drugs on the volunteers all at the same time."

David Glover, former chief medical officer at biotech company Cambridge Antibody Technology, said testing antibody drugs like TGN1412 must go on despite the tragedy. He cited drugs like Herceptin, which has made a big impact on the treatment of breast cancer.

"We need to understand the issues we face and look at creative solutions," said Glover.

Most phase one trials - in which the drug is tested on humans for the first time - are conducted in industrialized nations. In Britain, the MHRA authorizes around 350 such tests per year.

Complicated health regulations and the need for sophisticated infrastructure usually prevent such trials from being conducted in developing nations. Phase two and three trials, in which the drug is tested on patients in need of treatment, can take place in poor countries.

The procedure for selecting healthy volunteers for phase one trials has also caused controversy in Britain in the aftermath of the men's hospitalization.

Parexel recruited the eight men for what should have been a two week trial, said Khan. They were to stay for three nights, and then attend 11 follow up days.

"It worries me that you could earn a living from being a participant," said Ray Noble a medical ethicist at University College London. "It might blind people to the obvious potential pitfalls of participating in too many trials."

Others say that without offering financial inducements it would be extremely difficult to get subjects for the essential phase one tests.

"It's a fine line. How do we attract people to do something for which there is not much reward?" said Derbyshire.