Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:20 pm

Saint_;1378461 wrote: Only if you suggest an even more scientific and believable theory on the beginning of life. which, by the way, you have NOT done.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through repeatable observation and experiment. It cannot experiment and observe things that have happened in the past, which includes evolution.

If the assumption is true that everything is the result of physical causes, then there is no scientific explanation for the beginning of life.

It's fascinating to me that you use science and scientists to disprove the science of evolution but have no other science to take it's place!

Disproving evolution leaves creation as the only alternative.

Instead you would have us believe that life was "magically" created.

You can't have it both ways, pahu. Either evolutionary science is correct or all the science you quoted is correct. Either way magic doesn't exist.

As pointed out above, science only can be used to examine the physical universe by repeatable observation and examination. That excludes both evolution and creation. However, the facts of science can be used to come to conclusions. As I have been sharing, those facts disprove evolution, which must resort to magic to support its claims.

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:29 pm

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 3

Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock (f). Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina (g). Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed (h).

f. Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, March 1985, p. 8.

Carol Armstrong, “Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198–199.

Pat Shipman, “Dumping on Science,” Discover, December 1987, p. 64.

g. Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the “Great Carolina Marl Bed” (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes’ Book House, 1870).

Edward J. Nolan, “Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80–81.

John Watson did extensive library research on the relatively unknown fossil discoveries in these beds. Their vast content of bones provides the rich phosphate content. Personal communications, 1992.

h. A. C. Noé, “A Paleozoic Angiosperm,” Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, May–June 1923, pp. 344–347.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:53 am

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 4

Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed (i). In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian (j) rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian (k) rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.

Figure 12: Insect in Amber. The best-preserved fossils are encased in amber, protected from air and water and buried in the ground. Amber, a golden resin (similar to sap or pitch) usually from conifer trees such as pines, may also contain other preservatives. No transitional forms of life have been found in amber, despite evolutionary-based ages of 1.5–300 million years. Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.

Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin, which was later covered by more resin and finally buried. (Part II of this book will show that such conditions arose during the flood.)

In a clean-room laboratory, 30–40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! [See “Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?”] This amber is claimed to be 25–40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.

i. “A type of amber thought to have been invented by flowering plants may have been en vogue millions of years before those plants evolved...When the researchers analyzed the amber, though, they discovered a chemical signature know[n] only from the amber of flowering plants.” Rachel Ehrenberg, “Flowerless Plants Also Made Form of Fancy Amber,” Science News, Vol. 176, 24 October 2009, p. 5.

“ has a molecular composition that has been seen only from angiosperms, which appeared much later in the Early Cretaceous.... [Amber resins] are so diverse that those from each plant species have a distinctive Py-GC-MS fingerprint that can be used to identify the plants that produced various ambers around the world.” David Grimaldi, “Pushing Back Amber Production,” Science, Vol. 326, 2 October 2009, p. 51.

j. R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796–797.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,” Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.

J. Coates et al., pp. 266–267.

k. George F. Howe et al., “A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173–182.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:59 pm

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 5

Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later (l). Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved (m). Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.

l. Stephen T. Hasiotis (paleobiologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver), personal communication, 27 May 1995.

Carl Zimmer, “A Secret History of Life on Land,” Discover, February 1998, pp. 76–83.

m. Dong Ren, “Flower-Associated Brachycera Flies as Fossil Evidence for Jurassic Angiosperm Origins,” Science, Vol. 280, 3 April 1998, pp. 85–88.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:47 pm

Ape-Men? 1

For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin (a). Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent (b).

Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated (c).

It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

a. “... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.” Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.

In 1995, nine anthropologists announced their discovery of early representatives of Homo habilis and Homo ergaster in China. [See Huang Wanpo et al., “Early Homo and Associated Artifacts from Asia,” Nature, Vol. 378, 16 November 1995, pp. 275–278.] Fourteen years later the same journal published a retraction. The discovery was of a “mystery ape.” [See Russell L. Ciochon, “The Mystery Ape of Pleistocene Asia,” Nature, Vol. 459, 18 June 2009, pp. 910–911.]

How many more mystery apes are there, and do they explain other so-called “ape-men”?

“We have all see [sic] the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh [tidy, but sheer nonsense]. Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates. ... almost every time someone claims to have found a new species of hominin, someone else refutes it. The species is said to be either a member of Homo sapiens, but pathological, or an ape.” Henry Gee, “Craniums with Clout,” Nature, Vol. 478, 6 October 2011, p. 34.

b. “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.” Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

c. Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.” Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.

Bowden, pp. 56–246.

Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2, editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 193–200, 298–305.

d. Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:

“How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.”

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:06 pm

Pahu;1379487 wrote:

It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 yearsGod has been in the culture a lot longer and he's a hoax too.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:48 pm

Ahso!;1379491 wrote: God has been in the culture a lot longer and he's a hoax too.

Unlike atheism and evolution that have no supporting evidence, the existence of God does:

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:59 pm

But your own bible says there is no evidence, it's all about faith.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:13 pm

Ahso!;1379495 wrote: But your own bible says there is no evidence, it's all about faith.

Where does the Bible say that? 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to "Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good."

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:04 pm

Pahu;1379500 wrote: Where does the Bible say that? 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to "Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good."This is a common problem when talking to Christians about the contents of the bible. Christians think there is hidden, cryptic meaning in extracting and quoting lines out of context. First Thessalonians is a letter and should be read as such. @5:21 Paul tells these obviously troubled church members not to simply dismiss prophecy (which was apparently going on during fellowshipping and most likely members were using the "gift" of prophecy to accuse others of sinning), but test each one as it is brought forward, he then goes on to encourage these people to hold onto that which is good and reject evil. Those are two separate instructions, not one as you've misrepresented by inserting a comma where a semicolon belongs (I went ahead and highlighted it above in red for you).

Read the entire letter. Nowhere does Paul offer any proof of God or Jesus other than his word and the example he set for this while he spent time with them. Paul speaks often of 'hope', 'faith' and 'love' that the members need to share in order to remain vigilant in their belief. This church was obviously having a difficult time maintaining belief.

How about the metaphor of 'doubting' Thomas? In the bible story, Jesus is supposed to have said in Matthew 24 that if anyone claims to know where Christ is (proof) not to believe it. So after Jesus dies Thomas does exactly that (he's actually the faithful one), he says: "nope, not gonna believe it unless I see it" and what does Jesus then supposedly say? "Blessed are those who have not seen and believe."

There's plenty more!

Faith, my misguided friend, it's all about faith.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:50 pm

Ahso!;1379539 wrote: This is a common problem when talking to Christians about the contents of the bible. Christians think there is hidden, cryptic meaning in extracting and quoting lines out of context. First Thessalonians is a letter and should be read as such. @5:21 Paul tells these obviously troubled church members not to simply dismiss prophecy (which was apparently going on during fellowshipping and most likely members were using the "gift" of prophecy to accuse others of sinning), but test each one as it is brought forward, he then goes on to encourage these people to hold onto that which is good and reject evil. Those are two separate instructions, not one as you've misrepresented by inserting a comma where a semicolon belongs (I went ahead and highlighted it above in red for you).

Read the entire letter. Nowhere does Paul offer any proof of God or Jesus other than his word and the example he set for this while he spent time with them. Paul speaks often of 'hope', 'faith' and 'love' that the members need to share in order to remain vigilant in their belief. This church was obviously having a difficult time maintaining belief.

How about the metaphor of 'doubting' Thomas? In the bible story, Jesus is supposed to have said in Matthew 24 that if anyone claims to know where Christ is (proof) not to believe it. So after Jesus dies Thomas does exactly that (he's actually the faithful one), he says: "nope, not gonna believe it unless I see it" and what does Jesus then supposedly say? "Blessed are those who have not seen and believe."

There's plenty more!

Faith, my misguided friend, it's all about faith.

You make an interesting point out of Paul's statement in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, claiming he is referring to only prophecy, but I think that is not true. Even though verse 20 does speak of prophecy, it is a self contained sentence as are each of the verses from 15 through 22. Paul gives a list of virtues he wants his readers to apply. Testing all things and holding firmly that which is good is one of them. There is no need for a comma or semicolon in that sentence.

The reason I believe your assertion is wrong that the Bible is all about faith, is you seem to believe it is "blind" faith, meaning it is faith without evidence. God defines faith as assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen (Heb. 11:1).

I provided proof that God exists and is the author of the Bible. Based on that proof, we have the assurance that what He says is true, even though we cannot always demonstrate it to be true.

Everyday examples of evidence based faith are our faith the sun will rise every morning in the east, or the pilot will get us safely to our destination, or the light will come on when we flip the switch, or our apple tree will produce apples instead of peanuts, etc.

On the other hand, "blind" faith is faith God does not exist, or evolution is true.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:51 pm

Ape-Men? 2

Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.

The hoaxer now appears to have been Martin A. C. Hinton, who had a reputation as a practical joker and worked in the British Museum (Natural History) when Piltdown man was discovered. In the mid-1970s, an old trunk, marked with Hinton’s initials, was found in the museum’s attic. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same detailed way as the Piltdown bones. [For details, see Henry Gee, “Box of Bones ‘Clinches’ Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer,” Nature, Vol. 381, 23 May 1996, pp. 261–262.]

Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey (e) and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw (f). Ramapithecus was just an ape (g).

Figure 13: Ramapithecus. Some textbooks still claim that Ramapithecus is man’s ancestor, an intermediate between man and some apelike ancestor. This mistaken belief resulted from piecing together, in 1932, fragments of upper teeth and bones into the two large pieces. This was done so the shape of the jaw resembled the parabolic arch of man. In 1977, a complete lower jaw of Ramapithecus was found. The true shape of the jaw was not parabolic, but rather U-shaped, distinctive of apes.

The only remains of Nebraska “man” turned out to be a pig’s tooth.

Figure 14: Nebraska Man. Artists’ drawings, even those based on speculation, powerfully influence the public. Nebraska man was mistakenly based on one tooth of an extinct pig. Yet in 1922, The Illustrated London News published a picture showing our supposed ancestors. Of course, it is highly unlikely that any fossil evidence could support the image conveyed of a naked man carrying a club.

e. Allen L. Hammond, “Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,” Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37, 43.

f. Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, “False Start of the Human Parade,” Natural History, Vol. 88, August–September 1979, pp. 86–91.

g. Hammond, p. 43.

“The dethroning of Ramapithecus—from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982—is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 86.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:56 pm

Pahu;1379764 wrote: You make an interesting point out of Paul's statement in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, claiming he is referring to only prophecy, but I think that is not true. Even though verse 20 does speak of prophecy, it is a self contained sentence as are each of the verses from 15 through 22. Paul gives a list of virtues he wants his readers to apply. Testing all things and holding firmly that which is good is one of them. There is no need for a comma or semicolon in that sentence.Interesting? Really? It's all pretty black and white to me as it would have been for the believers at Thessalonia.

What you or I think has nothing to do with this, it's what the text says that matters. If a semicolon does not belong, why then does the NIV have one there? Paul was addressing prophecy @5:21. Holding onto that which is good and rejecting evil was Paul encouraging these people to remain virtuous as he set the example. A poignant example of this might be 3:6 - 10 where Paul explains what is "good": "6 But Timothy has just now come to us from you and has brought good news about your faith and love. He has told us that you always have pleasant memories of us and that you long to see us, just as we also long to see you. 7 Therefore, brothers and sisters, in all our distress and persecution we were encouraged about you because of your faith. 8 For now we really live, since you are standing firm in the Lord. 9 How can we thank God enough for you in return for all the joy we have in the presence of our God because of you? 10 Night and day we pray most earnestly that we may see you again and supply what is lacking in your faith."

Pahu;1379764 wrote: The reason I believe your assertion is wrong that the Bible is all about faith, is you seem to believe it is "blind" faith, meaning it is faith without evidence. God defines faith as assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen (Heb. 11:1). It is all about blind faith. Jesus didn't come to prove God existed, Jesus came to be the lamb of God. He constantly made that very clear.

Pahu;1379764 wrote: I provided proof that God exists and is the author of the Bible. Based on that proof, we have the assurance that what He says is true, even though we cannot always demonstrate it to be true.You've provided no such proof. All you've offered in this entire thread is double-talk and falsehoods.

Pahu;1379764 wrote: Everyday examples of evidence based faith are our faith the sun will rise every morning in the east, or the pilot will get us safely to our destination, or the light will come on when we flip the switch, or our apple tree will produce apples instead of peanuts, etc.

On the other hand, "blind" faith is faith God does not exist, or evolution is true.We expect light during the day and the light to turn on when we hit the switch because that's what we're used to seeing happen, and has nothing at all to do with faith. We expect certain results after those results occur again and again.

As for the last sentence in your post: you cannot make a non-truth a truth simply by restating it over and over again.

The work you represent is sloppy and mostly a misrepresentation of fact.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:55 pm

Ahso!;1379772 wrote:

You've provided no such proof .

My apology. I thought I had. Here it is:

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:01 pm

Pahu;1379782 wrote: My apology. I thought I had. Here it is:

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]What you reveal about your thought process is you went searching to prove your predetermination and not where the science would lead. A hypothesis is not an agenda.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:23 am

Ape-Men? 3

Forty years after he discovered Java “man,” Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thighbones of apes found in the same area (h).

Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man” to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man (i). Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created (j).

h. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skullcap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed that the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolution—a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.

Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java “man” to Java “gibbon.” Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.

“Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude.” Eugene Dubois, “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,” Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.

“Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes.” Ibid., p. 5.

“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human.” W. R. Thompson, p. 17.

W. R. Thompson, in his “Introduction to The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, refers to Dubois’ discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java “man” at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293–294.] Dubois’ claims of finding “the missing link” would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.

C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.

Bowden, pp. 138–142, 144–148.

Hitching, pp. 208–209.

Patrick O’Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139–142.

i. Ibid., pp. 108–138.

Bowden, pp. 90–137.

Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p. 145.

j. “ puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon.” Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, as quoted in “Homo Erectus Never Existed?” Geotimes, October 1992, p. 11.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 7:20 pm

:-1You are picking and choosing comments in an ongoing debate as if they are final statements. They aren't. You are being confused by the language of scholastic debate.

Oh Lord.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:11 pm

Clodhopper;1379816 wrote: :-1You are picking and choosing comments in an ongoing debate as if they are final statements. They aren't. You are being confused by the language of scholastic debate.

Oh Lord.

Amen!

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:11 pm

Ape-Men? 4

The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportions (k) and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo) (l).

The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between those of man and living apes (m).

k. Donald C. Johanson et al., “New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,” Nature, Vol. 327, 21 May 1987, pp. 205–209.

l. “We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus [Homo].” Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, “The Human Genus,” Science, Vol. 284, 2 April 1999, p. 65.

m. Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred to below, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis technique. A computer simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. To my knowledge, this technique has not been applied to the most famous australopithecine, commonly known as “Lucy.”

“...the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” Zuckerman, p. 78.

“Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ...” Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973 to 1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May 1979, p. 273.

Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?” Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389–395.

“For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable.” Zuckerman, p. 93.

“His Lordship’s [Sir Solly Zuckerman’s] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. ‘They are just bloody apes,’ he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, pp. 164–165.

“This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the ‘knuckle-walker’ condition, not unlike the extant African apes.” Richard E. F. Leakey, “Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya,” Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:34 pm

Pahu;1379854 wrote: Amen!I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he was referring to you.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:19 pm

Ape-Men? 5

Another study, which examined their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans (n). Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans (o). Claims were made—based on one partially complete australopithecine fossil, Australopithecus afarensis, (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)—that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees (p) and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees (q). In 2006, a more complete Australopithecus afarensis specimen—a 3-year-old baby—was announced. Its new features were clearly apelike (r). The australopithecines are probably extinct apes (s).

n. “Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions.” Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]

o. “The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees.” Bruce Bower, “Evolution’s Youth Movement,” Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.

p. William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676–678.

Jeremy Cherfas, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172–178.

Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279–317.

q. Adrienne Zihlman, “Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39–40.

r. Zeresenay Alemseged et al., “A Juvenile Early Hominin Skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia,” Nature, Vol. 443, 21 September 2006, pp. 296–301.

s. “At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... [T] hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.” Matt Cartmill et al., “One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,” American Scientist, Vol. 74, July–August 1986, p. 417.

“The proportions calculated for africanus turned out to be amazingly close to those of a chimpanzee, with big arms and small legs. ... ‘One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree,’ says Berger.” James Shreeve, “New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,” Science, Vol. 272, 3 May 1996, p. 654.

“There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape—so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.” Solly Zuckerman, “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,” Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

“We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.” Ibid., pp. 348–349.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:20 am

Ape-Men? 6

For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets (s). Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today (t). Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence (u).

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable. [See pages 36-42]

s. Francis Ivanhoe, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577–578.

William L. Straus Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, “Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32, December, 1957, pp. 348–363.

Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, “Oldest Bone Disease,” Nature, Vol. 349, 24 January 1991, p. 288.

t. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).

Jack Cuozzo, “Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,” The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33–40.

u. Boyce Rensberger, “Facing the Past,” Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Shalom · Post by **Shalom** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:34 pm

Hello there Pahu. May God bless you for your dedication in defending His awesome creation! I happened upon this discussion when I was researching for my anatomy and physiology homework. This week the discussion was on blood and the components of blood. I googled blood clotting, which IS irreducibly complex, and it brought me to this thread. In class today we were discussing how important blood clotting is to our survival, and how many intricate things have to take place in order for it to happen otherwise we would die. I brought up the question of how did humans survive before the body figured out how to clot? My teacher just replied, "I don't know?". : )

Again, coming from a fellow Creationist, you have done an excellent job of supplying plenty of proof! May Elohim abundantly bless you!

Shalom!

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:14 am

Blood clotting as a mechanism for wound protection and healing would have begun long before we were recognisably human. Probably before we were even fish!

Terrible shame you Creationists cannot appreciate the true depth and wonder of creation, since you deny most of it happened.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:24 pm

Shalom;1380321 wrote: Hello there Pahu. May God bless you for your dedication in defending His awesome creation! I happened upon this discussion when I was researching for my anatomy and physiology homework. This week the discussion was on blood and the components of blood. I googled blood clotting, which IS irreducibly complex, and it brought me to this thread. In class today we were discussing how important blood clotting is to our survival, and how many intricate things have to take place in order for it to happen otherwise we would die. I brought up the question of how did humans survive before the body figured out how to clot? My teacher just replied, "I don't know?". : )

Again, coming from a fellow Creationist, you have done an excellent job of supplying plenty of proof! May Elohim abundantly bless you!

Shalom!

Thanks for the compliment. Those who refuse to accept the facts that refute their preconceptions are blind to the simple fact that design requires a Designer, because their minds are made up and they don’t want to be confused by the facts. Your teacher is one example, as is Clodhopper’s response.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:27 pm

Clodhopper;1380325 wrote: Blood clotting as a mechanism for wound protection and healing would have begun long before we were recognisably human. Probably before we were even fish!

Why do you believe we used to be fish? Don't fish also have some mechanism for healing wounds? If so, where did that mechanism come from?

Terrible shame you Creationists cannot appreciate the true depth and wonder of creation, since you deny most of it happened.

Why do you believe that?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:44 pm

Pahu;1380363 wrote: Thanks for the compliment. Those who refuse to accept the facts that refute their preconceptions are blind to the simple fact that design requires a Designer, because their minds are made up and they don’t want to be confused by the facts. Your teacher is one example, as is Clodhopper’s response.Don't get too high on that. It's most likely only a matter of time before Shalom goes around the net and finds that even 99% of creationists consider what you post to be ridiculous.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:07 pm

Ahso!;1380378 wrote: Don't get too high on that. It's most likely only a matter of time before Shalom goes around the net and finds that even 99% of creationists consider what you post to be ridiculous.

Why do you believe that? If 100% of creationists consider what I post to be ridiculous, would that disprove the facts?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:26 pm

Pahu;1380382 wrote: Why do you believe that? If 100% of creationists consider what I post to be ridiculous, would that disprove the facts?Shalom will most likely side with the majority of those who he groups with, and once he finds out his opinion of what you post is in the minority he'll most likely change his mind. After all, it's doubtful he actually read any of it.

It's only a sensible deduction since people who believe in a God only do so because many others in their culture do too. They're not independent thinkers IOWs. What I also pointed out earlier is that even though you're part of the group who believes, you're way out in left field from anyones perspective.

I mean that in a loving way, of course.

ETA: You don't have facts. But you don't know that.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:01 pm

Why do you believe we used to be fish? Don't fish also have some mechanism for healing wounds? If so, where did that mechanism come from?

Because that's what the scientists tell me. If you look at the development of a human embryo it goes through all the stages of our evolution. I should point out that my belief is conditional - it may be that new discoveries will change my opinion in the future.

The process that I would say created blood clotting is random mutation. It seems to have created most things, or at the very least played a very major part in them. Note that 99.9% of mutations (at a guess) are not beneficial to the organism that mutates - it either kills them directly or causes them to be killed young and the mutation is not passed on. But every now and again something mutates in a way that makes the organism tougher, faster, or more able to digest food. The process continues today: Most people with a European ancestry have a mutation that allows them to digest cow's milk more effectively. Most people from, say, India, do not and although it doesn't really harm them, they get terrible wind if they drink too much. Sometimes it can be dangerous - I know a South American lad who gets very sick from cow's milk - his bowel ulcerates. A generation ago he'd be dead, as a result of lacking that mutation.

Now, I don't say God isn't behind all this - I simply don't know. And we don't have all the details and some of what we think we know will turn out to be wrong. But the basic process is pretty well understood. Smart lad, that Darwin. And old Mendel with his sweet peas.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:18 pm

Clodhopper;1380406 wrote: Because that's what the scientists tell me. If you look at the development of a human embryo it goes through all the stages of our evolution. I should point out that my belief is conditional - it may be that new discoveries will change my opinion in the future.

The process that I would say created blood clotting is random mutation. It seems to have created most things, or at the very least played a very major part in them. Note that 99.9% of mutations (at a guess) are not beneficial to the organism that mutates - it either kills them directly or causes them to be killed young and the mutation is not passed on. But every now and again something mutates in a way that makes the organism tougher, faster, or more able to digest food. The process continues today: Most people with a European ancestry have a mutation that allows them to digest cow's milk more effectively. Most people from, say, India, do not and although it doesn't really harm them, they get terrible wind if they drink too much. Sometimes it can be dangerous - I know a South American lad who gets very sick from cow's milk - his bowel ulcerates. A generation ago he'd be dead, as a result of lacking that mutation.

Now, I don't say God isn't behind all this - I simply don't know. And we don't have all the details and some of what we think we know will turn out to be wrong. But the basic process is pretty well understood. Smart lad, that Darwin. And old Mendel with his sweet peas.Good stuff, Clod!

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:31 pm

Thank you.

Shalom · Post by **Shalom** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:26 pm

Ahso!;1380378 wrote: Don't get too high on that. It's most likely only a matter of time before Shalom goes around the net and finds that even 99% of creationists consider what you post to be ridiculous.

I must say your posts are sometimes quite odd. :-2 If you were looking to just get a reaction out of this newcomer, I guess it worked. What you said is actually the opposite of what is true.

Shalom · Post by **Shalom** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:44 am

Ahso!;1380385 wrote: Shalom will most likely side with the majority of those who he groups with, and once he finds out his opinion of what you post is in the minority he'll most likely change his mind. After all, it's doubtful he actually read any of it.

It's only a sensible deduction since people who believe in a God only do so because many others in their culture do too. They're not independent thinkers IOWs. What I also pointed out earlier is that even though you're part of the group who believes, you're way out in left field from anyones perspective.

I mean that in a loving way, of course.

ETA: You don't have facts. But you don't know that.

:wah: Just giggling because you referred to me as "he". Actually, I am a female who is very much an independent thinker, and I have studied both creation and evolution in depth waaaay before responding to this thread. I am an honor-roll nursing student who not only has a very open mind but also knows the clear difference between fact and fiction.:yh_wink

I would also like to point out that this particular thread was an obvious open invitation for anyone to post scientific facts for or against evolution. I didn't see any convincing evidence for evolution at all. Personally, I think that if an actual open-minded individual were to happen upon this thread and look at the evidence that was presented from both sides, he or she would clearly be able to determine to which side the scale is tipping. :yh_think Of course that's my humble unbiased opinion.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:25 am

Shalom: So you are a medical nurse, or in the last stages of training to be one?

And you do NOT accept the science on which medicine is based? Have I understood your position correctly?

So do you just ignore the stupid stuff that disagrees with your religious outlook and simply pray, since after all it's sheer chance that any treatment based on the lie that is science actually works...

Which after all is pretty much what they did in Mediaeval times when they had faith by the bucketload but no science to distract them.

And I have to say I'd rather be treated by modern medical scientific methods. They worked quite well for my young friend who had the ulcerated bowel as a result of lactose intolerance (mostly).

Shalom · Post by **Shalom** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:53 am

Clodhopper;1380421 wrote: Shalom: So you are a medical nurse, or in the last stages of training to be one?

And you do NOT accept the science on which medicine is based? Have I understood your position correctly?

So do you just ignore the stupid stuff that disagrees with your religious outlook and simply pray, since after all it's sheer chance that any treatment based on the lie that is science actually works...

Which after all is pretty much what they did in Mediaeval times when they had faith by the bucketload but no science to distract them.

And I have to say I'd rather be treated by modern medical scientific methods. They worked quite well for my young friend who had the ulcerated bowel as a result of lactose intolerance (mostly).

Your posts are so cute. Actually, medical practice is based on what can be tested and observed in the human body and under the microscope. You know like anatomy and physiology, microbiology, all of which remind us of how amazing and complex life is! Medicine is NOT based on evolution. I'm not sure what you meant by that. In fact, when you study the unbelievable intricacies of the human body, you begin to realize how absurd it is to think that all of the order we see in ourselves and in nature was a just a big, random, bunch of useless mutation and happenstance.

Shalom · Post by **Shalom** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:01 am

This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:

Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

Shalom · Post by **Shalom** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:04 am

This is the evolutionary formula for making life:

Dirt + water + time = fantastic living creatures of all kinds!

Shalom · Post by **Shalom** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:04 am

Evolutionists theorize that the above two formulas can enable everything about us to make itself - with the exception of man-made things, such as automobiles or buildings. Complicated things, such as wooden boxes with nails in them, require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature (such as hummingbirds and the human eye) is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need raw materials to begin with! They make themselves too!

Today I woke up and was going to work on my creative writing assignment, and thought.......why don't I just splash some ink on my paper and see if it makes some words, you know, save me some time. Heck with all of the luck evolution has had with creating wondrous life on this planet by pure chance, random confusion, and accidental mishap, maybe I might get lucky by splashing some ink on my paper and get a sentence or even a paragraph! The sad truth is that even if I randomly splashed ink on paper for billions and billions of years I would probably only end up with just one crude resemblance of a letter of the alphabet here or there, and even that's wishful thinking!

Now, lets completely disassemble a computer right down to its super complicated chips, teeny tiny weldings, and you know, all of the intricate pieces and parts. Lets put all of these parts into a big barrel and close it up. OK, now lets shake and roll this barrel around for billions and billions of years and see if it makes the computer? You say, "That's silly!" Well apparently, that's how evolution made everything!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:37 am

I thought you said you'd "studied" Evolutionary Theory, Shalom. However, you, like Pahu, know absolutely nothing about it. You've taken a mis-characterization of a thing and applied it to people who know better. IOW, your definition of Evolutionary Theory is the propagandized definition put out by the religious right and in no way resembles the actual science.

I figured we'd end up here.

Shalom · Post by **Shalom** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:07 am

Ahso!;1380453 wrote: I thought you said you'd "studied" Evolutionary Theory, Shalom. However, you, like Pahu, know absolutely nothing about it. You've taken a mis-characterization of a thing and applied it to people who know better. IOW, your definition of Evolutionary Theory is the propagandized definition put out by the religious right and in no way resembles the actual science.

I figured we'd end up here.

Hi Ahso! I love your picture! Did you take it especially for this forum? :yh_wink

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:46 am

Shalom;1380456 wrote: Hi Ahso! I love your picture! Did you take it especially for this forum? :yh_winkI'm reminded of Dana Carvey's The Church Lady from SNL.

I borrowed the picture from:

SATAN

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:24 pm

Ahso!;1380385 wrote: Shalom will most likely side with the majority of those who he groups with, and once he finds out his opinion of what you post is in the minority he'll most likely change his mind. After all, it's doubtful he actually read any of it.

Is your speculation driven by wishful thinking?

It's only a sensible deduction since people who believe in a God only do so because many others in their culture do too. They're not independent thinkers IOWs.

Why do you believe that?

What I also pointed out earlier is that even though you're part of the group who believes, you're way out in left field from anyones perspective.

Why do you believe that?

I mean that in a loving way, of course.

Really?

ETA: You don't have facts. But you don't know that.

Will you show us why the information I am sharing is not factual?

You may be surprised to learn that unlike atheism and evolution, for most people the belief in God is based on proof. For example:

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:31 pm

But your own bible says there is no proof, it's all about faith.

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:36 pm

Ahso!;1380453 wrote: I thought you said you'd "studied" Evolutionary Theory, Shalom. However, you, like Pahu, know absolutely nothing about it.

Why do you believe that?

You've taken a mis-characterization of a thing and applied it to people who know better. IOW, your definition of Evolutionary Theory is the propagandized definition put out by the religious right and in no way resembles the actual science.

I figured we'd end up here.

What science? Isn't science the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through repeatable observation and experiment? What repeatable observations and experiments does evolution practice?

Pahu · Post by **Pahu** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:40 pm

Ahso!;1380468 wrote: But your own bible says there is no proof, it's all about faith.

Where does it say that? We are instructed to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21).

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:27 pm

Pahu;1380470 wrote: Where does it say that? We are instructed to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21).This is a common problem when talking to Christians about the contents of the bible. Christians think there is hidden, cryptic meaning in extracting and quoting lines out of context. First Thessalonians is a letter and should be read as such. @5:21 Paul tells these obviously troubled church members not to simply dismiss prophecy (which was apparently going on during fellowshipping and most likely members were using the "gift" of prophecy to accuse others of sinning), but test each one as it is brought forward, he then goes on to encourage these people to hold onto that which is good and reject evil. Those are two separate instructions, not one as you've misrepresented.

Read the entire letter. Nowhere does Paul offer any proof of God or Jesus other than his word and the example he set for this while he spent time with them. Paul speaks often of 'hope', 'faith' and 'love' that the members need to share in order to remain vigilant in their belief. This church was obviously having a difficult time maintaining belief.

How about the metaphor of 'doubting' Thomas? In the bible story, Jesus is supposed to have said in Matthew 24 that if anyone claims to know where Christ is (proof) not to believe it. So after Jesus dies Thomas does exactly that (he's actually the faithful one), he says: "nope, not gonna believe it unless I see it" and what does Jesus then supposedly say? "Blessed are those who have not seen and believe."

There's plenty more!

Faith, my misguided friend, it's all about faith.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:21 pm

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

This is NOT, absolutely NOT logical.

I've had a busy day and it's late. I'll get back to this. I'm just putting a reminder down for tomorrow.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:17 am

1. The universe exists.

Granted.

2. The universe had a beginning.

So it is thought - the Big Bang.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

Not necessarily. We know nothing about the time before Time. This is where you start to fall apart.

Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

Since we don't know what was before the Big Bang, we cannot say with any certainty that there was nothing. Your comments are not logically connected. All comments that follow from your points 3 and 4 are therefore logically flawed.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

Since we don't know what was before the Big Bang, we cannot say with any certainty that there was nothing. The latest theories suggest that Big Bangs are created by the interactions of branes which means some things did exist before the Big Bang: Branes.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

Incorrect, according to the physicists. It just takes a very special set of circumstances.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

Even if your point 6 was correct, your point 7 does not follow from it. For example, there are some who think the Universe we know was created by our future selves. I doubt it myself, but it is as valid a conclusion as yours, logically speaking. Put another way: You just whack in the supernatural as an explanation from nowhere. It is only one of many possible reasons and you give no reason why we should accept the supernatural as THE ONLY answer.

Your points 8-11 make the same logical errors I've pointed out in your points 4-7.

I checked up on your "Law" of Biogenesis, at least as far as wiki. Interesting:

The "Law of Biogenesis," attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that organisms such as mice, flies and bacteria do not spontaneously appear on food, a long-standing belief known as "spontaneous generation."[5][6] Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream"). It should be noted that spontaneous generation is not the same as the scientific concept of abiogenesis, which proposes the gradual evolution of increasingly complex replicators to the point where the result meets the criteria to be considered life.

Despite its popular name the "Law of biogenesis" does not actually have the status of a scientific law such as the Laws of Thermodynamics. However creationists often represent it as such in order to attack the theory of evolution.

(I added the bold for emphasis.)

From: Biogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shalom · Post by **Shalom** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:38 pm

Clodhopper;1380522 wrote: Granted.

Not necessarily. We know nothing about the time before Time. This is where you start to fall apart.

From: Biogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really, please tell us what your theory is about the time before time?

Pahu, is simply trying to point out that matter cannot come from nothing. If you study the Big Bang theory, it is very clear that this theory is based on "nothingness" coming together, exploding and then expanding. In a frictionless, cold, dark void of space, how did this happen? Evolutionary scientists to not even attempt to explain this. They just assume that people will believe that "nothingness" exploded. OK, well, lets assume this is what happened. Somehow nothingness got together for a big squish - which by the way this would have been all of the matter in the entire universe, and then exploded. The laws of gravity did not exist yet - and by the way where did the law of motion and gravity come from? So, basically all of this non matter which just exploded would now be hurling through space at high speeds! Wow, I can just see it now! So at what point did all of this matter decide to get together and form a solar system? This must have been some smart matter because not only did it decide to get together and form itself into all of the stars, planets, and moons, but this magical matter decided that it would make this huge star, now known as the sun. Then, the magical matter, which came from nothing decided it would get together to make a planet, now know as earth, and place it the perfect distance and orbit from the sun so that it could bask in it's wonderful warmth. And you know that this magical matter did that because it knew that life would eventually evolve from rocks contained on planet earth. Wow, talk about some smart matter. And to think that it came from nothing too. So basically it made itself! Woooow!

I believe "In the beginning God" and evolutionists believe "in the beginning dirt".