In previous posts you have agreed that fossilisation takes millions of years (not counting immediate fossliisation caused by lava flow, such as that at Pompeii), yet now you claim that the Dinosaurs were created by God about 6000 years ago.
You have agreed that Dinosaurs were the forerunners of Humans, yet God allegedly Created the Heavens, Earth & Man in less than 1 week - and there is no mention anywhere in the Bible of Dinosaurs.
As Saint has pointed out, contrary to your own UNINFORMED claims, there is hard EVIDENCE to the development of feathers from Dinosaurs, along with their gradual reduction in size.
You seem to to believe that God is perfect & that he created everything with a purpose. If this is the case, then how come he created Man with a sense of Self Awareness & the ability to think & question things? By your insistence of denying everything you are consistently trying to prove your God to be imperfect by not using the very gift he gave you of having the ability to think for yourself.
When you see a Ventriloquist's dummy talking, do you really believe it to be the dummy that's talking, simply because you are told this is the case, or do you think through the logic of the situation & realise that it's the Ventriloquist who's doing the talking, trying to make you believe otherwise. With you, the Ventriloquist is the Ministries of Creationism. You are the Dummy.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1461536 wrote:
By your insistence of denying everything you are consistently trying to prove your God to be imperfect by not using the very gift he gave you of having the ability to think for yourself..
Well stated.
Pahu, you want to put limits on God. If He is truly the God of All Creation, the Universe itself, then why can't Evolution be one of His processes?
You don't dispute the processes of the creation and death of His stars, stellar evolution, why doubt His processes for the Creation of Life and Intelligence, Biological evolution?
Is it that to believe in a Universal Lord, who works over vast distances, across trillions of worlds, over periods of billions of years somehow makes you feel smaller or doubt your faith?
It strengthens mine.
By your insistence of denying everything you are consistently trying to prove your God to be imperfect by not using the very gift he gave you of having the ability to think for yourself..
Well stated.
Pahu, you want to put limits on God. If He is truly the God of All Creation, the Universe itself, then why can't Evolution be one of His processes?
You don't dispute the processes of the creation and death of His stars, stellar evolution, why doubt His processes for the Creation of Life and Intelligence, Biological evolution?
Is it that to believe in a Universal Lord, who works over vast distances, across trillions of worlds, over periods of billions of years somehow makes you feel smaller or doubt your faith?
It strengthens mine.
Science Disproves Evolution
In the beginning, God created Evolution. Evolution led to intelligent life across all the galaxies. And God saw that Evolution was good.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1461535 wrote: Why didn't the Egyptians ever mention dinosaurs, then? They, according to you, were existing at the same time as the dinosaurs and recorded literally everything about their civilization at the time.
We have a coherent, continuous record of the last 6000 years from many civilizations and none mention dinosaurs. Why is that?
Proof Man and Dinosaurs lived together
Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago.
Therefore, these art works are not frauds perpetrated by mischievous European newcomers (who had no motive for such a fraud), but were made by natives long ago, showing men and dinosaurs living together. In the ancient city of Angkor in Cambodia, we can see a stegosaurus carved in one of the temple walls. In Mexico, many hundreds ancient dinosaur figurines have been unearthed, some even with men riding them! (see below)
This is not just accidental similarity between the Indian artwork and what we believe the edmontosaurus looked like!
This remarkable pictograph can be seen etched into the canyon walls of the Grand Canyon. Other animals show the same clarity. The people living there not too long ago saw reptiles that we only see in books. They painted what they observed. Dinosaurs did not become extinct 65 million years before the "evolution" of man. They were obviously created at the same time!
Cave drawing to the right of a long neck dragon. Bottom picture is outlined in white to show it's shape better.
Ica Stone, found in the Ica valley in Peru. The people lived there about 3,000 years ago. How did they know what dinosaurs looked like?
More Indian artwork from Canada. The evolutionary time-table has been proved entirely wrong.
This carving was found on a Cambodian temple wall. It is an excellent depiction of a stegosaurus, many hundreds of years old. How could they have known about stegosaurs if they had never seen one?
Thousands of Indian clay figurines have been unearthed in Acambaro, Mexico.
This pottery is several thousand years old. Remember we aren't supposed to know what dinosaurs looked like until the late 1800's really the mid 1900's. This Pottery is dated back to between 800BC and 200 AD.
The Alvis Delk Track
This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.
Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.
The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!
Precambrian Trilobites are supposed to be separated from man by millions of years, yet fossils appear in "recent" strata and even within a fossil sandal print. There are thousands of fossils that are "out of order" and even sophisticated man-made artifacts in "ancient" rock. There are fossil clams on the highest mountains and human tracks in supposed ancient layers of volcanic ash.
A fossil footprint was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.
[img]http://www.6000years.org/graphics/paluxy-tracks.jpg[/img
This photo was taken by the late Dr. Cecil Daugherty, in the 1970's. It shows a human footprint within a trail of dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
We have a coherent, continuous record of the last 6000 years from many civilizations and none mention dinosaurs. Why is that?
Proof Man and Dinosaurs lived together
Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago.
Therefore, these art works are not frauds perpetrated by mischievous European newcomers (who had no motive for such a fraud), but were made by natives long ago, showing men and dinosaurs living together. In the ancient city of Angkor in Cambodia, we can see a stegosaurus carved in one of the temple walls. In Mexico, many hundreds ancient dinosaur figurines have been unearthed, some even with men riding them! (see below)
This is not just accidental similarity between the Indian artwork and what we believe the edmontosaurus looked like!
This remarkable pictograph can be seen etched into the canyon walls of the Grand Canyon. Other animals show the same clarity. The people living there not too long ago saw reptiles that we only see in books. They painted what they observed. Dinosaurs did not become extinct 65 million years before the "evolution" of man. They were obviously created at the same time!
Cave drawing to the right of a long neck dragon. Bottom picture is outlined in white to show it's shape better.
Ica Stone, found in the Ica valley in Peru. The people lived there about 3,000 years ago. How did they know what dinosaurs looked like?
More Indian artwork from Canada. The evolutionary time-table has been proved entirely wrong.
This carving was found on a Cambodian temple wall. It is an excellent depiction of a stegosaurus, many hundreds of years old. How could they have known about stegosaurs if they had never seen one?
Thousands of Indian clay figurines have been unearthed in Acambaro, Mexico.
This pottery is several thousand years old. Remember we aren't supposed to know what dinosaurs looked like until the late 1800's really the mid 1900's. This Pottery is dated back to between 800BC and 200 AD.
The Alvis Delk Track
This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.
Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain. When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay! The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur's middle toe inside the human footprint. Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.
The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.
According to evolutionary theory, the dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, TX were made at least 100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved. Of course dinosaurs and humans cannot be stepping in each other's footprint if they are millions of years apart. These footprints provide profound evidence refuting the evolutionary myth. Of course, evolutionists do everything they can to refute findings like these, I guess simply because it doesn't agree with their religion. How much better would their time be spent seriously looking into all of the archaeological finds around them, instead of discounting them!
Precambrian Trilobites are supposed to be separated from man by millions of years, yet fossils appear in "recent" strata and even within a fossil sandal print. There are thousands of fossils that are "out of order" and even sophisticated man-made artifacts in "ancient" rock. There are fossil clams on the highest mountains and human tracks in supposed ancient layers of volcanic ash.
A fossil footprint was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be.
[img]http://www.6000years.org/graphics/paluxy-tracks.jpg[/img
This photo was taken by the late Dr. Cecil Daugherty, in the 1970's. It shows a human footprint within a trail of dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1461536 wrote:
As Saint has pointed out, contrary to your own UNINFORMED claims, there is hard EVIDENCE to the development of feathers from Dinosaurs, along with their gradual reduction in size.
‘Feathered’ dinos: no feathers after all!
Sinosauropteryx specimen GMV 2124, from Liaoning Province, China; in the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde (State Museum of Natural History), Karlsruhe, Germany. Note the classic ‘dead dino posture’—head thrown back, tail extended, with hind limbs bent—called opisthotonus, the result of muscle spasms caused by suffocation.
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have had a huge difficulty: the fossil record lacks the innumerable ‘missing links’ predicted by them and required by their theory. Instead, all evolutionists can produce are a handful of debatable examples (see The Links are Missing); whereas it’s not just links that are missing but whole lengths in the evolutionary chain!
From time to time, evolutionists produce a transitional-series-du-jour. One of the most prominent recent claims is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, a supposedly carnivorous group that included T. Rex and Velociraptor. However, even a number of evolutionary paleo-ornithologists (fossil bird experts), such as Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina, have been harshly critical of the dogmatic way in which the theory has been promoted. They partly blame this dogma for the notorious Archaeoraptor hoax of 1999–2000.
Another big problem is the hugely different avian lung design. The alleged first bird Archaeopteryx had the classic avian through-flow lungs, while the alleged feathered dino Sinosauropteryx had a clearly reptilian bellows lung. And it was younger than Archaeopteryx, according to the evolutionists’ own dating methods and contrary to evolutionary expectations. As Feduccia likes to quip, “You can’t be older than your grandfather. While evolutionists claim that a trait might persist in a lineage well after a descendant lineage has evolved, the evidence they are claiming dates the version with a fully-formed avian lung prior to the other. When did the avian lung, then, evolve? And the main point was that evolution was alleged to be supported by the order of fossil succession, but clearly this is not so.
Feathered dinosaurs?
One major point evolutionists use to support their ‘missing link’ between birds and dinos is dinosaurs having feathers. One of the most famous is Sinosauropteryx (meaning Chinese reptilian wing), a tiny creature discovered in 1996. The largest known specimen weighed only about 0.55 kg (1.2 lb), and was only 1.07 m (3.5 ft) long. This included its tail, the longest in relation to its total body length of any theropod.
CMI has long pointed out that there is nothing in the biblical creationist model that states that dinosaurs must lack feathers. Having said that, however, we also point out that the examples to date have been far from convincing. There is good reason to believe that the feathers were just frayed structural collagen fibres.
Nonetheless, the feather claim has its defenders as well, such as Prof. Zhang Fucheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and his colleagues, who claim to be “refuting recent claims that the filaments are partially decayed dermal collagen fibres.3
This Struthiomimus dinosaur is also in the ‘dead dinosaur pose’.
To support their claimed refutation, Zhang et al. claimed to have discovered colour-producing cell organelles called eumelanosomes and pheomelanosomes in a Sinosauropteryx specimen. These produce the very dark eumelanin and reddish-brown pheomelanin pigments in feathers (see also Colourful creature coats). From this, they argued that they even had proof for stripes on its tail. But Prof. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar at the University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa (and co-author of Ref’s 1 and 2) has criticized their claims as an: “optical illusion created when the SEM [scanning electron micrograph] is reproduced at low image size. And in a recent paper, he has provided further evidence against this claim, and also inadvertently found strong evidence for the Genesis Flood.
Animal decay
As noted above, Sinosauropteryx had a reptilian lung. How could we know? Because unlike most dinosaur fossils, which are nothing but mineralized bones, this creature was well enough preserved that one could analyze the shape of some of its internal organs. The fact that these details were preserved points to very rapid burial, before these organs could rot or be scavenged away. (Since the discovery of Sinosauropteryx, dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels and collagen, and osteocalcin have been found, which could not have lasted millions of years.) Also, the preservation of the internal organs would seem to rule out vertebrate predators or scavengers, since they “usually target the gut first.
Therefore, Lingham-Soliar wanted to find out why Sinosauropteryx should be so well preserved. He noted the typical ‘dead dinosaur posture’ with the neck and tail thrown backwards (all the fossils illustrated in this article illustrate that posture). In the last few years, scientists have realized that this posture was actually opisthotonus, the result of severe muscle spasms caused by malfunctioning of the central nervous system, especially with oxygen deprivation.6 Thus they are the final death throes, which we have argued is consistent with most of them being drowned or buried alive by the Flood.
Since no-one saw the creature die and fossilize, the next best thing is to see what happens to dead animals. (The study of decay and fossilization is called taphonomy). Lingham-Soliar analyzed two dead animals over time in a ‘natural’ setting: a genet (Genetta genetta), a cat-like animal but probably in the mongoose kind; and the Mozambique spitting cobra (Naja mossambica), the second deadliest snake in Africa, after the black mamba.
[continue]
As Saint has pointed out, contrary to your own UNINFORMED claims, there is hard EVIDENCE to the development of feathers from Dinosaurs, along with their gradual reduction in size.
‘Feathered’ dinos: no feathers after all!
Sinosauropteryx specimen GMV 2124, from Liaoning Province, China; in the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde (State Museum of Natural History), Karlsruhe, Germany. Note the classic ‘dead dino posture’—head thrown back, tail extended, with hind limbs bent—called opisthotonus, the result of muscle spasms caused by suffocation.
Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have had a huge difficulty: the fossil record lacks the innumerable ‘missing links’ predicted by them and required by their theory. Instead, all evolutionists can produce are a handful of debatable examples (see The Links are Missing); whereas it’s not just links that are missing but whole lengths in the evolutionary chain!
From time to time, evolutionists produce a transitional-series-du-jour. One of the most prominent recent claims is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, a supposedly carnivorous group that included T. Rex and Velociraptor. However, even a number of evolutionary paleo-ornithologists (fossil bird experts), such as Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina, have been harshly critical of the dogmatic way in which the theory has been promoted. They partly blame this dogma for the notorious Archaeoraptor hoax of 1999–2000.
Another big problem is the hugely different avian lung design. The alleged first bird Archaeopteryx had the classic avian through-flow lungs, while the alleged feathered dino Sinosauropteryx had a clearly reptilian bellows lung. And it was younger than Archaeopteryx, according to the evolutionists’ own dating methods and contrary to evolutionary expectations. As Feduccia likes to quip, “You can’t be older than your grandfather. While evolutionists claim that a trait might persist in a lineage well after a descendant lineage has evolved, the evidence they are claiming dates the version with a fully-formed avian lung prior to the other. When did the avian lung, then, evolve? And the main point was that evolution was alleged to be supported by the order of fossil succession, but clearly this is not so.
Feathered dinosaurs?
One major point evolutionists use to support their ‘missing link’ between birds and dinos is dinosaurs having feathers. One of the most famous is Sinosauropteryx (meaning Chinese reptilian wing), a tiny creature discovered in 1996. The largest known specimen weighed only about 0.55 kg (1.2 lb), and was only 1.07 m (3.5 ft) long. This included its tail, the longest in relation to its total body length of any theropod.
CMI has long pointed out that there is nothing in the biblical creationist model that states that dinosaurs must lack feathers. Having said that, however, we also point out that the examples to date have been far from convincing. There is good reason to believe that the feathers were just frayed structural collagen fibres.
Nonetheless, the feather claim has its defenders as well, such as Prof. Zhang Fucheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and his colleagues, who claim to be “refuting recent claims that the filaments are partially decayed dermal collagen fibres.3
This Struthiomimus dinosaur is also in the ‘dead dinosaur pose’.
To support their claimed refutation, Zhang et al. claimed to have discovered colour-producing cell organelles called eumelanosomes and pheomelanosomes in a Sinosauropteryx specimen. These produce the very dark eumelanin and reddish-brown pheomelanin pigments in feathers (see also Colourful creature coats). From this, they argued that they even had proof for stripes on its tail. But Prof. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar at the University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa (and co-author of Ref’s 1 and 2) has criticized their claims as an: “optical illusion created when the SEM [scanning electron micrograph] is reproduced at low image size. And in a recent paper, he has provided further evidence against this claim, and also inadvertently found strong evidence for the Genesis Flood.
Animal decay
As noted above, Sinosauropteryx had a reptilian lung. How could we know? Because unlike most dinosaur fossils, which are nothing but mineralized bones, this creature was well enough preserved that one could analyze the shape of some of its internal organs. The fact that these details were preserved points to very rapid burial, before these organs could rot or be scavenged away. (Since the discovery of Sinosauropteryx, dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels and collagen, and osteocalcin have been found, which could not have lasted millions of years.) Also, the preservation of the internal organs would seem to rule out vertebrate predators or scavengers, since they “usually target the gut first.
Therefore, Lingham-Soliar wanted to find out why Sinosauropteryx should be so well preserved. He noted the typical ‘dead dinosaur posture’ with the neck and tail thrown backwards (all the fossils illustrated in this article illustrate that posture). In the last few years, scientists have realized that this posture was actually opisthotonus, the result of severe muscle spasms caused by malfunctioning of the central nervous system, especially with oxygen deprivation.6 Thus they are the final death throes, which we have argued is consistent with most of them being drowned or buried alive by the Flood.
Since no-one saw the creature die and fossilize, the next best thing is to see what happens to dead animals. (The study of decay and fossilization is called taphonomy). Lingham-Soliar analyzed two dead animals over time in a ‘natural’ setting: a genet (Genetta genetta), a cat-like animal but probably in the mongoose kind; and the Mozambique spitting cobra (Naja mossambica), the second deadliest snake in Africa, after the black mamba.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
‘Feathered’ dinos: no feathers after all!
[continued]
Sparing some of the gory details, with the genet, within a day, internal decomposition and bloating had already forced liquids out the body openings. Then maggots had their fill, but notably, not in the gut region until day 4. After that, the decay increased exponentially, so only one day later, almost all the soft tissue was gone, and the maggots left the carcass to pupate. The authors note about the creationist founder of taxonomy (classification):
"Linnaeus (1767) stated that three flies may decompose the cadaver of a horse as quickly as a lion."
With the cobra, the process took longer, but once again, it was mainly maggots, but this time also ants, and again the gut was targeted quite late. Also, the insects liked the protein-rich connective tissue under the scales, which quickly separated the scales from the body. The authors note:
"it is possible to hypothesize from this phenomenon why scales are so rarely (or sparsely) preserved in small non-avian dinosaurs such as Sinosauropteryx, Compsognathus and Juravenoter—the absence of scales have frequently been used to suggest the presence of feathers in the animals’ primary condition."
But neither the genet nor the cobra carcasses exhibited opisthotonus, which ruled out the earlier idea that the dead dinosaur posture was caused by post-mortem changes.
Archaeopteryx lithographica, Museum für Naturkunde (Museum of Natural History) in Berlin. This is a picture of the actual fossil, not a cast. It also shows clear signs of opisthotonus.
Applications to Sinosauropteryx death
As noted, the dead dinosaur posture indicates death by suffocation. The specimen seemed to exhibit the signs of the same purged decomposition liquids as the dead genet. The preserved gut (including a pair of eggs), indicate that any scavenging was likely by insects, then the carcass was quickly buried “at most a few days after death. The authors attribute the death to toxic volcanic gases, then burial by volcanic ash or mud flows.
Actually the evidence, considering how widespread the dead dino posture is (also seen in Archaeopteryx), is consistent with the Genesis Flood. This would produce greatly increased volcanic activity. The rapid burial is also consistent with the Flood. But what about insect decomposition? Actually, computer simulations have shown that the flood waters would not rise steadily but would fluctuate so that land would be exposed for days at a time. This is why we find dinosaur footprints and eggs (see In the footsteps of giants). This exposure would allow insects time to colonize the carcass, but not time to eat the gut, before it was buried completely.
Crest not feathers
Back to the heading of the article, the dead dino posture provided insights into what the claimed feather filaments actually were. The death throes caused buckling of the thick integument (skin) on the animal’s back, which would be possible only if the filaments were part of a single structure not separate feathers.
compressive and tensile forces acting on a clearly unified structure, i.e. an upright frill or crest overlying the neck, back and tail of Sinosauropteryx ¦ as opposed to individual proto-feathers, is considered more reasonable ¦
the results include the most controversial issue associated with Sinosauropteryx and strongly demonstrate, based on soft tissue analysis and forensic animation, that the dorsal, externally preserved integumental tissue represents a dorsal crest rather than protofeathers ¦
This supports their earlier statement:
"The description presented here shows that the filamentous structures were internal support fibres that together with the overlying dermal tissue ¦ comprised a composite structure, i.e. an external frill or crest (compare Jesus lizard, Basiliscus plumifrons, and frilled lizard, Chlamydosaurus kingii), comprehensively refuting the notion of free filaments, i.e. protofeathers in Sinosauropteryx."
In further support, “the tail terminates in a unique, smoothly edged, spatula-shaped structure, which near the end provided “little surface area for the attachment of protofeathers. Also, because this creature seemed to live near a lake, according to evolutionary reconstructions anyway, “a crest-like structure on the tail or body or both [would be] useful in swimming, so they express amazement that such a structure had not been considered.
Conclusion
While feathered dinosaurs are not ruled out by the biblical creationist model, the claims of feathers are looking more and more dubious. In one of the most famous claimed feathered dinosaurs, Sinosauropteryx, the evidence indicates that the filaments were not separate feathers, but support fibres for a unified structure like a crest. Also, the death posture indicates suffocation, and careful analysis of the normal decay process of animal carcasses in nature shows that it must have been buried completely within a few days at most.
Update: Another theory for the ‘dead dino posture’ is also consistent with the Flood: it turns out that recently killed chickens spontaneously go into the same arched-back pose after immersion under water (see also Water and death throes). They have a strong ligament along the spine, the Ligamentum elasticum, which is already taut. The buoyancy under water enabled the ligament to overcome the weight and pull the neck and tail back. As the muscles decayed, this ligament encountered even less resistance, so the bending increased even more.
This effect would have been even stronger in dinosaurs with long, slender necks and tails. They would have needed very strong, elastic ligaments for energy saving. The length would have also increased the leverage of the elastic forces.
Swiss sedimentologist Achim Reisdorf and German paleontologist Michael Wuttke, authors of a detailed study, explained:
"A strong Ligamentum elasticum was essential for all long necked dinosaurs with a long tail. The preloaded ligament helped them saving energy in their terrestrial mode of life. Following their death, at which they were immersed in water, the stored energy along the vertebra was strong enough to arch back the spine, increasingly so as more and more muscles and other soft parts were decaying. It is a special highlight that, in the Compsognathus specimen, these gradual steps of recurvature can be substantiated, too. Therefore, biomechanics is ruling the postmortem weird posture of a carcass in a watery grave, not death throes."
Feathered dinosaurs not feathers - creation.com
[continued]
Sparing some of the gory details, with the genet, within a day, internal decomposition and bloating had already forced liquids out the body openings. Then maggots had their fill, but notably, not in the gut region until day 4. After that, the decay increased exponentially, so only one day later, almost all the soft tissue was gone, and the maggots left the carcass to pupate. The authors note about the creationist founder of taxonomy (classification):
"Linnaeus (1767) stated that three flies may decompose the cadaver of a horse as quickly as a lion."
With the cobra, the process took longer, but once again, it was mainly maggots, but this time also ants, and again the gut was targeted quite late. Also, the insects liked the protein-rich connective tissue under the scales, which quickly separated the scales from the body. The authors note:
"it is possible to hypothesize from this phenomenon why scales are so rarely (or sparsely) preserved in small non-avian dinosaurs such as Sinosauropteryx, Compsognathus and Juravenoter—the absence of scales have frequently been used to suggest the presence of feathers in the animals’ primary condition."
But neither the genet nor the cobra carcasses exhibited opisthotonus, which ruled out the earlier idea that the dead dinosaur posture was caused by post-mortem changes.
Archaeopteryx lithographica, Museum für Naturkunde (Museum of Natural History) in Berlin. This is a picture of the actual fossil, not a cast. It also shows clear signs of opisthotonus.
Applications to Sinosauropteryx death
As noted, the dead dinosaur posture indicates death by suffocation. The specimen seemed to exhibit the signs of the same purged decomposition liquids as the dead genet. The preserved gut (including a pair of eggs), indicate that any scavenging was likely by insects, then the carcass was quickly buried “at most a few days after death. The authors attribute the death to toxic volcanic gases, then burial by volcanic ash or mud flows.
Actually the evidence, considering how widespread the dead dino posture is (also seen in Archaeopteryx), is consistent with the Genesis Flood. This would produce greatly increased volcanic activity. The rapid burial is also consistent with the Flood. But what about insect decomposition? Actually, computer simulations have shown that the flood waters would not rise steadily but would fluctuate so that land would be exposed for days at a time. This is why we find dinosaur footprints and eggs (see In the footsteps of giants). This exposure would allow insects time to colonize the carcass, but not time to eat the gut, before it was buried completely.
Crest not feathers
Back to the heading of the article, the dead dino posture provided insights into what the claimed feather filaments actually were. The death throes caused buckling of the thick integument (skin) on the animal’s back, which would be possible only if the filaments were part of a single structure not separate feathers.
compressive and tensile forces acting on a clearly unified structure, i.e. an upright frill or crest overlying the neck, back and tail of Sinosauropteryx ¦ as opposed to individual proto-feathers, is considered more reasonable ¦
the results include the most controversial issue associated with Sinosauropteryx and strongly demonstrate, based on soft tissue analysis and forensic animation, that the dorsal, externally preserved integumental tissue represents a dorsal crest rather than protofeathers ¦
This supports their earlier statement:
"The description presented here shows that the filamentous structures were internal support fibres that together with the overlying dermal tissue ¦ comprised a composite structure, i.e. an external frill or crest (compare Jesus lizard, Basiliscus plumifrons, and frilled lizard, Chlamydosaurus kingii), comprehensively refuting the notion of free filaments, i.e. protofeathers in Sinosauropteryx."
In further support, “the tail terminates in a unique, smoothly edged, spatula-shaped structure, which near the end provided “little surface area for the attachment of protofeathers. Also, because this creature seemed to live near a lake, according to evolutionary reconstructions anyway, “a crest-like structure on the tail or body or both [would be] useful in swimming, so they express amazement that such a structure had not been considered.
Conclusion
While feathered dinosaurs are not ruled out by the biblical creationist model, the claims of feathers are looking more and more dubious. In one of the most famous claimed feathered dinosaurs, Sinosauropteryx, the evidence indicates that the filaments were not separate feathers, but support fibres for a unified structure like a crest. Also, the death posture indicates suffocation, and careful analysis of the normal decay process of animal carcasses in nature shows that it must have been buried completely within a few days at most.
Update: Another theory for the ‘dead dino posture’ is also consistent with the Flood: it turns out that recently killed chickens spontaneously go into the same arched-back pose after immersion under water (see also Water and death throes). They have a strong ligament along the spine, the Ligamentum elasticum, which is already taut. The buoyancy under water enabled the ligament to overcome the weight and pull the neck and tail back. As the muscles decayed, this ligament encountered even less resistance, so the bending increased even more.
This effect would have been even stronger in dinosaurs with long, slender necks and tails. They would have needed very strong, elastic ligaments for energy saving. The length would have also increased the leverage of the elastic forces.
Swiss sedimentologist Achim Reisdorf and German paleontologist Michael Wuttke, authors of a detailed study, explained:
"A strong Ligamentum elasticum was essential for all long necked dinosaurs with a long tail. The preloaded ligament helped them saving energy in their terrestrial mode of life. Following their death, at which they were immersed in water, the stored energy along the vertebra was strong enough to arch back the spine, increasingly so as more and more muscles and other soft parts were decaying. It is a special highlight that, in the Compsognathus specimen, these gradual steps of recurvature can be substantiated, too. Therefore, biomechanics is ruling the postmortem weird posture of a carcass in a watery grave, not death throes."
Feathered dinosaurs not feathers - creation.com
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1461577 wrote: Proof Man and Dinosaurs lived together
Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago.
...
So, perhaps all of that suggests that people may have been around a lot longer than we think they have.
Various Indian drawings on rock walls tell us the Indians actually saw living dinosaurs. They drew on rock walls what they saw with their eyes. The Anasazi Indians of the American southwest made pictures on rocks showing dinosaurs and men. A thick coat of “desert varnish on these images proves that these pictures were created many hundreds of years ago. Desert varnish (windblown pollen and dust) slowly accumulates on rocks in the desert; the varnish on the Anasazi pictures is so thick that they must have been drawn many hundreds of years ago.
...
So, perhaps all of that suggests that people may have been around a lot longer than we think they have.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1461553 wrote: Well stated.
Pahu, you want to put limits on God. If He is truly the God of All Creation, the Universe itself, then why can't Evolution be one of His processes?
No doubt it could be but He has revealed that it isn't. Also, evolution teaches origins by a mindless, natural cause. God reveals He created everything. The two are incompatible.
Pahu, you want to put limits on God. If He is truly the God of All Creation, the Universe itself, then why can't Evolution be one of His processes?
No doubt it could be but He has revealed that it isn't. Also, evolution teaches origins by a mindless, natural cause. God reveals He created everything. The two are incompatible.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You've posted the self same links of the cave drawing, over & over again, and it's clear that they don't show anything of the kind. The 'evidence' photos you produce are clearly just photoshopped scribbles over a totally obscure piece of rock which may or may not have drawings on them. They have no more validity that your forming pictures in the clouds & using that as proof. You can make patterns look like anything you want to.
As for the footprint...
FOSSILS OF 'MAN TRACKS' SHOWN TO BE DINOSAURIAN - NYTimes.com
Including the quote:
¶ Confronted with these findings, a leader of the scientific creationists conceded that the tracks could no longer be ''regarded as unquestionably human.'' A movie incorporating the disputed tracks, ''Footprints in Stone,'' produced by the Films for Christ Association, has been withdrawn from circulation as a document in support of divine creation. 5-Year Investigation What specialists in dinosaur studies have reported finding are clear traces of dinosaur toes associated with the so-called ''man tracks'' along the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Tex., southwest of Fort Worth. The discovery was described by scientists who visited the site early this month and reviewed the results of a five-year investigation of the tracks by Glen J. Kuban, an expert on dinosaur footprints.
Furthermore, although I'm willing to accept that the footprint probably is a Dinosaur, as this appears to be the generally held scientific opinion, I see it as being exactly like the footprint left by an ostrich.
As for the carvings & artworks of dinosaurs, you ask how could any humans have known what dinosaurs looked like if they'd never seen one. Ask yourself this - have you ever seen one? Have any of the children you know ever seen one? So how do you know what they look like? How do the kids know what they look like? The kids have never seen them, but they still draw pictures of them - often on walls - cave walls even. The simple answer is that we know what they look like because we have seen their fossils & can see the comparisons with their evolved descendants.
Finally, I cannot believe that you really see 'proof' in the supposed childlike cave drawings of dinosaurs (clearly placed their by biased opinions), yet you claim that there are no feathers on the fossil of the dinosaur that clearly shows traces of feathers.
Further more, evolution is not only about developing aspects, but of losing them. The more recent of the evolutionary giants are the Mammoths & their smaller descendants, the Elephants. I don't believe there have been fossilised remains of Mammoths found (although I could be wrong in this), as they are far too recent in the evolutionary chain for this. However, they have been found preserved in tar pits, where the would have been devoid of decaying oxygen. They have also been found preserved (to the point of still being edible) in the ice of glaciers. The point being that if there were to be the fossils of a Mammoth found, the chances are is that all that would remain would be the bones. The hair would be mere supposition. Without having seen complete Mammoths in their preserved state archaeologists might simply have equated them as being practically hairless, as with the Elephant, only much larger.
Furthermore, before making wild claims on the views of some crank Creationist claiming that his beliefs are scientific fact, despite there not being a shred of evidence to support this, you should try reading Saint's link which provides you with hard evidence - yes, VISIBLE EVIDENCE, not CONJECTURE, of the progressive evolution of dinosaurs to birds, gradually developing feathers. The Creationists simply don't want to see the truth - they'd rather live in their fantasy land of Fairies & Father Christmas.
Stop relying on the quotes from your fantasy idols - nobody bothers to read them. As soon as you see the words "Scientific", "Fact" & "Ministry" together, everyone with an iota of common sense knows know that these 3 words are totally contradictory when used in that context, and to continue taking any notice is a total waste of time & space. Perpetual quoting from the same old tired sources does not prove an argument - it just proves that you are incapable of thinking for yourself & that you are nothing but a Brainwashed Drone. On the rare occasions you have made posts where you think for yourself you have made excellent arguments that support the logic of everything you've been trying to deny. Your subconscious seems to want to believe the truth, but your conscious wants to continue living in a fantasy world.
As for the footprint...
FOSSILS OF 'MAN TRACKS' SHOWN TO BE DINOSAURIAN - NYTimes.com
Including the quote:
¶ Confronted with these findings, a leader of the scientific creationists conceded that the tracks could no longer be ''regarded as unquestionably human.'' A movie incorporating the disputed tracks, ''Footprints in Stone,'' produced by the Films for Christ Association, has been withdrawn from circulation as a document in support of divine creation. 5-Year Investigation What specialists in dinosaur studies have reported finding are clear traces of dinosaur toes associated with the so-called ''man tracks'' along the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Tex., southwest of Fort Worth. The discovery was described by scientists who visited the site early this month and reviewed the results of a five-year investigation of the tracks by Glen J. Kuban, an expert on dinosaur footprints.
Furthermore, although I'm willing to accept that the footprint probably is a Dinosaur, as this appears to be the generally held scientific opinion, I see it as being exactly like the footprint left by an ostrich.
As for the carvings & artworks of dinosaurs, you ask how could any humans have known what dinosaurs looked like if they'd never seen one. Ask yourself this - have you ever seen one? Have any of the children you know ever seen one? So how do you know what they look like? How do the kids know what they look like? The kids have never seen them, but they still draw pictures of them - often on walls - cave walls even. The simple answer is that we know what they look like because we have seen their fossils & can see the comparisons with their evolved descendants.
Finally, I cannot believe that you really see 'proof' in the supposed childlike cave drawings of dinosaurs (clearly placed their by biased opinions), yet you claim that there are no feathers on the fossil of the dinosaur that clearly shows traces of feathers.
Further more, evolution is not only about developing aspects, but of losing them. The more recent of the evolutionary giants are the Mammoths & their smaller descendants, the Elephants. I don't believe there have been fossilised remains of Mammoths found (although I could be wrong in this), as they are far too recent in the evolutionary chain for this. However, they have been found preserved in tar pits, where the would have been devoid of decaying oxygen. They have also been found preserved (to the point of still being edible) in the ice of glaciers. The point being that if there were to be the fossils of a Mammoth found, the chances are is that all that would remain would be the bones. The hair would be mere supposition. Without having seen complete Mammoths in their preserved state archaeologists might simply have equated them as being practically hairless, as with the Elephant, only much larger.
Furthermore, before making wild claims on the views of some crank Creationist claiming that his beliefs are scientific fact, despite there not being a shred of evidence to support this, you should try reading Saint's link which provides you with hard evidence - yes, VISIBLE EVIDENCE, not CONJECTURE, of the progressive evolution of dinosaurs to birds, gradually developing feathers. The Creationists simply don't want to see the truth - they'd rather live in their fantasy land of Fairies & Father Christmas.
Stop relying on the quotes from your fantasy idols - nobody bothers to read them. As soon as you see the words "Scientific", "Fact" & "Ministry" together, everyone with an iota of common sense knows know that these 3 words are totally contradictory when used in that context, and to continue taking any notice is a total waste of time & space. Perpetual quoting from the same old tired sources does not prove an argument - it just proves that you are incapable of thinking for yourself & that you are nothing but a Brainwashed Drone. On the rare occasions you have made posts where you think for yourself you have made excellent arguments that support the logic of everything you've been trying to deny. Your subconscious seems to want to believe the truth, but your conscious wants to continue living in a fantasy world.
Science Disproves Evolution
Genetic Information 4
The Elephant in the Living Room
Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific “detectives, working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.
G: “Sounds like pretty complicated work.
S: “You can’t imagine how complicated!
G: “Try me.
S: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.
G: “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!
S: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.
G: “So how do you do it?
S: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some ‘typo’s’. It should get easier as time goes by.
G: “How did all that information happen to get there?
S: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?
G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?
S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He's been there!
G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?
S: “No. It all just evolved.
G: “What? You just told me — ?
S: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.
G: “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.
S: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.
G: “What elephant?
S: “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!
George V. Caylor, “The Biologist, The Ledger, Vol. 2, Issue 48, No. 92, 1 December 2000, p. 2. (On The Right Side with George Caylor | "Tea Time" Radio and our fight to save the Republic!) Printed with permission.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
So who's "Sam" ? I bet we could all post reams of recognised, peer reviewed micro biologists who would say otherwise, rather than hiding behind elephants. Sam could be a figment George's imagination for all we know
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1461875 wrote: So who's "Sam" ? I bet we could all post reams of recognised, peer reviewed micro biologists who would say otherwise, rather than hiding behind elephants. Sam could be a figment George's imagination for all we know
Nah - he's only got the one book - that one by Walt Brown, who's as unbiased as the BNP speaking in support of Immigration. The only other 'undeniable sources', strangely enough all seem to have 'Ministry' or 'Christian Science' in the name.
He thinks he can claim something is false if it cannot be proved, but denies its existence when the proof is available, yet when challenged to prove the existence of God his answer is that 'He revealed Himself to us' - which is like saying "I know it's rtue, cos this bloke down the pub told me that his brother's mate knew someone who had a cousin who heard from his sister in law's friend's dad that another bloke in this pub told him so - so it has to be true!"
Nah - he's only got the one book - that one by Walt Brown, who's as unbiased as the BNP speaking in support of Immigration. The only other 'undeniable sources', strangely enough all seem to have 'Ministry' or 'Christian Science' in the name.
He thinks he can claim something is false if it cannot be proved, but denies its existence when the proof is available, yet when challenged to prove the existence of God his answer is that 'He revealed Himself to us' - which is like saying "I know it's rtue, cos this bloke down the pub told me that his brother's mate knew someone who had a cousin who heard from his sister in law's friend's dad that another bloke in this pub told him so - so it has to be true!"
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1461876 wrote:
...when challenged to prove the existence of God his answer is that 'He revealed Himself to us'...
False. Here are the facts:
A Logical Argument for God's Existence
1. Something exists.
That seems pretty simple, right? Can we all agree that this is true? Even the atheist will agree that this is true. This seems to be undeniably true. Anybody who would say that “nothing exists would have to exist in order to say that in which case he would be defeating his own statement.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
This statement is of course true as well. Think about it. It would be absurd to say that nothing could create or produce something.
Nothing is no-thing. Nothing does not have the power to do anything at all, does it! Even David Hume one of the most zealous skeptics of Christianity ever agreed to the truth of this second premise. He said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause. (Feb. 1754).
To propose that nothing could do anything at all sounds utterly foolish. A basic law of physics (and if you ever had a physics class you’ll recall this) is called the Law of Conservation. It states: “From nothing, comes nothing.
This supports our second premise as well. So if the first two premises are true, that 1. Something exists and 2. Nothing does not produce something, then a rather astounding conclusion logically follows...
3. Something must have always existed.
Why’s that? Okay, well, let’s walk back through this. Something now exists. Nothing does not produce something, then something must have always existed.
Why must something have always existed? To have brought the “something that now exists (in No.1) into existence. Why? Because premise number two is true (Nothing does not produce something). But the critic asks, “Why does that something have to be eternal? Aren’t you just assuming the eternality of that something that brought into existence the something that now exists (no.1)?"
Not at all. Stay with me on this. There is a reason why that something (no. 3) must be eternal. To say that that something (in premise no. 3) did not always exist would be to say that it was finite. Right?
If that something (in premise no. 3) was finite, that means it had a beginning. If that something had a beginning we are back at our start. How did that something (premise no. 3) begin? Did nothing create something? No, that’s impossible. Nothing can’t do anything.
Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. If we deny this we are saying that nothing produced something from nothing and by nothing. But this is absurd. So we are left with the only other option and that is that something in no. 3 must have always existed.
Do you understand why premise 3 must be true?
Now, there are only two options as to what that “something (No.3) always existed might be:
A. The universe, or
B. Something outside the universe
The fourth premise in my argument is this:
4. The universe has not always existed.
In 1948, a theory known as The Steady State Theory, was set forth, that proposed that the universe was eternal (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 102). It stated that the universe has always been. “If this theory is correct the critics of Christianity said, “there is no need for a Creator. Well, the theory sounded good on paper for the atheist, for a while but the scientific evidence against it has since demolished the theory.
Numerous evidences from the field of astronomy now overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe actually began to exist a finite time ago in an event when all the physical space, time, matter, and energy in the universe came into being.
And that is exactly what the Bible affirms, that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1).
[continue]
...when challenged to prove the existence of God his answer is that 'He revealed Himself to us'...
False. Here are the facts:
A Logical Argument for God's Existence
1. Something exists.
That seems pretty simple, right? Can we all agree that this is true? Even the atheist will agree that this is true. This seems to be undeniably true. Anybody who would say that “nothing exists would have to exist in order to say that in which case he would be defeating his own statement.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
This statement is of course true as well. Think about it. It would be absurd to say that nothing could create or produce something.
Nothing is no-thing. Nothing does not have the power to do anything at all, does it! Even David Hume one of the most zealous skeptics of Christianity ever agreed to the truth of this second premise. He said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause. (Feb. 1754).
To propose that nothing could do anything at all sounds utterly foolish. A basic law of physics (and if you ever had a physics class you’ll recall this) is called the Law of Conservation. It states: “From nothing, comes nothing.
This supports our second premise as well. So if the first two premises are true, that 1. Something exists and 2. Nothing does not produce something, then a rather astounding conclusion logically follows...
3. Something must have always existed.
Why’s that? Okay, well, let’s walk back through this. Something now exists. Nothing does not produce something, then something must have always existed.
Why must something have always existed? To have brought the “something that now exists (in No.1) into existence. Why? Because premise number two is true (Nothing does not produce something). But the critic asks, “Why does that something have to be eternal? Aren’t you just assuming the eternality of that something that brought into existence the something that now exists (no.1)?"
Not at all. Stay with me on this. There is a reason why that something (no. 3) must be eternal. To say that that something (in premise no. 3) did not always exist would be to say that it was finite. Right?
If that something (in premise no. 3) was finite, that means it had a beginning. If that something had a beginning we are back at our start. How did that something (premise no. 3) begin? Did nothing create something? No, that’s impossible. Nothing can’t do anything.
Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. If we deny this we are saying that nothing produced something from nothing and by nothing. But this is absurd. So we are left with the only other option and that is that something in no. 3 must have always existed.
Do you understand why premise 3 must be true?
Now, there are only two options as to what that “something (No.3) always existed might be:
A. The universe, or
B. Something outside the universe
The fourth premise in my argument is this:
4. The universe has not always existed.
In 1948, a theory known as The Steady State Theory, was set forth, that proposed that the universe was eternal (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 102). It stated that the universe has always been. “If this theory is correct the critics of Christianity said, “there is no need for a Creator. Well, the theory sounded good on paper for the atheist, for a while but the scientific evidence against it has since demolished the theory.
Numerous evidences from the field of astronomy now overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe actually began to exist a finite time ago in an event when all the physical space, time, matter, and energy in the universe came into being.
And that is exactly what the Bible affirms, that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1).
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
A Logical Argument for God's Existence
[continued]
Let me share with you just 2 facts of science that deal a fatal deathblow to the theory of an eternal universe. The first blow to this theory that universe is eternal is¦
A. THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES
Prior to the 1920’s, scientists had always assumed that the universe as a whole was stationary. [Of course they acknowledged that there was movement of planets in solar systems, etc.]
But in 1929 an alarming thing happened. An astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from distant galaxies appeared to be redder than it should. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led was that the light is redder because the universe is growing apart; it is expanding! When the source of incoming light is moving away from an object the light that you see is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The light of the galaxies was redder because they are moving away from us. But here is the interesting part: Hubble not only showed that the universe is expanding, but that it is expanding the same in all directions. Scientists have concluded that the galaxies in the universe are not stationary but are expanding further and further away from each other from what appears to be some stationary point.
Imagine that I were to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon that represented galaxies and then blow up the balloon. If you were to suck the air back out, or let’s say rewind the film, go back in time—what would happen? The dots would converge, i.e. get closer to one another. The same is true with our universe. If you go back in time scientists say that the stars would converge into a singular space, where they exploded into being:
This explosion or beginning of the universe is often referred to as, you know the name:
“THE BIG BANG." We call it Genesis 1:1!! It’s incredible that the scientific evidence that helps establish Big Bang theory also helps verify what the Christian theist has always believed: That the universe actually had a beginning!!
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens..."
A second blow to the theory that the universe is eternal comes from the facts behind...
B. THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of the best, most established laws in all of science. In fact, there is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts it. It states that: the amount of useable energy in any closed system (which the universe is) is decreasing. In other words, the useable energy in the universe is dying out like the batteries in a flashlight.
Scientists acknowledge that the sun can not burn forever, and that even our galaxy itself will one day, if left to itself, burn up and die out. So we reason that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true for all closed systems, and it is, then it is true for the universe as a whole. The universe according to the atheist is a gigantic closed system, since to them it is all there is and there is nothing outside it. This means that the universe is currently running out of useable energy.
If it is running out of useable energy, then it cannot be eternal, for a finite amount of energy (no matter how large the quantity.) could never have brought the universe through an eternity of time.
Flashlight Illustration: Let's say you stumbled upon this flashlight and you’re curious how long it has been burning. So you do a little investigation. Through your investigation you discover that the batteries are going down hill. They are running out of energy. You turn to a scientist standing nearby and ask him: “How long do you think the flashlight’s been burning? Now, what if he was to tell you: “It’s always been on. It’s been lit like this and burning like this forever.
Hunh? Would you believe that? Of course not. There’s a problem with that isn’t there?
Batteries with a finite amount of energy (seen in the fact that they are steadily running out of energy) could never have kept the light burning for an eternal amount of time. It would have run out of batteries trillions of years ago!! So it is with the universe. The amount of useable energy is steadily decreasing, thus proving it impossible that it has been burning for all eternity. So, it is scientific discoveries like¦
1. The Motion of the Galaxies
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (and other discoveries like the background radiation echo discovered by Penzias and Wilson) ...that have blown the Steady State Theory into smithereens.
Now, if my premises are all true:
1. Something exists.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
3. Something must have always existed.
4. The universe has not always existed
...then a conclusion can be validly drawn from these premises.
5. There must be an eternal power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.
Do you think this is a sound argument thus far? I believe it is! The whole argument could come crashing down, if even just one of the premises could be proven to be false. Causing the argument to crash wouldn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, it would just prove that the argument is not valid. Let’s take it a bit further.
6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.
I take that to be self-evident. This also seems to be undeniable. Anybody who would say that there is not intelligent life in the universe would be uttering an intelligent statement from an intelligent being.
To understand any of this study this far (even if you disagreed with what I was saying) would prove that this sixth premise is true...for it has taken a great degree of intelligence to understand the thousands of combinations of syllables that I have been uttering.
So this premise is undeniably true as well.
Let’s take it further.
7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.
How could a material, inanimate, unintelligent, unconscious force produce on intelligent living, breathing being? It takes a living, intelligent being to create a living, intelligent being. Non-life does not produce life. You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to...
--wind
--rain
--the forces of nature
--chance
--and millions of years of time and you would never get a Mount Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention.
It would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and even more so, it takes intelligence to create a real human being.
8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.
That intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe that created the universe is God.
If the universe has not always existed, and something must have always existed, then something or someone outside of the universe must have always existed, I propose to you that that person is an intelligent, living, powerful being, i.e. God.
CONCLUSION
For me it is more reasonable to believe, based on the laws of logic as well as the observable scientific evidence that God exists, rather than to believe what the atheist believes that nothing, times nobody, equals everything we see in the universe.
Throw in the fact that we also have the testimony of our conscience and the revelation of God in the scriptures and I believe we are standing on solid ground when we affirm:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
[Charlie H. Campbell adopted major premises from a debate heard on the existence of God by Norman Geisler]
AlwaysBeReady.com
[continued]
Let me share with you just 2 facts of science that deal a fatal deathblow to the theory of an eternal universe. The first blow to this theory that universe is eternal is¦
A. THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES
Prior to the 1920’s, scientists had always assumed that the universe as a whole was stationary. [Of course they acknowledged that there was movement of planets in solar systems, etc.]
But in 1929 an alarming thing happened. An astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from distant galaxies appeared to be redder than it should. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led was that the light is redder because the universe is growing apart; it is expanding! When the source of incoming light is moving away from an object the light that you see is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The light of the galaxies was redder because they are moving away from us. But here is the interesting part: Hubble not only showed that the universe is expanding, but that it is expanding the same in all directions. Scientists have concluded that the galaxies in the universe are not stationary but are expanding further and further away from each other from what appears to be some stationary point.
Imagine that I were to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon that represented galaxies and then blow up the balloon. If you were to suck the air back out, or let’s say rewind the film, go back in time—what would happen? The dots would converge, i.e. get closer to one another. The same is true with our universe. If you go back in time scientists say that the stars would converge into a singular space, where they exploded into being:
This explosion or beginning of the universe is often referred to as, you know the name:
“THE BIG BANG." We call it Genesis 1:1!! It’s incredible that the scientific evidence that helps establish Big Bang theory also helps verify what the Christian theist has always believed: That the universe actually had a beginning!!
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens..."
A second blow to the theory that the universe is eternal comes from the facts behind...
B. THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of the best, most established laws in all of science. In fact, there is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts it. It states that: the amount of useable energy in any closed system (which the universe is) is decreasing. In other words, the useable energy in the universe is dying out like the batteries in a flashlight.
Scientists acknowledge that the sun can not burn forever, and that even our galaxy itself will one day, if left to itself, burn up and die out. So we reason that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true for all closed systems, and it is, then it is true for the universe as a whole. The universe according to the atheist is a gigantic closed system, since to them it is all there is and there is nothing outside it. This means that the universe is currently running out of useable energy.
If it is running out of useable energy, then it cannot be eternal, for a finite amount of energy (no matter how large the quantity.) could never have brought the universe through an eternity of time.
Flashlight Illustration: Let's say you stumbled upon this flashlight and you’re curious how long it has been burning. So you do a little investigation. Through your investigation you discover that the batteries are going down hill. They are running out of energy. You turn to a scientist standing nearby and ask him: “How long do you think the flashlight’s been burning? Now, what if he was to tell you: “It’s always been on. It’s been lit like this and burning like this forever.
Hunh? Would you believe that? Of course not. There’s a problem with that isn’t there?
Batteries with a finite amount of energy (seen in the fact that they are steadily running out of energy) could never have kept the light burning for an eternal amount of time. It would have run out of batteries trillions of years ago!! So it is with the universe. The amount of useable energy is steadily decreasing, thus proving it impossible that it has been burning for all eternity. So, it is scientific discoveries like¦
1. The Motion of the Galaxies
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (and other discoveries like the background radiation echo discovered by Penzias and Wilson) ...that have blown the Steady State Theory into smithereens.
Now, if my premises are all true:
1. Something exists.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
3. Something must have always existed.
4. The universe has not always existed
...then a conclusion can be validly drawn from these premises.
5. There must be an eternal power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.
Do you think this is a sound argument thus far? I believe it is! The whole argument could come crashing down, if even just one of the premises could be proven to be false. Causing the argument to crash wouldn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, it would just prove that the argument is not valid. Let’s take it a bit further.
6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.
I take that to be self-evident. This also seems to be undeniable. Anybody who would say that there is not intelligent life in the universe would be uttering an intelligent statement from an intelligent being.
To understand any of this study this far (even if you disagreed with what I was saying) would prove that this sixth premise is true...for it has taken a great degree of intelligence to understand the thousands of combinations of syllables that I have been uttering.
So this premise is undeniably true as well.
Let’s take it further.
7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.
How could a material, inanimate, unintelligent, unconscious force produce on intelligent living, breathing being? It takes a living, intelligent being to create a living, intelligent being. Non-life does not produce life. You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to...
--wind
--rain
--the forces of nature
--chance
--and millions of years of time and you would never get a Mount Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention.
It would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and even more so, it takes intelligence to create a real human being.
8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.
That intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe that created the universe is God.
If the universe has not always existed, and something must have always existed, then something or someone outside of the universe must have always existed, I propose to you that that person is an intelligent, living, powerful being, i.e. God.
CONCLUSION
For me it is more reasonable to believe, based on the laws of logic as well as the observable scientific evidence that God exists, rather than to believe what the atheist believes that nothing, times nobody, equals everything we see in the universe.
Throw in the fact that we also have the testimony of our conscience and the revelation of God in the scriptures and I believe we are standing on solid ground when we affirm:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
[Charlie H. Campbell adopted major premises from a debate heard on the existence of God by Norman Geisler]
AlwaysBeReady.com
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Throw in the fact that we also have the testimony of our conscience and the revelation of God in the scriptures and I believe we are standing on solid ground when we affirm:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
Isn't that exactly what I said you'd say?
I don't intend of going through all the rest of the twaddle - we've seen it all before. It's the same tired unfounded claims that you always come up with - so much the same that, as I have just proved, we know exactly what you're going to say - Damn, I must be a Holy Prophet. Bow down & Worship me!!
As you say, in the beginning there was something. In that very statement you have totally contradicted Genesis 1.1., because you also claim that in the beginning God created the heavens & the earth - out of nothing. Yet you also claim that he must have come from nothing, but if nothing comes of nothing, there had to be something there first, therefore he couldn't have created it. Now comes my next prophecy - You go on to say that he was there from the beginning of time, which just continues to contradict yourself. The same old loop.
Face it - your logic is not only flawed, it's non-existent. There is no evidence whatsoever to prove the existence of a God, but plenty to disprove it, and no amount of allegorical 'evidence' from any number of 'ministerial experts' is ever going to change that.
Even the Conspiracy Theorists in their claims that Man never landed on the Moon are more plausible than the Ministries of Christian Science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1461886 wrote:
As you say, in the beginning there was something. In that very statement you have totally contradicted Genesis 1.1., because you also claim that in the beginning God created the heavens & the earth - out of nothing. Yet you also claim that he must have come from nothing, but if nothing comes of nothing, there had to be something there first, therefore he couldn't have created it.
When did I say God came from nothing? Since something exists, there must be something that created it. Or put it this way:
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.
Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That would be God.
Now comes my next prophecy - You go on to say that he was there from the beginning of time, which just continues to contradict yourself. The same old loop.
In what way am I contradicting myself? Actually, I never said God existed from the beginning of time. He created time. He is outside of time in an area called eternity. He has revealed that He has always existed.
Face it - your logic is not only flawed, it's non-existent. There is no evidence whatsoever to prove the existence of a God, but plenty to disprove it, and no amount of allegorical 'evidence' from any number of 'ministerial experts' is ever going to change that.
Where is that evidence disproving God? The logic is not only not flawed, it is impossible to rationally dispute and it undeniably proves the existence of God to anyone able to reason logically. This is what you are unwilling to face.
As you say, in the beginning there was something. In that very statement you have totally contradicted Genesis 1.1., because you also claim that in the beginning God created the heavens & the earth - out of nothing. Yet you also claim that he must have come from nothing, but if nothing comes of nothing, there had to be something there first, therefore he couldn't have created it.
When did I say God came from nothing? Since something exists, there must be something that created it. Or put it this way:
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.
Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That would be God.
Now comes my next prophecy - You go on to say that he was there from the beginning of time, which just continues to contradict yourself. The same old loop.
In what way am I contradicting myself? Actually, I never said God existed from the beginning of time. He created time. He is outside of time in an area called eternity. He has revealed that He has always existed.
Face it - your logic is not only flawed, it's non-existent. There is no evidence whatsoever to prove the existence of a God, but plenty to disprove it, and no amount of allegorical 'evidence' from any number of 'ministerial experts' is ever going to change that.
Where is that evidence disproving God? The logic is not only not flawed, it is impossible to rationally dispute and it undeniably proves the existence of God to anyone able to reason logically. This is what you are unwilling to face.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1461897 wrote: All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That would be God.
And you claim that this is not a contradiction?
All things must be caused to exist.
There must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.
You say it is impossible to be, whilst at the same time saying that it has to be because it is impossible to be.
In what way am I contradicting myself? Actually, I never said God existed from the beginning of time. He created time. He is outside of time in an area called eternity. He has revealed that He has always existed.
Precisely as I predicted. (Nostradamus, eat your heart out).
Where is that evidence disproving God? The logic is not only not flawed, it is impossible to rationally dispute and it undeniably proves the existence of God to anyone able to reason logically. This is what you are unwilling to face.
To make up a reason when you can't think of an answer & refuse to be convinced otherwise when answers are found is what is truly irrational. As I've said before - I know that Pink Elephants are what created God. Those elephants have revealed this to me. Now, you prove otherwise.
Evidence which exists & is demonstrable proves the existence of the Big Bang - a physical reaction causing a chance spontaneous reaction - not a conscious divine act. There is also plenty of Terrestrial evidence for the formation of the earth & the subsequent evolution of life over billions of year, as opposed to the Biblical claim of less than 10, 000 years.
'Evidence' of a God is purely anecdotal with no hard evidence whatsoever.
And you claim that this is not a contradiction?
All things must be caused to exist.
There must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.
You say it is impossible to be, whilst at the same time saying that it has to be because it is impossible to be.
In what way am I contradicting myself? Actually, I never said God existed from the beginning of time. He created time. He is outside of time in an area called eternity. He has revealed that He has always existed.
Precisely as I predicted. (Nostradamus, eat your heart out).
Where is that evidence disproving God? The logic is not only not flawed, it is impossible to rationally dispute and it undeniably proves the existence of God to anyone able to reason logically. This is what you are unwilling to face.
To make up a reason when you can't think of an answer & refuse to be convinced otherwise when answers are found is what is truly irrational. As I've said before - I know that Pink Elephants are what created God. Those elephants have revealed this to me. Now, you prove otherwise.
Evidence which exists & is demonstrable proves the existence of the Big Bang - a physical reaction causing a chance spontaneous reaction - not a conscious divine act. There is also plenty of Terrestrial evidence for the formation of the earth & the subsequent evolution of life over billions of year, as opposed to the Biblical claim of less than 10, 000 years.
'Evidence' of a God is purely anecdotal with no hard evidence whatsoever.
Science Disproves Evolution
DNA and Proteins
DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins (a), but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA (b). Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other (c). Therefore, the components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.
Some of these necessary protein systems decode the DNA, store the DNA (histones spools), transcribe it into messenger RNA, and assemble proteins (ribosomes). These systems, present in each cell, are extremely complex.
One of the most studied proteins in mammals, including humans, is called p53. It binds to thousands of DNA sites and influences cell growth, death, and structure. It is involved in fertility and early embryonic development. It also stifles cancers by repairing DNA, suppressing tumors, and killing genetically damaged cells (d). How could DNA have survived unless p53 and its many functions already existed?
In each human, tens of thousands of genes are damaged daily (e)! Also, when a cell divides, its DNA at times is copied with errors. Every organism has machinery that identifies and repairs damaged and mistranslated DNA (f). Without such repair systems, the organism would quickly deteriorate and die. If evolution happened, each organism would have become extinct before these DNA repair mechanisms could evolve.
Life’s complexity is mind boggling—not something that random process could ever produce.
a. Ribosomes, complex structures that assemble proteins, have or require about 200 different proteins. The number depends somewhat on whether the organism is a bacterium, eukaryote, or archaea.
b. Richard E. Dickerson, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 73.
“The amino acids must link together to form proteins, and the other chemicals must join up to make nucleic acids, including the vital DNA. The seemingly insurmountable obstacle is the way the two reactions are inseparably linked—one can’t happen without the other. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein. Hitching, p. 66.
c. “The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in the nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for this machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced! This presents a paradox of the ‘chicken and egg’ variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile. John C. Walton, (Lecturer in Chemistry, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland), “Organization and the Origin of Life, Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30–31.
“Genes and enzymes are linked together in a living cell—two interlocked systems, each supporting the other. It is difficult to see how either could manage alone. Yet if we are to avoid invoking either a Creator or a very large improbability, we must accept that one occurred before the other in the origin of life. But which one was it? We are left with the ancient riddle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Shapiro, p. 135.
“Because DNA and proteins depend so intimately on each other for their survival, it’s hard to imagine one of them having evolved first. But it’s just as implausible for them to have emerged simultaneously out of a prebiotic soup. Carl Zimmer, “How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise? Science, Vol. 309, 1 July 2005, p. 89.
d. Mitch Leslie, “Brothers in Arms Against Cancer, Science, Vol. 331, 25 March 2011, pp. 1551–1552.
Erika Check Hayden, “Life Is Complicated, Nature, Vol. 464, 1 April 2010, pp. 664–667.
e. “... the human body receives tens of thousands of DNA lesions per day. Stephen P. Jackson and Jiri Bartek, “The DNA-Damage Response in Human Biology and Disease, Nature, Vol. 461, 22 October 2009, p. 1071.
f. Tomas Lindahl and Richard D. Wood, “Quality Control by DNA Repair, Science, Vol. 286, 3 December 1999, pp. 1897-1905.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Oh, surprise, surprise - more pasting from nonsensical publications.
In summary all that twaddle is trying to say is that every now & then errors occur in DNA & that if this was the case then the species would become extinct.
As far as DNA producing errors is concerned - of course it does. That's how evolution works. However, the article is assuming that every error has a detrimental effect. Definitely a case of the glass being half empty. There are 3 possibilities ensuing from a DNA error (mutation):
1. It makes no real difference one way or the other.
2. It has a detrimental effect, causing those with the mutation to die off.
3. It has an advantageous effect, causing the species to thrive & pass on that mutation to subsequent generations.
As usual you are continuing to view the whole thing of evolution over the short period & imagining it to be a case of POW - one minute one species - the next, an entirely different species. It doesn't work this way. It happens over millions of years with microscopic changes happening all the time. When you sit & watch the hour hand on your watch can you see it moving? Highly unlikely, but do you deny that it's moving (unless you happen to have a knackered watch, of course).
Furthermore, evolution does not only occur through random genetic mutation, but also with cross breeding. Most of the time different species are genetically incompatible & can't conceive even if they get to mate, but occasionally, when there is a close enough similarity an offspring will ensue which is an entirely different species, but with traits of each of the parents. A typical example is that of the Mule (the offspring of a Horse & a Donkey). While 90% of the time these offspring are sterile, occasionally ones will be born which are fertile. Lions & Tigers are known to be genetically compatible although, of course, in the wild they would never mate as they come from different countries.
I don't know of the facts in this case, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Apes & Humans are also genetically compatible - perhaps not all of the time, and if any offspring were to occur then there is a good chance that they would be barren also, but there is still that potential, as with the Mule, of there being that small minority which might continue. There is even a theory that Neanderthals were actually a different species, evolved in a different direction from the Apes than Humans, but due to cross-breeding the Human gene was the dominant one, causing the Neanderthals to become extinct.
Natural Cross Breeding & Genetic Mutation as methods of evolution are not a matter of either / or, but methods which co-exist with each other.
In summary all that twaddle is trying to say is that every now & then errors occur in DNA & that if this was the case then the species would become extinct.
As far as DNA producing errors is concerned - of course it does. That's how evolution works. However, the article is assuming that every error has a detrimental effect. Definitely a case of the glass being half empty. There are 3 possibilities ensuing from a DNA error (mutation):
1. It makes no real difference one way or the other.
2. It has a detrimental effect, causing those with the mutation to die off.
3. It has an advantageous effect, causing the species to thrive & pass on that mutation to subsequent generations.
As usual you are continuing to view the whole thing of evolution over the short period & imagining it to be a case of POW - one minute one species - the next, an entirely different species. It doesn't work this way. It happens over millions of years with microscopic changes happening all the time. When you sit & watch the hour hand on your watch can you see it moving? Highly unlikely, but do you deny that it's moving (unless you happen to have a knackered watch, of course).
Furthermore, evolution does not only occur through random genetic mutation, but also with cross breeding. Most of the time different species are genetically incompatible & can't conceive even if they get to mate, but occasionally, when there is a close enough similarity an offspring will ensue which is an entirely different species, but with traits of each of the parents. A typical example is that of the Mule (the offspring of a Horse & a Donkey). While 90% of the time these offspring are sterile, occasionally ones will be born which are fertile. Lions & Tigers are known to be genetically compatible although, of course, in the wild they would never mate as they come from different countries.
I don't know of the facts in this case, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Apes & Humans are also genetically compatible - perhaps not all of the time, and if any offspring were to occur then there is a good chance that they would be barren also, but there is still that potential, as with the Mule, of there being that small minority which might continue. There is even a theory that Neanderthals were actually a different species, evolved in a different direction from the Apes than Humans, but due to cross-breeding the Human gene was the dominant one, causing the Neanderthals to become extinct.
Natural Cross Breeding & Genetic Mutation as methods of evolution are not a matter of either / or, but methods which co-exist with each other.
Science Disproves Evolution
Handedness: Left and Right 1
Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always “right-handed. (They are called right-handed, because a beam of polarized light passing through them rotates like a right-handed screw.) Nucleotides rarely form outside life, but when they do, half are left-handed, and half are right-handed. If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes, they would have “mixed-handedness and therefore could not evolve life’s genetic material. In fact, “mixed genetic material cannot even copy itself (a).
Each type of amino acid, when found in nonliving material or when synthesized in the laboratory, comes in two chemically equivalent forms. Half are right-handed, and half are left-handed—mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed (b) —except in some diseased or aging tissue (c).
(a). “Equally disappointing, we can induce copying of the original template only when we run our experiments with nucleotides having a right-handed configuration. All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited. Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth, Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.
“There is no explanation why cells use L [left-handed] amino acids to synthesize their proteins but D [right-handed] ribose or D-deoxyribose to synthesize their nucleotides or nucleic acids. In particular, the incorporation of even a single L-ribose or L-deoxyribose residue into a nucleic acid, if it should ever occur in the course of cellular syntheses, could seriously interfere with vital structure-function relationships. The well-known double helical DNA structure does not allow the presence of L-deoxyribose; the replication and transcription mechanisms generally require that any wrong sugar such as L-deoxyribose has to be eliminated, that is, the optical purity of the D-sugars units has to be 100%. Dose, p. 352.
(b). An important exception occurs in a component in cell membranes of eubacteria. There the amino acids are right-handed. This has led many to conclude that they must have evolved separately from all other bacteria. Because evolving the first living cell is so improbable, having it happen twice, in effect, compounds the improbability. [See Adrian Barnett, “The Second Coming: Did Life Evolve on Earth More Than Once? New Scientist, Vol. 157, No. 2121, 14 February 1998, p. 19.]
(c). Recent discoveries have found that some amino acids, most notably aspartic acid, flip (at certain locations in certain proteins) from the normal left-handed form to the right-handed form. Flipping increases with age and correlates with disease, such as Alzheimer’s disease, cataracts, and arteriosclerosis. As one ages, flipping even accumulates in facial skin, but not other skin. [See Noriko Fujii, “D-Amino Acid in Elderly Tissues, Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Vol. 28, September 2005, pp. 1585–1589.]
If life evolved, why did this destructive tendency to flip not destroy cells long before complete organisms evolved?
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You know, despite the length of this thread, I reckon I've already posted more than you have on the matter. Everything else is from your ill informed hero, Walt Brown, or the loony Ministries.
As for his explanation of handedness, what utter bollocks. Try checking out valid sites on the matter before quoting from your book of fairy tales.
What causes some people to be left-handed, and why are fewer people left-handed than right-handed? - Scientific American
Once again WB refers to "New Scientific Evidence" without citing any sources for this supposed evidence, which means no evidence at all, other than "This bloke down the pub said..."
As for genetic aging this, is also something that has evolved, even in more recent years. The average human life span has nearly double over the past 500 years. Sure, a great deal can be attributed to medicine & lifestyle. Others might claim diet as well, although our diet these days is far less healthy than that of our ancestors.
Aging is predetermined in DNA. It is the reason why will mate once, lay their eggs & die within a matter of a few days, having no further reason to continue living. I can't be certain, but I suspect that humans are the only ones who continue to live for any length of time after the menopause.
When Dolly, the sheep hit the world headlines by being cloned, it appeared that the offspring clone, despite having been a newborn lamb had the DNA of an adult sheep & therefore only had the same predetermined life span.
As for his explanation of handedness, what utter bollocks. Try checking out valid sites on the matter before quoting from your book of fairy tales.
What causes some people to be left-handed, and why are fewer people left-handed than right-handed? - Scientific American
Once again WB refers to "New Scientific Evidence" without citing any sources for this supposed evidence, which means no evidence at all, other than "This bloke down the pub said..."
As for genetic aging this, is also something that has evolved, even in more recent years. The average human life span has nearly double over the past 500 years. Sure, a great deal can be attributed to medicine & lifestyle. Others might claim diet as well, although our diet these days is far less healthy than that of our ancestors.
Aging is predetermined in DNA. It is the reason why will mate once, lay their eggs & die within a matter of a few days, having no further reason to continue living. I can't be certain, but I suspect that humans are the only ones who continue to live for any length of time after the menopause.
When Dolly, the sheep hit the world headlines by being cloned, it appeared that the offspring clone, despite having been a newborn lamb had the DNA of an adult sheep & therefore only had the same predetermined life span.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1462949 wrote:
As for genetic aging this, is also something that has evolved, even in more recent years. The average human life span has nearly double over the past 500 years. Sure, a great deal can be attributed to medicine & lifestyle. Others might claim diet as well, although our diet these days is far less healthy than that of our ancestors.
Do you suppose diet had something to do with people living over 900 years a few thousand years ago? Or was the environment different before the Flood? Or maybe both.
As for genetic aging this, is also something that has evolved, even in more recent years. The average human life span has nearly double over the past 500 years. Sure, a great deal can be attributed to medicine & lifestyle. Others might claim diet as well, although our diet these days is far less healthy than that of our ancestors.
Do you suppose diet had something to do with people living over 900 years a few thousand years ago? Or was the environment different before the Flood? Or maybe both.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
As I said - Fairy Stories. The only 'evidence' you cite is from your Fairy Tale Book, the Bible. There is no way that anyone lived that long. Even if they referred to a Month as being a Year (which is probably more likely), then 75 would be a very goodly age for the period.
Secondly, you are presupposing the existence of 'The Flood'. Yes, the flood existed, of sorts, but long before the time of any terrestrial life (and Darkness Was Upon The Face Of The Deep). Long before the continents rose from beneath the depths, caused by seismic activity, and began to shift, steadily allowing new life to form upon them. Therefore, there was no diet for humans before the flood as there were no humans to have diets of any kind.
These are RATIONAL explanations for the chronological geological history of the earth & the life upon it. You continue to base everything in the 'evidence' of a single book of stories handed down over thousands of generations by word of mouth, through thousands more translations & reinterpretations before even being written down for the first time, only to be translated & reinterpreted over & over again.
'If' the ages of the generations were as the Bible states, then how long was it before Moses came along, who is said tom have written the Genesis, the Fist Book of Moses? He wasn't there. It all happened thousands of years before he was born - yet he knows everything that was said, and everything that God thought (without even telling anyone what he was thinking, I might add).
I know for certain that there are some really wicked witches who live in the woods in gingerbread houses who eat little boys & girls. I know this because it says so in the book.
Secondly, you are presupposing the existence of 'The Flood'. Yes, the flood existed, of sorts, but long before the time of any terrestrial life (and Darkness Was Upon The Face Of The Deep). Long before the continents rose from beneath the depths, caused by seismic activity, and began to shift, steadily allowing new life to form upon them. Therefore, there was no diet for humans before the flood as there were no humans to have diets of any kind.
These are RATIONAL explanations for the chronological geological history of the earth & the life upon it. You continue to base everything in the 'evidence' of a single book of stories handed down over thousands of generations by word of mouth, through thousands more translations & reinterpretations before even being written down for the first time, only to be translated & reinterpreted over & over again.
'If' the ages of the generations were as the Bible states, then how long was it before Moses came along, who is said tom have written the Genesis, the Fist Book of Moses? He wasn't there. It all happened thousands of years before he was born - yet he knows everything that was said, and everything that God thought (without even telling anyone what he was thinking, I might add).
I know for certain that there are some really wicked witches who live in the woods in gingerbread houses who eat little boys & girls. I know this because it says so in the book.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1462961 wrote: As I said - Fairy Stories. The only 'evidence' you cite is from your Fairy Tale Book, the Bible. There is no way that anyone lived that long. Even if they referred to a Month as being a Year (which is probably more likely), then 75 would be a very goodly age for the period.
Here is some information about that "Fairy Tale Book" you may have overlooked:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecies
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Here is some information about that "Fairy Tale Book" you may have overlooked:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecies
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1462961 wrote:
Secondly, you are presupposing the existence of 'The Flood'. Yes, the flood existed, of sorts, but long before the time of any terrestrial life (and Darkness Was Upon The Face Of The Deep). Long before the continents rose from beneath the depths, caused by seismic activity, and began to shift, steadily allowing new life to form upon them. Therefore, there was no diet for humans before the flood as there were no humans to have diets of any kind.
Actually, the mountains and continents rising was caused by the flood:
Figure 41: Fountains of the Great Deep. Notice the bulge of western Africa beginning to form.
Fountains of the Great Deep
If a culture ignored, for any reason, a past event as cataclysmic as a global flood, major misunderstandings or errors would creep into science and society. One of the first would be the explanation for fossils. Typically, Fossil A lies below Fossil B, which lies below Fossil C, etc. If flood explanations were weak or disallowed, then evolution would provide an answer: Organism A evolved into B, which later evolved into C. Fossil layers would represent vast amounts of time. Other geologic features could then easily fit into that time frame. With so much time available, possible explanations multiply—explanations not easily tested in less than a million years. A century after Darwin, evolutionary explanations would be given for the universe, chemical elements, heavenly bodies, earth, and life. Part I of this book shows that these ideas are false.
Part II will show, in ways an interested layman can understand, the flaws in these geologic explanations and that a global flood, with vast and unique consequences, did occur. For example, coal, oil, and methane did not form over hundreds of millions of years; they formed in months. Fossils and layered strata did not form over a billion years; they formed in months. The Grand Canyon did not form in millions of years; it formed in weeks. Major mountain ranges did not form over hundreds of millions of years; each formed in hours. These statements may appear shocking, until one has examined the evidence in Part II. You will be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to debate these matters with someone who understands the flood. [See pages 535–538.]
Ironically, some leading creationists who believe in a global flood have contributed to its frequent rejection by advocating unsound mechanisms for the flood. They have failed to clearly answer people’s most basic questions: “Where did so much water come from, and where did it go?
One such explanation is the canopy theory. (Pages 484–492 examine its many problems.) Others who know of these problems have proposed an equally weak explanation called catastrophic plate tectonics. Basically, it is the flawed plate tectonic theory speeded up a millionfold by assumed miracles and unworkable mechanisms.
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:
Secondly, you are presupposing the existence of 'The Flood'. Yes, the flood existed, of sorts, but long before the time of any terrestrial life (and Darkness Was Upon The Face Of The Deep). Long before the continents rose from beneath the depths, caused by seismic activity, and began to shift, steadily allowing new life to form upon them. Therefore, there was no diet for humans before the flood as there were no humans to have diets of any kind.
Actually, the mountains and continents rising was caused by the flood:
Figure 41: Fountains of the Great Deep. Notice the bulge of western Africa beginning to form.
Fountains of the Great Deep
If a culture ignored, for any reason, a past event as cataclysmic as a global flood, major misunderstandings or errors would creep into science and society. One of the first would be the explanation for fossils. Typically, Fossil A lies below Fossil B, which lies below Fossil C, etc. If flood explanations were weak or disallowed, then evolution would provide an answer: Organism A evolved into B, which later evolved into C. Fossil layers would represent vast amounts of time. Other geologic features could then easily fit into that time frame. With so much time available, possible explanations multiply—explanations not easily tested in less than a million years. A century after Darwin, evolutionary explanations would be given for the universe, chemical elements, heavenly bodies, earth, and life. Part I of this book shows that these ideas are false.
Part II will show, in ways an interested layman can understand, the flaws in these geologic explanations and that a global flood, with vast and unique consequences, did occur. For example, coal, oil, and methane did not form over hundreds of millions of years; they formed in months. Fossils and layered strata did not form over a billion years; they formed in months. The Grand Canyon did not form in millions of years; it formed in weeks. Major mountain ranges did not form over hundreds of millions of years; each formed in hours. These statements may appear shocking, until one has examined the evidence in Part II. You will be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to debate these matters with someone who understands the flood. [See pages 535–538.]
Ironically, some leading creationists who believe in a global flood have contributed to its frequent rejection by advocating unsound mechanisms for the flood. They have failed to clearly answer people’s most basic questions: “Where did so much water come from, and where did it go?
One such explanation is the canopy theory. (Pages 484–492 examine its many problems.) Others who know of these problems have proposed an equally weak explanation called catastrophic plate tectonics. Basically, it is the flawed plate tectonic theory speeded up a millionfold by assumed miracles and unworkable mechanisms.
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part II:
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1462961 wrote:
You continue to base everything in the 'evidence' of a single book of stories handed down over thousands of generations by word of mouth, through thousands more translations & reinterpretations before even being written down for the first time, only to be translated & reinterpreted over & over again.
The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the accuracy of Bible copying.
There are three lines of evidence that support the claim that the biblical documents are reliable: these are the bibliographic test, the internal test, and the external test. The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second test deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third test looks to outside confirmation of the biblical content.
I. The Bibliographic Test
A. The Quantity of Manuscripts
In the case of the Old Testament, there are a small number of Hebrew manuscripts, because the Jewish scribes ceremonially buried imperfect and worn manuscripts. Many ancient manuscripts were also lost or destroyed during Israel's turbulent history. Also, the Old Testament text was standardized by the Masoretic Jews by the sixth century A.D., and all manuscripts that deviated from the Masoretic Text were evidently eliminated. But the existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures).
The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20.
B. The Quality of Manuscripts
Because of the great reverence the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed.
As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this, because these Hebrew scrolls antedate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But in spite of this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style.
While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism.
C. The Time Span of Manuscripts
Apart from some fragments, the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the Old Testament is dated at A.D. 895. This is due to the systematic destruction of worn manuscripts by the Masoretic scribes. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68 drastically reduced the time span from the writing of the Old Testament books to our earliest copies of them.
The time span of the New Testament manuscripts is exceptional. The manuscripts written on papyrus came from the second and third centuries A.D. The John Rylands Fragment (P52) of the Gospel of John is dated at A.D. 117-38, only a few decades after the Gospel was written. The Bodmer Papyri are dated from A.D. 175-225, and the Chester Beatty Papyri date from about A.D. 250. The time span for most of the New Testament is less than 200 years (and some books are within 100 years) from the date of authorship to the date of our earliest manuscripts. This can be sharply contrasted with the average gap of over 1,000 years between the composition and the earliest copy of the writings of other ancient authors.
To summarize the bibliographic test, the Old and New Testaments enjoy far greater manuscript attestation in terms of quantity, quality, and time span than any other ancient documents.
[continue]
You continue to base everything in the 'evidence' of a single book of stories handed down over thousands of generations by word of mouth, through thousands more translations & reinterpretations before even being written down for the first time, only to be translated & reinterpreted over & over again.
The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the accuracy of Bible copying.
There are three lines of evidence that support the claim that the biblical documents are reliable: these are the bibliographic test, the internal test, and the external test. The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second test deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third test looks to outside confirmation of the biblical content.
I. The Bibliographic Test
A. The Quantity of Manuscripts
In the case of the Old Testament, there are a small number of Hebrew manuscripts, because the Jewish scribes ceremonially buried imperfect and worn manuscripts. Many ancient manuscripts were also lost or destroyed during Israel's turbulent history. Also, the Old Testament text was standardized by the Masoretic Jews by the sixth century A.D., and all manuscripts that deviated from the Masoretic Text were evidently eliminated. But the existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures).
The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20.
B. The Quality of Manuscripts
Because of the great reverence the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed.
As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this, because these Hebrew scrolls antedate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But in spite of this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style.
While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism.
C. The Time Span of Manuscripts
Apart from some fragments, the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the Old Testament is dated at A.D. 895. This is due to the systematic destruction of worn manuscripts by the Masoretic scribes. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68 drastically reduced the time span from the writing of the Old Testament books to our earliest copies of them.
The time span of the New Testament manuscripts is exceptional. The manuscripts written on papyrus came from the second and third centuries A.D. The John Rylands Fragment (P52) of the Gospel of John is dated at A.D. 117-38, only a few decades after the Gospel was written. The Bodmer Papyri are dated from A.D. 175-225, and the Chester Beatty Papyri date from about A.D. 250. The time span for most of the New Testament is less than 200 years (and some books are within 100 years) from the date of authorship to the date of our earliest manuscripts. This can be sharply contrasted with the average gap of over 1,000 years between the composition and the earliest copy of the writings of other ancient authors.
To summarize the bibliographic test, the Old and New Testaments enjoy far greater manuscript attestation in terms of quantity, quality, and time span than any other ancient documents.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[continued]
II. The Internal Test
The second test of the reliability of the biblical documents asks, What claims does the Bible make about itself? This may appear to be circular reasoning. It sounds like we are using the testimony of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. But we are really examining the truth claims of the various authors of the Bible and allowing them to speak for themselves. (Remember that the Bible is not one book but many books woven together.) This provides significant evidence that must not be ignored.
A number of biblical authors claim that their accounts are primary, not secondary. That is, the bulk of the Bible was written by people who were eyewitnesses of the events they recorded. John wrote in his Gospel, And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe (John 19:35; see 21:24). In his first epistle, John wrote, What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of life . . . what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also (1 John 1:1, 3). Peter makes the same point abundantly clear: For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty (2 Peter 1:16; also see Acts 2:22; 1 Peter 5:1).
The independent eyewitness accounts in the New Testament of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ were written by people who were intimately acquainted with Jesus Christ. Their gospels and epistles reveal their integrity and complete commitment to the truth, and they maintained their testimony even through persecution and martyrdom. All the evidence inside and outside the New Testament runs contrary to the claim made by form criticism that the early church distorted the life and teachings of Christ. Most of the New Testament was written between A.D. 47 and 70, and all of it was complete before the end of the first century. There simply was not enough time for myths about Christ to be created and propagated. And the multitudes of eyewitnesses who were alive when the New Testament books began to be circulated would have challenged blatant historical fabrications about the life of Christ. The Bible places great stress on accurate historical details, and this is especially obvious in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, Luke's two-part masterpiece (see his prologue in Luke 1:1-4).
III. The External Test
Because the Scriptures continually refer to historical events, they are verifiable; their accuracy can be checked by external evidence. The chronological details in the prologue to Jeremiah (1:1-3) and in Luke 3:1-2 illustrate this. Ezekiel 1:2 allows us to date Ezekiel's first vision of God to the day (July 31, 592 B.C.).
The historicity of Jesus Christ is well-established by early Roman, Greek, and Jewish sources, and these extra biblical writings affirm the major details of the New Testament portrait of the Lord. The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus made specific references to John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James in his Antiquities of the Jews. In this work, Josephus gives us many background details about the Herods, the Sadducees and Pharisees, the high priests like Annas and Caiaphas, and the Roman emperors mentioned in the gospels and Acts.
We find another early secular reference to Jesus in a letter written a little after A.D. 73 by an imprisoned Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. This letter to his son compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ. Other first- and second-century writers who mention Christ include the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus (Annals) and Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (Epistles), and the Greek satirist Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). Jesus is also mentioned a number of times in the Jewish Talmud.
The Old and New Testaments make abundant references to nations, kings, battles, cities, mountains, rivers, buildings, treaties, customs, economics, politics, dates, etc. Because the historical narratives of the Bible are so specific, many of its details are open to archaeological investigation. While we cannot say that archaeology proves the authority of the Bible, it is fair to say that archaeological evidence has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements. Higher criticism in the 19th century made many damaging claims that would completely overthrow the integrity of the Bible, but the explosion of archaeological knowledge in the 20th century reversed almost all of these claims. Noted archaeologists such as William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and G. Ernest Wright developed a great respect for the historical accuracy of the Scriptures as a result of their work.
Out of the multitude of archaeological discoveries related to the Bible, consider a few examples to illustrate the remarkable external substantiation of biblical claims. Excavations at Nuzi (1925-41), Mari (discovered in 1933), and Alalakh (1937-39; 1946-49) provide helpful background information that fits well with the Genesis stories of the patriarchal period. The Nuzi tablets and Mari letters illustrate the patriarchal customs in great detail, and the Ras Shamra tablets discovered in ancient Ugarit in Syria shed much light on Hebrew prose and poetry and Canaanite culture. The Ebla tablets discovered recently in northern Syria also affirm the antiquity and accuracy of the Book of Genesis.
Some scholars once claimed that the Mosaic Law could not have been written by Moses, because writing was largely unknown at that time and because the law code of the Pentateuch was too sophisticated for that period. But the codified Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860 B.C.), the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.), and the even earlier Ur-Nammu code have refuted these claims.
http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible
II. The Internal Test
The second test of the reliability of the biblical documents asks, What claims does the Bible make about itself? This may appear to be circular reasoning. It sounds like we are using the testimony of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. But we are really examining the truth claims of the various authors of the Bible and allowing them to speak for themselves. (Remember that the Bible is not one book but many books woven together.) This provides significant evidence that must not be ignored.
A number of biblical authors claim that their accounts are primary, not secondary. That is, the bulk of the Bible was written by people who were eyewitnesses of the events they recorded. John wrote in his Gospel, And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe (John 19:35; see 21:24). In his first epistle, John wrote, What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of life . . . what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also (1 John 1:1, 3). Peter makes the same point abundantly clear: For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty (2 Peter 1:16; also see Acts 2:22; 1 Peter 5:1).
The independent eyewitness accounts in the New Testament of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ were written by people who were intimately acquainted with Jesus Christ. Their gospels and epistles reveal their integrity and complete commitment to the truth, and they maintained their testimony even through persecution and martyrdom. All the evidence inside and outside the New Testament runs contrary to the claim made by form criticism that the early church distorted the life and teachings of Christ. Most of the New Testament was written between A.D. 47 and 70, and all of it was complete before the end of the first century. There simply was not enough time for myths about Christ to be created and propagated. And the multitudes of eyewitnesses who were alive when the New Testament books began to be circulated would have challenged blatant historical fabrications about the life of Christ. The Bible places great stress on accurate historical details, and this is especially obvious in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, Luke's two-part masterpiece (see his prologue in Luke 1:1-4).
III. The External Test
Because the Scriptures continually refer to historical events, they are verifiable; their accuracy can be checked by external evidence. The chronological details in the prologue to Jeremiah (1:1-3) and in Luke 3:1-2 illustrate this. Ezekiel 1:2 allows us to date Ezekiel's first vision of God to the day (July 31, 592 B.C.).
The historicity of Jesus Christ is well-established by early Roman, Greek, and Jewish sources, and these extra biblical writings affirm the major details of the New Testament portrait of the Lord. The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus made specific references to John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James in his Antiquities of the Jews. In this work, Josephus gives us many background details about the Herods, the Sadducees and Pharisees, the high priests like Annas and Caiaphas, and the Roman emperors mentioned in the gospels and Acts.
We find another early secular reference to Jesus in a letter written a little after A.D. 73 by an imprisoned Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. This letter to his son compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ. Other first- and second-century writers who mention Christ include the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus (Annals) and Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (Epistles), and the Greek satirist Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). Jesus is also mentioned a number of times in the Jewish Talmud.
The Old and New Testaments make abundant references to nations, kings, battles, cities, mountains, rivers, buildings, treaties, customs, economics, politics, dates, etc. Because the historical narratives of the Bible are so specific, many of its details are open to archaeological investigation. While we cannot say that archaeology proves the authority of the Bible, it is fair to say that archaeological evidence has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements. Higher criticism in the 19th century made many damaging claims that would completely overthrow the integrity of the Bible, but the explosion of archaeological knowledge in the 20th century reversed almost all of these claims. Noted archaeologists such as William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and G. Ernest Wright developed a great respect for the historical accuracy of the Scriptures as a result of their work.
Out of the multitude of archaeological discoveries related to the Bible, consider a few examples to illustrate the remarkable external substantiation of biblical claims. Excavations at Nuzi (1925-41), Mari (discovered in 1933), and Alalakh (1937-39; 1946-49) provide helpful background information that fits well with the Genesis stories of the patriarchal period. The Nuzi tablets and Mari letters illustrate the patriarchal customs in great detail, and the Ras Shamra tablets discovered in ancient Ugarit in Syria shed much light on Hebrew prose and poetry and Canaanite culture. The Ebla tablets discovered recently in northern Syria also affirm the antiquity and accuracy of the Book of Genesis.
Some scholars once claimed that the Mosaic Law could not have been written by Moses, because writing was largely unknown at that time and because the law code of the Pentateuch was too sophisticated for that period. But the codified Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860 B.C.), the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.), and the even earlier Ur-Nammu code have refuted these claims.
http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1462961 wrote:
'If' the ages of the generations were as the Bible states, then how long was it before Moses came along, who is said tom have written the Genesis, the Fist Book of Moses? He wasn't there. It all happened thousands of years before he was born - yet he knows everything that was said, and everything that God thought (without even telling anyone what he was thinking, I might add).
Of course Moses was not there, nor were you. But God was there and He told Moses what to write.
'If' the ages of the generations were as the Bible states, then how long was it before Moses came along, who is said tom have written the Genesis, the Fist Book of Moses? He wasn't there. It all happened thousands of years before he was born - yet he knows everything that was said, and everything that God thought (without even telling anyone what he was thinking, I might add).
Of course Moses was not there, nor were you. But God was there and He told Moses what to write.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
See, there you go again. Pasting bilge this often doesnt make it any more true. It just makes you look more foolish
Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, (Job 38:19)
From this we are to believe that the bible is telling us that light is a particle and has mass.
It says NOTHING of the sort !!
Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, (Job 38:19)
From this we are to believe that the bible is telling us that light is a particle and has mass.
It says NOTHING of the sort !!
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
More B/S. The same old posts from the same source (singular). We've seen them time & time again. Don't you get it - repeatedly posting the same crap, no matter how many times you do doesn't make it any more plausible.
You have just totally backed up what I said...
There are three lines of evidence that support the claim that the biblical documents are reliable: these are the bibliographic test, the internal test, and the external test. The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second test deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third test looks to outside confirmation of the biblical content.
Everything there, once again, sources the same of Fairy Tale Book as the 'evidence' of itself. (It's true because I say so - that's all the evidence you need). "Outside Confirmation? What outside confirmation? I see no 'Outside Confirmation'.
To claim that fossils were formed within months is simply laughable. Someone with clearly no knowledge of basic geological fact is trying to make out that all the other international top scientific minds, who have learned through the accumulation of millennia of study that they're wrong about how long it takes for fossils to form, based on his grasping at straws determination to reconcile a fantasy which he clearly knows cannot be true.
'God' couldn't have told anyone anything, as 'God' doesn't exist in the first place.
I was just wondering - is your real name, by any chance, Walt Brown? You sure seem determined to spam his book, regardless of how flawed it is.
You have just totally backed up what I said...
There are three lines of evidence that support the claim that the biblical documents are reliable: these are the bibliographic test, the internal test, and the external test. The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second test deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third test looks to outside confirmation of the biblical content.
Everything there, once again, sources the same of Fairy Tale Book as the 'evidence' of itself. (It's true because I say so - that's all the evidence you need). "Outside Confirmation? What outside confirmation? I see no 'Outside Confirmation'.
To claim that fossils were formed within months is simply laughable. Someone with clearly no knowledge of basic geological fact is trying to make out that all the other international top scientific minds, who have learned through the accumulation of millennia of study that they're wrong about how long it takes for fossils to form, based on his grasping at straws determination to reconcile a fantasy which he clearly knows cannot be true.
'God' couldn't have told anyone anything, as 'God' doesn't exist in the first place.
I was just wondering - is your real name, by any chance, Walt Brown? You sure seem determined to spam his book, regardless of how flawed it is.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1462984 wrote: More B/S. The same old posts from the same source (singular). We've seen them time & time again. Don't you get it - repeatedly posting the same crap, no matter how many times you do doesn't make it any more plausible.
You have just totally backed up what I said...
Everything there, once again, sources the same of Fairy Tale Book as the 'evidence' of itself. (It's true because I say so - that's all the evidence you need). "Outside Confirmation? What outside confirmation? I see no 'Outside Confirmation'.
Take off your blinders and look again.
To claim that fossils were formed within months is simply laughable.
Laughable only to the ignorant. The fact is that the Flood quickly buried life forms that became fossils. Had they not been quickly buried they would have decayed or been eaten.
Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish, show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations, plus the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments that formed today’s rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.
Figure 7: Fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. Burial and fossilization must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found.
Figure 8: Fish in Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.
Figure 9: Fish in Curved Fish. The curved back shows that this fish died under stress.
Figure 10: Dragonfly Wing. This delicate, 1 1/2-foot-long wing must have been buried rapidly and evenly to preserve its details. Imagine the size of the entire dragonfly!
Someone with clearly no knowledge of basic geological fact is trying to make out that all the other international top scientific minds, who have learned through the accumulation of millennia of study that they're wrong about how long it takes for fossils to form, based on his grasping at straws determination to reconcile a fantasy which he clearly knows cannot be true.
You are right. Some are ignorant of the fact that fossils were formed rapidly, as shown above.
'God' couldn't have told anyone anything, as 'God' doesn't exist in the first place.
Where is your evidence that God does not exist? Here is evidence He 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. Something does not come 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]
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? ]Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton | 9781491811009 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble
You have just totally backed up what I said...
Everything there, once again, sources the same of Fairy Tale Book as the 'evidence' of itself. (It's true because I say so - that's all the evidence you need). "Outside Confirmation? What outside confirmation? I see no 'Outside Confirmation'.
Take off your blinders and look again.
To claim that fossils were formed within months is simply laughable.
Laughable only to the ignorant. The fact is that the Flood quickly buried life forms that became fossils. Had they not been quickly buried they would have decayed or been eaten.
Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish, show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations, plus the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments that formed today’s rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.
Figure 7: Fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. Burial and fossilization must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found.
Figure 8: Fish in Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.
Figure 9: Fish in Curved Fish. The curved back shows that this fish died under stress.
Figure 10: Dragonfly Wing. This delicate, 1 1/2-foot-long wing must have been buried rapidly and evenly to preserve its details. Imagine the size of the entire dragonfly!
Someone with clearly no knowledge of basic geological fact is trying to make out that all the other international top scientific minds, who have learned through the accumulation of millennia of study that they're wrong about how long it takes for fossils to form, based on his grasping at straws determination to reconcile a fantasy which he clearly knows cannot be true.
You are right. Some are ignorant of the fact that fossils were formed rapidly, as shown above.
'God' couldn't have told anyone anything, as 'God' doesn't exist in the first place.
Where is your evidence that God does not exist? Here is evidence He 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. Something does not come 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]
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? ]Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton | 9781491811009 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
6, 7, 9, 10 & 11 are totally false & unfounded claims.
DNA is, by definition an acid. A chemical. It just so happens that it has formed, by chance reaction to create life, which is, in itself another form of chemical reaction. Regardless of the chemistry, all life is made up of chemicals.
Decay is prevented by the lack of oxygen with which to sustain the bacteria. When this occurs the process of fossilisation begins. For example - an insect caught in amber doesn't necessarily die suddenly, it usually dies very slowly, struggling to get free from the sticky tree sap that it walked / flew into. It then gets enveloped by the sap, which then becomes fossilised over millions of years.
Mud & silt at the base of any stretch of water has the same effect. Of course most beings would get gobbled up by scavengers - if they weren't, then the entire world would be made up of one massive fossil but once in a while there are those that fall away from the attention of the predators.
As for the bent fish 'proving' that it died suddenly, under stress - you haven't seen many dead fish have you. Loads of them end up in that curved position as the tendon & muscles flex into rigor mortis. The exact same thing even happens in humans, long after death.
Once again you post the same old 'evidence' citing the same old conclusions taken from a book of fairy tales and can, therefore, be disregarded as unsubstantiated nonsense.
The fish inside a fish? What does that prove? It makes no difference as to how quickly something dies. What makes the difference is how quickly it's sealed from the oxygen supply, and mud is an ideal medium for this. The only 'instantaneous' type of fossilisation is that caused by massive heat, such as in a lava flow, as demonstrated by the human remains in Pompeii, and even that isn't really true fossilisation either, as it isn't a preservation of the item itself, rather than that of the space it filled.
I imagine you live inland & have never observed the movement of mud with the tides. If you had you would be all too aware of how easy it is to become trapped in it & how quickly it can happen. I, on the other hand, live literally about 100 metres from the shore - so close that I can smell it when the tide goes out (a beautiful aroma, I might add). About 20 years ago the near perfectly preserved body of a German airman was dredged up after having been preserved in the mud ever since he bailed out from a bombing mission during WW2. If he had gone undiscovered there's a good chance that in another couple of million years or so (if the sun hasn't gone Nova by then & the earth pulled into its gravitational pull) that he, too, would end up as a fossilised curiosity to future archaeologists - or whatever lifeform they may have evolved into by then.
Oil is made up of millions of organisms, fossilised over millions of years. With so many organisms still reproducing on a daily - or even hourly basis, if fossils are maid instantaneously, then how come the resources are running out so rapidly. This is why we're having to look for Renewable Resources - the clue being in the word "Renewable". Otherwise we would have a constant supply from all these organisms being fossilised instantly every day for our benefit. Or do you deny that oil is made of fossils?
Your numbered list is simply one I recognise from your having posted exactly the same list before, which mean that you have either copied & pasted it from one of your extremist superstition sites or you are copying & pasting it from one of your previous posts. As I have said before, repeatedly citing the same garbage doesn't make it any less garbage. If it quacks like a duck & waddles like a duck you can insist that it's an elephant as much as you like, but the fact remains that it's a duck. Quack, quack!!
DNA is, by definition an acid. A chemical. It just so happens that it has formed, by chance reaction to create life, which is, in itself another form of chemical reaction. Regardless of the chemistry, all life is made up of chemicals.
Decay is prevented by the lack of oxygen with which to sustain the bacteria. When this occurs the process of fossilisation begins. For example - an insect caught in amber doesn't necessarily die suddenly, it usually dies very slowly, struggling to get free from the sticky tree sap that it walked / flew into. It then gets enveloped by the sap, which then becomes fossilised over millions of years.
Mud & silt at the base of any stretch of water has the same effect. Of course most beings would get gobbled up by scavengers - if they weren't, then the entire world would be made up of one massive fossil but once in a while there are those that fall away from the attention of the predators.
As for the bent fish 'proving' that it died suddenly, under stress - you haven't seen many dead fish have you. Loads of them end up in that curved position as the tendon & muscles flex into rigor mortis. The exact same thing even happens in humans, long after death.
Once again you post the same old 'evidence' citing the same old conclusions taken from a book of fairy tales and can, therefore, be disregarded as unsubstantiated nonsense.
The fish inside a fish? What does that prove? It makes no difference as to how quickly something dies. What makes the difference is how quickly it's sealed from the oxygen supply, and mud is an ideal medium for this. The only 'instantaneous' type of fossilisation is that caused by massive heat, such as in a lava flow, as demonstrated by the human remains in Pompeii, and even that isn't really true fossilisation either, as it isn't a preservation of the item itself, rather than that of the space it filled.
I imagine you live inland & have never observed the movement of mud with the tides. If you had you would be all too aware of how easy it is to become trapped in it & how quickly it can happen. I, on the other hand, live literally about 100 metres from the shore - so close that I can smell it when the tide goes out (a beautiful aroma, I might add). About 20 years ago the near perfectly preserved body of a German airman was dredged up after having been preserved in the mud ever since he bailed out from a bombing mission during WW2. If he had gone undiscovered there's a good chance that in another couple of million years or so (if the sun hasn't gone Nova by then & the earth pulled into its gravitational pull) that he, too, would end up as a fossilised curiosity to future archaeologists - or whatever lifeform they may have evolved into by then.
Oil is made up of millions of organisms, fossilised over millions of years. With so many organisms still reproducing on a daily - or even hourly basis, if fossils are maid instantaneously, then how come the resources are running out so rapidly. This is why we're having to look for Renewable Resources - the clue being in the word "Renewable". Otherwise we would have a constant supply from all these organisms being fossilised instantly every day for our benefit. Or do you deny that oil is made of fossils?
Your numbered list is simply one I recognise from your having posted exactly the same list before, which mean that you have either copied & pasted it from one of your extremist superstition sites or you are copying & pasting it from one of your previous posts. As I have said before, repeatedly citing the same garbage doesn't make it any less garbage. If it quacks like a duck & waddles like a duck you can insist that it's an elephant as much as you like, but the fact remains that it's a duck. Quack, quack!!
Science Disproves Evolution
1 is true.
8 is arguably true.
The rest are unfounded assertions.
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. Something does not come 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.
8 is arguably true.
The rest are unfounded assertions.
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. Something does not come 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.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1462982 wrote:
Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, (Job 38:19)
From this we are to believe that the bible is telling us that light is a particle and has mass.
It says NOTHING of the sort !!
I have asked about this twice and have yet to receive some sort of response.
I would like to know how you establish that the Bible explains the existence of light as particles and that it has a mass, from.....Job 38:19.
By what stretch of imagination do you extrapolate from one to get the other ?
Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, (Job 38:19)
From this we are to believe that the bible is telling us that light is a particle and has mass.
It says NOTHING of the sort !!
I have asked about this twice and have yet to receive some sort of response.
I would like to know how you establish that the Bible explains the existence of light as particles and that it has a mass, from.....Job 38:19.
By what stretch of imagination do you extrapolate from one to get the other ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1463054 wrote:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
You do not know that at all. Therefore your logic is faulty. There may have been another universe before this one that collapsed under gravity and birthed this cycle.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.[
Illogical again. You assume that the physical Universe in this dimensions all the Universes there are. Scientists have proved that at least eleven other dimensions exist under the laws of quantum physics. Those dimensions may hold other, older Universes.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
Not at all. You make unproven assumption after unproven assumption. Scientists theorize that dimensional sheets called "branes" exist and their intersection caused the Big Bang. Since light travels slowly, it is possible to see back billions of years in the past by looking at certain sections of the Universe.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
Again, that you know of, but since you have made up this entire argument, why not? But then you'd be making up God as well.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
If the supernatural exists, then ghosts exist, and people should have powers like telepathy. Do you support those as well?
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
Hahaha. You just made the case for life coming to Earth on asteroids. Espcially since just last week they found bacteria living on the outside of the International Space Station proving that bacteria can survive in space. How does your faith sit with the fact that there are other planets in the Universe with life on them, or do you deliberately ignore that? God put life on Earth, but left the rest of the entire Universe barren? What hubris! What pride! What an insult to God that position would be!
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
Again, you do not know that. Scientists have created amino acids artificially. Why not a DNA molecule?
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
There is no basis for that illogical argument. So you have deluded yourself and pulled down other decent people with you.
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
You do not know that at all. Therefore your logic is faulty. There may have been another universe before this one that collapsed under gravity and birthed this cycle.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.[
Illogical again. You assume that the physical Universe in this dimensions all the Universes there are. Scientists have proved that at least eleven other dimensions exist under the laws of quantum physics. Those dimensions may hold other, older Universes.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
Not at all. You make unproven assumption after unproven assumption. Scientists theorize that dimensional sheets called "branes" exist and their intersection caused the Big Bang. Since light travels slowly, it is possible to see back billions of years in the past by looking at certain sections of the Universe.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
Again, that you know of, but since you have made up this entire argument, why not? But then you'd be making up God as well.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
If the supernatural exists, then ghosts exist, and people should have powers like telepathy. Do you support those as well?
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
Hahaha. You just made the case for life coming to Earth on asteroids. Espcially since just last week they found bacteria living on the outside of the International Space Station proving that bacteria can survive in space. How does your faith sit with the fact that there are other planets in the Universe with life on them, or do you deliberately ignore that? God put life on Earth, but left the rest of the entire Universe barren? What hubris! What pride! What an insult to God that position would be!
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
Again, you do not know that. Scientists have created amino acids artificially. Why not a DNA molecule?
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
There is no basis for that illogical argument. So you have deluded yourself and pulled down other decent people with you.
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Pahu
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
Saint_;1463105 wrote: You do not know that at all. Therefore your logic is faulty. There may have been another universe before this one that collapsed under gravity and birthed this cycle.
I do not know the universe exists? My logic is sound since it is based on facts. It is your rambling off into evidence free speculation that is faulty.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
Illogical again. You assume that the physical Universe in this dimensions all the Universes there are. Scientists have proved that at least eleven other dimensions exist under the laws of quantum physics. Those dimensions may hold other, older Universes.
Since I am dealing with facts, not evidence free speculation, my conclusions are logical and yours are not. Scientists have not proved that at least eleven other dimensions exist under the laws of quantum physics. That is sheer imagination. There can only be one universe since the definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything existed, it did not exist and therefor there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
Not at all. You make unproven assumption after unproven assumption. Scientists theorize that dimensional sheets called "branes" exist and their intersection caused the Big Bang. Since light travels slowly, it is possible to see back billions of years in the past by looking at certain sections of the Universe.
Scientist theorize about many things, but that does not make them true. Since nothing existed before the universe, and since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
Again, that you know of, but since you have made up this entire argument, why not? But then you'd be making up God as well.
The fact remains that something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
If the supernatural exists, then ghosts exist, and people should have powers like telepathy. Do you support those as well?
Ghosts and telepathy have nothing to do with the statement. You are rambling off into
lala land, probably because you are unable to rationally deal with the facts.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
Hahaha. You just made the case for life coming to Earth on asteroids. Espcially since just last week they found bacteria living on the outside of the International Space Station proving that bacteria can survive in space. How does your faith sit with the fact that there are other planets in the Universe with life on them, or do you deliberately ignore that? God put life on Earth, but left the rest of the entire Universe barren? What hubris! What pride! What an insult to God that position would be!
As far as we know life only exists on earth and it is still a fact that life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis) regardless of your evidence free speculation.
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
Again, you do not know that. Scientists have created amino acids artificially. Why not a DNA molecule?
What scientist do in the lab is not natural. Also The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted in 1953, are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:
1) These “building blocks are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory.
2) Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.
3) Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.
4) Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.
5) Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)
In fact, most of what was produced in the Miller-Urey experiments was a sludge of simple organic chemicals that are not found in living organisms. Only about 2% was amino acids. Of this 2%, 95% was the simplest amino acid of all, glycine.
Chemist Robert Shapiro describes the widespread current acceptance of the results of Miller and Urey's experiments as “mythology rather than science.
Oxygen is deadly to the Miller-Urey experiments: the 'building blocks of life' simply would not have formed in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Oxygen reacts with methane to form carbon dioxide and water, and with ammonia to form nitrogen oxides and water. If you introduce oxygen into the apparatus, along with methane and hydrogen, and then put a spark through it, you do not get amino acids: you get an explosion.
But scientists still often claim that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain oxygen. When asked why, they reply that oxygen-less conditions are needed for life to develop. Now, call me naive, but in any other circumstances I think we would say this was arguing in a circle.
“All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited. Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth, Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.
“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation. Kenyon, p. A-23.
All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.
Further Reading: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/ ... enesis.asp
From time to time, Richard Dawkins says wise and insightful things. Seriously -- no sarcasm intended. Among his wisest statements is the following observation from The Blind Watchmaker (italics in the original):
It is true that there are quite a number of ways of making a living -- flying, swimming, swinging through the trees, and so on. But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive. (1987, p. 9)
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
There is no basis for that illogical argument. So you have deluded yourself and pulled down other decent people with you.
The conclusion is logical based on the facts.
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
Saint_;1463105 wrote: You do not know that at all. Therefore your logic is faulty. There may have been another universe before this one that collapsed under gravity and birthed this cycle.
I do not know the universe exists? My logic is sound since it is based on facts. It is your rambling off into evidence free speculation that is faulty.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
Illogical again. You assume that the physical Universe in this dimensions all the Universes there are. Scientists have proved that at least eleven other dimensions exist under the laws of quantum physics. Those dimensions may hold other, older Universes.
Since I am dealing with facts, not evidence free speculation, my conclusions are logical and yours are not. Scientists have not proved that at least eleven other dimensions exist under the laws of quantum physics. That is sheer imagination. There can only be one universe since the definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything existed, it did not exist and therefor there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
Not at all. You make unproven assumption after unproven assumption. Scientists theorize that dimensional sheets called "branes" exist and their intersection caused the Big Bang. Since light travels slowly, it is possible to see back billions of years in the past by looking at certain sections of the Universe.
Scientist theorize about many things, but that does not make them true. Since nothing existed before the universe, and since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
Again, that you know of, but since you have made up this entire argument, why not? But then you'd be making up God as well.
The fact remains that something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
If the supernatural exists, then ghosts exist, and people should have powers like telepathy. Do you support those as well?
Ghosts and telepathy have nothing to do with the statement. You are rambling off into
lala land, probably because you are unable to rationally deal with the facts.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
Hahaha. You just made the case for life coming to Earth on asteroids. Espcially since just last week they found bacteria living on the outside of the International Space Station proving that bacteria can survive in space. How does your faith sit with the fact that there are other planets in the Universe with life on them, or do you deliberately ignore that? God put life on Earth, but left the rest of the entire Universe barren? What hubris! What pride! What an insult to God that position would be!
As far as we know life only exists on earth and it is still a fact that life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis) regardless of your evidence free speculation.
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
Again, you do not know that. Scientists have created amino acids artificially. Why not a DNA molecule?
What scientist do in the lab is not natural. Also The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted in 1953, are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:
1) These “building blocks are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory.
2) Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.
3) Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.
4) Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.
5) Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)
In fact, most of what was produced in the Miller-Urey experiments was a sludge of simple organic chemicals that are not found in living organisms. Only about 2% was amino acids. Of this 2%, 95% was the simplest amino acid of all, glycine.
Chemist Robert Shapiro describes the widespread current acceptance of the results of Miller and Urey's experiments as “mythology rather than science.
Oxygen is deadly to the Miller-Urey experiments: the 'building blocks of life' simply would not have formed in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Oxygen reacts with methane to form carbon dioxide and water, and with ammonia to form nitrogen oxides and water. If you introduce oxygen into the apparatus, along with methane and hydrogen, and then put a spark through it, you do not get amino acids: you get an explosion.
But scientists still often claim that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain oxygen. When asked why, they reply that oxygen-less conditions are needed for life to develop. Now, call me naive, but in any other circumstances I think we would say this was arguing in a circle.
“All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited. Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth, Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.
“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation. Kenyon, p. A-23.
All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.
Further Reading: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/ ... enesis.asp
From time to time, Richard Dawkins says wise and insightful things. Seriously -- no sarcasm intended. Among his wisest statements is the following observation from The Blind Watchmaker (italics in the original):
It is true that there are quite a number of ways of making a living -- flying, swimming, swinging through the trees, and so on. But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive. (1987, p. 9)
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
There is no basis for that illogical argument. So you have deluded yourself and pulled down other decent people with you.
The conclusion is logical based on the facts.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1463108 wrote:
I do not know the universe exists? My logic is sound since it is based on facts.
Incorrect, you do not know that nothing existed before the Universe anymore than I can know that something did exist. Therefore there is no "fact" that nothing existed. You assume that. It is completely possible that a previous Universe collapsed due to it's mass to a singularity and was reborn as our Universe. As a matter of fact, it may have happened many times.
Scientists have not proved that at least eleven other dimensions exist under the laws of quantum physics.
Dr. Michio Kaku on Why the Universe Has 11 Dimensions - AOL On
That is sheer imagination. There can only be one universe since the definition of universe is everything that exists.
Everything in the Universe is not visible. You believe in atoms, don't you? Why then not other dimensions?
Before everything existed, it did not exist and therefor there was nothing.
You assume that. You do not KNOW that.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
Only if your previous assumption was true, which we have no idea if it was.
Scientist theorize about many things, but that does not make them true.
Yes, but True Science, unlike your pseudo-science, has been built up over millennia by theorizing. Many, many of the theories have proven true. Starting with the theory that the Earth was round and traveled around the sun to quantum theory which is being proven more and more each day.
I notice that you deliberately ignore the God particle discovered just last year. Until then...it too was a theory.
You disregard the latest theories based on mankind's previous knowledge because they are coming closer and closer to completely destroying your belief systems.
What will you do if they discover life on Europa? The Bible never said, "and on the eighth day, God created life on other planets in the Universe and God saw that alien life was good."
Here's a question for you, but you'll need imagination: What discovery could convince you that your views on life are incorrect?
I do not know the universe exists? My logic is sound since it is based on facts.
Incorrect, you do not know that nothing existed before the Universe anymore than I can know that something did exist. Therefore there is no "fact" that nothing existed. You assume that. It is completely possible that a previous Universe collapsed due to it's mass to a singularity and was reborn as our Universe. As a matter of fact, it may have happened many times.
Scientists have not proved that at least eleven other dimensions exist under the laws of quantum physics.
Dr. Michio Kaku on Why the Universe Has 11 Dimensions - AOL On
That is sheer imagination. There can only be one universe since the definition of universe is everything that exists.
Everything in the Universe is not visible. You believe in atoms, don't you? Why then not other dimensions?
Before everything existed, it did not exist and therefor there was nothing.
You assume that. You do not KNOW that.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
Only if your previous assumption was true, which we have no idea if it was.
Scientist theorize about many things, but that does not make them true.
Yes, but True Science, unlike your pseudo-science, has been built up over millennia by theorizing. Many, many of the theories have proven true. Starting with the theory that the Earth was round and traveled around the sun to quantum theory which is being proven more and more each day.
I notice that you deliberately ignore the God particle discovered just last year. Until then...it too was a theory.
You disregard the latest theories based on mankind's previous knowledge because they are coming closer and closer to completely destroying your belief systems.
What will you do if they discover life on Europa? The Bible never said, "and on the eighth day, God created life on other planets in the Universe and God saw that alien life was good."
Here's a question for you, but you'll need imagination: What discovery could convince you that your views on life are incorrect?
Science Disproves Evolution
I reckon this post must contain more contradictory points than any of your previous posts thus far.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
Followed by...
What scientist do in the lab is not natural. Also The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted in 1953, are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life can be produced in the laboratory.
Ergo if what the Scientists do is not natural it must be Supernatural (your logic, not mine). All hail the mighty Scientist God!!
1) These “building blocks are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory.
2) Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.
3) Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.
4) Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.
5) Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)
1. The fact remains that the Amino Acids HAVE been created in laboratory conditions.
2. Most of these amino acids are ESSENTIAL to life. Even where some chemicals & other conditions which are deadly to some forms of life allow others to thrive. Even chocolate is toxic to most animals.
3. Very good point. You have just described what part amino acids play in life. Where would the Empire State Building be without bricks?
4. Which means that half had the right handedness (glass half empty / half full). It's like saying a coin doesn't have 2 sides because on a random number of tosses 50% came up as Tails - therefore the coin doesn't exist. Furthermore, handedness isn't really that relevant. For example, did you know that a duck's Penis has a Right Handed thread on it, yet the hen has a Left Handed Vagina? They have different handedness, so are you claiming that ducks don't exist because they can't be physically compatible?
5. The experiment reproduced the barrenness of space. If it didn't your argument would claim that it didn't from 'nothing' & therefore didn't prove anything. The conditions WERE met & you still claim it proves nothing BECAUSE the conditions were met.
Nature does NOT remove any elements that would cause an explosion, On the contrary. In nature the most common requirement of an explosion is Oxygen. Plant life removes Oxygen from water. Therefore, without Oxygen to bind the molecule Hydrogen must also be released. And what happens if you get a load of Hydrogen & Oxygen together with a tiny little spark. BANG!!! An explosion - CAUSED by nature, and the gases return to their water state, ready to be converted into gases to make another explosion.
But scientists still often claim that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain oxygen. When asked why, they reply that oxygen-less conditions are needed for life to develop. Now, call me naive, but in any other circumstances I think we would say this was arguing in a circle.
You most certainly ARE naive. Apart from as a component of water, of course, oxygen is NOT essential to life (as proved by the bacteria on the shuttle that Saint spoke of - or do you deny that exists because it doesn't fit into your fantasy plan). What do you think the primary source of oxygen is on the earth? Photosynthesis. The vast majority is made by algae in the oceans which, just as with land based plant life, feed on CO2 & emit Oxygen as a waste product, extracted from the oxygen compounded in the water (as Oxygen is an element and cannot , therefore, be created).
Although I wouldn't agree that an OxygenLESS environment is essential for the formation of life (I would be interested to see where you source this notion from - and NOT one of your usual tired old Happy-Clappy-God-Pots quotes. I mean a GENUINE scientific report). Although Oxygen is not essential doesn't negate that its existence would interfere with anything.
As far as we know life only exists on earth and it is still a fact that life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis) regardless of your evidence free speculation.
So, hedging your bets now the extra-terrestrial bacteria HAS been found. No matter how basic it may be, it's still life.
Since I am dealing with facts, not evidence free speculation, my conclusions are logical and yours are not. Scientists have not proved that at least eleven other dimensions exist under the laws of quantum physics. That is sheer imagination. There can only be one universe since the definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything existed, it did not exist and therefor there was nothing.
What evidence? I have yet to see you EVER having come up with any evidence, other than the same old quotes based on unfounded superstition.
From Saint:
Hahaha. You just made the case for life coming to Earth on asteroids. Espcially since just last week they found bacteria living on the outside of the International Space Station proving that bacteria can survive in space. How does your faith sit with the fact that there are other planets in the Universe with life on them, or do you deliberately ignore that? God put life on Earth, but left the rest of the entire Universe barren? What hubris! What pride! What an insult to God that position would be!
A very good point.
"In the beginning God created the Heavens & the Earth. And the EARTH was without form and void." It doesn't say anything about the rest of the Heavens being without form & void - just the Earth.
"And God said "Let there be light".
So he invented light as well, hey? So what were all those little pin pricks in the Heavens then?
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
Followed by...
What scientist do in the lab is not natural. Also The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted in 1953, are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life can be produced in the laboratory.
Ergo if what the Scientists do is not natural it must be Supernatural (your logic, not mine). All hail the mighty Scientist God!!
1) These “building blocks are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory.
2) Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.
3) Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.
4) Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.
5) Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)
1. The fact remains that the Amino Acids HAVE been created in laboratory conditions.
2. Most of these amino acids are ESSENTIAL to life. Even where some chemicals & other conditions which are deadly to some forms of life allow others to thrive. Even chocolate is toxic to most animals.
3. Very good point. You have just described what part amino acids play in life. Where would the Empire State Building be without bricks?
4. Which means that half had the right handedness (glass half empty / half full). It's like saying a coin doesn't have 2 sides because on a random number of tosses 50% came up as Tails - therefore the coin doesn't exist. Furthermore, handedness isn't really that relevant. For example, did you know that a duck's Penis has a Right Handed thread on it, yet the hen has a Left Handed Vagina? They have different handedness, so are you claiming that ducks don't exist because they can't be physically compatible?
5. The experiment reproduced the barrenness of space. If it didn't your argument would claim that it didn't from 'nothing' & therefore didn't prove anything. The conditions WERE met & you still claim it proves nothing BECAUSE the conditions were met.
Nature does NOT remove any elements that would cause an explosion, On the contrary. In nature the most common requirement of an explosion is Oxygen. Plant life removes Oxygen from water. Therefore, without Oxygen to bind the molecule Hydrogen must also be released. And what happens if you get a load of Hydrogen & Oxygen together with a tiny little spark. BANG!!! An explosion - CAUSED by nature, and the gases return to their water state, ready to be converted into gases to make another explosion.
But scientists still often claim that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain oxygen. When asked why, they reply that oxygen-less conditions are needed for life to develop. Now, call me naive, but in any other circumstances I think we would say this was arguing in a circle.
You most certainly ARE naive. Apart from as a component of water, of course, oxygen is NOT essential to life (as proved by the bacteria on the shuttle that Saint spoke of - or do you deny that exists because it doesn't fit into your fantasy plan). What do you think the primary source of oxygen is on the earth? Photosynthesis. The vast majority is made by algae in the oceans which, just as with land based plant life, feed on CO2 & emit Oxygen as a waste product, extracted from the oxygen compounded in the water (as Oxygen is an element and cannot , therefore, be created).
Although I wouldn't agree that an OxygenLESS environment is essential for the formation of life (I would be interested to see where you source this notion from - and NOT one of your usual tired old Happy-Clappy-God-Pots quotes. I mean a GENUINE scientific report). Although Oxygen is not essential doesn't negate that its existence would interfere with anything.
As far as we know life only exists on earth and it is still a fact that life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis) regardless of your evidence free speculation.
So, hedging your bets now the extra-terrestrial bacteria HAS been found. No matter how basic it may be, it's still life.
Since I am dealing with facts, not evidence free speculation, my conclusions are logical and yours are not. Scientists have not proved that at least eleven other dimensions exist under the laws of quantum physics. That is sheer imagination. There can only be one universe since the definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything existed, it did not exist and therefor there was nothing.
What evidence? I have yet to see you EVER having come up with any evidence, other than the same old quotes based on unfounded superstition.
From Saint:
Hahaha. You just made the case for life coming to Earth on asteroids. Espcially since just last week they found bacteria living on the outside of the International Space Station proving that bacteria can survive in space. How does your faith sit with the fact that there are other planets in the Universe with life on them, or do you deliberately ignore that? God put life on Earth, but left the rest of the entire Universe barren? What hubris! What pride! What an insult to God that position would be!
A very good point.
"In the beginning God created the Heavens & the Earth. And the EARTH was without form and void." It doesn't say anything about the rest of the Heavens being without form & void - just the Earth.
"And God said "Let there be light".
So he invented light as well, hey? So what were all those little pin pricks in the Heavens then?
Science Disproves Evolution
Handedness: Left and Right 2
No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).
A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce equal proportions of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.
If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organism’s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how advantageous a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness. “Inverted (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. “Inverted forests would fill the continents. Other “inverted plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don’t beneficial mutations let most carriers defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe. [See “Mutations [here ]
d. “Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation. Kenyon, p. A-23.
Evolutionists who work in this field are continually seeking a solution. From time to time someone claims that it has been solved, but only after checking the details does one find that the problem remains. In Germany, in 1994, a doctoral candidate, Guido Zadel, claimed he had solved the problem. Supposedly, a strong magnetic field will bias a reaction toward either the left-handed or right-handed form. Origin-of-life researchers were excited. Zadel’s doctorate was awarded. At least 20 groups then tried to duplicate the results, always unsuccessfully. Later, Zadel admitted that he had dishonestly manipulated his data. [See Daniel Clery and David Bradley, “Underhanded ‘Breakthrough’ Revealed, Science, Vol. 265, 1 July 1994, p. 21.]
James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 71–79.
A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1981), pp. 15–32, 154–160.
Dickerson, p. 76.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Do you realise that in the TINY proportion of that post which was your own work (when will you ever learn that no-one takes any notice of all the crap quotes you post. We've seen them time & time again. You must have published that same book 10 times over in this thread, and it's still the load of bollocks it was when you started) has basically made a very good argument in favour of evolution. Right handedness is most likely to lead to right handedness & to develop from there.
However, there is a major flaw in your argument. If, as you claim, the likelihood of something happening to demonstrate left handedness from right handed origins, how do you explain Right handed parents giving birth to a Left handed child - or do you deny that happens as well?
The fact remains is that mutations happen. They have always happened & they always will happen which, if you believe in a Perfect God, proves that he wasn't perfect as the thing he supposedly created was obviously flawed, or it couldn't have mutated in the first place.
However, there is a major flaw in your argument. If, as you claim, the likelihood of something happening to demonstrate left handedness from right handed origins, how do you explain Right handed parents giving birth to a Left handed child - or do you deny that happens as well?
The fact remains is that mutations happen. They have always happened & they always will happen which, if you believe in a Perfect God, proves that he wasn't perfect as the thing he supposedly created was obviously flawed, or it couldn't have mutated in the first place.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1463635 wrote: Right handedness is most likely to lead to right handedness & to develop from there.
If, as you claim, the likelihood of something happening to demonstrate left handedness from right handed origins, how do you explain Right handed parents giving birth to a Left handed child - or do you deny that happens as well?
The fact remains is that mutations happen.
You missed the point. The article is not referring to right or left handed people. Read again. Also, here are the facts about mutations:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS:
Reputable scientists tell us that, contrary to what the evolutionists say, mutations cannot produce trans-species changes. Therefore, mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Mutations:
Introduction: Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes
Mutations Are Extremely Rare: They almost never occur
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
One Mutation Would Cause Great Damage: It would cripple or weaken the entire system
An Organism Is Useless until It Has All Its Parts: So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing
This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS (see BOOKSTPRE). An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Mutations.
INTRODUCTION
Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson [senior paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, London], The Listener.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
MUTATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE
They almost never occur.
"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more. Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.
"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations, in higher organisms, between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.
"Although mutations is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.
[continue]
If, as you claim, the likelihood of something happening to demonstrate left handedness from right handed origins, how do you explain Right handed parents giving birth to a Left handed child - or do you deny that happens as well?
The fact remains is that mutations happen.
You missed the point. The article is not referring to right or left handed people. Read again. Also, here are the facts about mutations:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS:
Reputable scientists tell us that, contrary to what the evolutionists say, mutations cannot produce trans-species changes. Therefore, mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Mutations:
Introduction: Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes
Mutations Are Extremely Rare: They almost never occur
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
One Mutation Would Cause Great Damage: It would cripple or weaken the entire system
An Organism Is Useless until It Has All Its Parts: So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing
This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS (see BOOKSTPRE). An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Mutations.
INTRODUCTION
Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson [senior paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, London], The Listener.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
MUTATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE
They almost never occur.
"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more. Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.
"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations, in higher organisms, between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.
"Although mutations is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS:
[continued]
MUTATIONS ARE NEARLY ALWAYS HARMFUL
Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found.
"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, as far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.
"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.
"One would expect that any interference, with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 37.
"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.
"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species (1955), p. 73.
ONE MUTATION WOULD CAUSE GREAT DAMAGE
It would cripple or weaken the entire system.
"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky [a geneticist], Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
"We could still be sure, on theoretical grounds, that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.
"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual.
"This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidently introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11 (1955), p. 331.
AN ORGANISM IS USELESS UNTIL IT HAS ALL ITS PARTS
So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing.
"In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of `survival of the fittest' would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 [quoting *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer (1972)].
"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant. But this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as major ones, and occur more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.
"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biochemistry," Chapter 2, in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.
"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.
"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1
[continued]
MUTATIONS ARE NEARLY ALWAYS HARMFUL
Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found.
"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, as far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.
"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.
"One would expect that any interference, with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 37.
"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.
"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species (1955), p. 73.
ONE MUTATION WOULD CAUSE GREAT DAMAGE
It would cripple or weaken the entire system.
"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky [a geneticist], Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
"We could still be sure, on theoretical grounds, that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.
"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual.
"This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidently introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11 (1955), p. 331.
AN ORGANISM IS USELESS UNTIL IT HAS ALL ITS PARTS
So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing.
"In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of `survival of the fittest' would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 [quoting *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer (1972)].
"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant. But this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as major ones, and occur more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.
"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biochemistry," Chapter 2, in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.
"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.
"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
As pre usual, I don't bother with your reams of the same old quotes. However, as I was scrolling past it all, I did happen to notice that the most recent of them was dated 1978. Most of the others were in the 50s. Nobody even knew anything about the existence of DNA then.
As for mutations hardly ever happening - that is just simply an abhorrent statement to make as it is insulting to all those millions of people who have been born with birth defects regardless of what they are. For better or worse, these are mutations. To deny they don't exist, or to claim that they're so rare is comparable with denying the holocaust never existed. I find your attitude towards that absolutely disgusting, and even though I am totally Anti-Religious, I would say that you go right the way to the limits of being Un-Christian in your claims. You should be ashamed of yourself.
As for mutations hardly ever happening - that is just simply an abhorrent statement to make as it is insulting to all those millions of people who have been born with birth defects regardless of what they are. For better or worse, these are mutations. To deny they don't exist, or to claim that they're so rare is comparable with denying the holocaust never existed. I find your attitude towards that absolutely disgusting, and even though I am totally Anti-Religious, I would say that you go right the way to the limits of being Un-Christian in your claims. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Science Disproves Evolution
Metamorphosis 2
What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as “mush. From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards.* As Michael Pitman wryly noted:
“Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process pre-programmed from the first “production run? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot? (b)
The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using antennae and a tiny brain? (c)? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce (d)?
Charles Darwin wrote:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (e).
Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution “breaks down.
Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larva’s and an adult’s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning.* This fits only creation.
b. Pitman, pp. 193–194.
c. Christine Merlin et al., “Antennal Circadian Clocks Coordinate Sun Compass Orientation in Migratory Monarch Butterflies, Science, Vol.*325, 25 September 2009, pp.*1700–1704.
Jules H. Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarch—the Miracle Butterfly (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1995).
d. An evolutionist might claim that larvae once reproduced, but then lost that capability. If so, why is there no sign of any remnant reproductive equipment in any of the hundreds of thousands of larva types?
e. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p.*179.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Damn - forgot to log in - now I'll have to make my posting all over again.
First of all - how many times must we tell you that we're sick & tired of that same book - you've published it countless times by pasting chunks of it in here over & over again, it's still as nonsensical as it ever was.
Evolution is a matter of improvements made over time by things changing. The better equipped species move on. The lower life forms which don't remain as they are - such as the likes of you who refuse to move on & think for yourself instead of acting like an automaton relying on a very limited program. A program which, incidentally is full of bugs & conflicts, contradicting itself throughout. You are a computer - unable to think for itself. Your ministry switches you on - you do what they tell you without question as to why.
For once, try to think for yourself. Once again you have tried to make the point following the same old tired book - which has to be the only only one on your shelf, other than the Bible. This is another demonstration of your being an automaton. You're following a basic GOTO command, back an item which I've already proved to be false. Remember the Silver Grey Moths, which almost died out when the soot from the steam engines made their colouring stick out like a sore thumb on their native Silver Birch trees, making them a prime target for a tasty snack for the birds. Then they evolved & their colouring changed to black, so that once again they were camouflaged, and their numbers, once again increased. Then the trains went over to Diesel, and the Silver Birches reverted to their original clean colour, and once again the moths became a target for the birds & all but died out. But then they re-evolved back to their original colouring & flourished.
This is something which has been observed & recorded over a matter of less than a couple of hundred years. Something we've already been through, which you eventually had to concede.
Once again this is proof positive that your pathetic source is flawed & once again you have provided evidence in favour of evolution, thus supporting Darwin's claim.
It should also be remembered that Darwin never fully understood the concept of his theory. He couldn't even believe that anything could really be so, as it went totally against his own lifetime, as well as generations before him, of Dogmatic Religious Brainwashing. However, based on what he had observed he broke his program & started to think for himself based on what he had observed. Seeing is believing.
These days, apart from the fanatical religious automatons, such as yourself, who are incapable of thinking for themselves, Evolution is accepted as an irrefutable fact & there is more & more evidence to support this being found every day, yet the likes of you choose to ignore this evidence & continue to cherry pick if you see anything that slightly supports your own belief, even when (as per 99% of the time) it's a total misinterpretation of what the evidence actually says. For example - your supposition of fossilised sea crustaceans being found on top of mountains you see as evidence of the water levels once being much higher, thus ignoring the proven fact that mountains are formed by being pushed upwards, which means that they would have once been part of the sea bed & moved upward - not the other way round.
First of all - how many times must we tell you that we're sick & tired of that same book - you've published it countless times by pasting chunks of it in here over & over again, it's still as nonsensical as it ever was.
Evolution is a matter of improvements made over time by things changing. The better equipped species move on. The lower life forms which don't remain as they are - such as the likes of you who refuse to move on & think for yourself instead of acting like an automaton relying on a very limited program. A program which, incidentally is full of bugs & conflicts, contradicting itself throughout. You are a computer - unable to think for itself. Your ministry switches you on - you do what they tell you without question as to why.
For once, try to think for yourself. Once again you have tried to make the point following the same old tired book - which has to be the only only one on your shelf, other than the Bible. This is another demonstration of your being an automaton. You're following a basic GOTO command, back an item which I've already proved to be false. Remember the Silver Grey Moths, which almost died out when the soot from the steam engines made their colouring stick out like a sore thumb on their native Silver Birch trees, making them a prime target for a tasty snack for the birds. Then they evolved & their colouring changed to black, so that once again they were camouflaged, and their numbers, once again increased. Then the trains went over to Diesel, and the Silver Birches reverted to their original clean colour, and once again the moths became a target for the birds & all but died out. But then they re-evolved back to their original colouring & flourished.
This is something which has been observed & recorded over a matter of less than a couple of hundred years. Something we've already been through, which you eventually had to concede.
Once again this is proof positive that your pathetic source is flawed & once again you have provided evidence in favour of evolution, thus supporting Darwin's claim.
It should also be remembered that Darwin never fully understood the concept of his theory. He couldn't even believe that anything could really be so, as it went totally against his own lifetime, as well as generations before him, of Dogmatic Religious Brainwashing. However, based on what he had observed he broke his program & started to think for himself based on what he had observed. Seeing is believing.
These days, apart from the fanatical religious automatons, such as yourself, who are incapable of thinking for themselves, Evolution is accepted as an irrefutable fact & there is more & more evidence to support this being found every day, yet the likes of you choose to ignore this evidence & continue to cherry pick if you see anything that slightly supports your own belief, even when (as per 99% of the time) it's a total misinterpretation of what the evidence actually says. For example - your supposition of fossilised sea crustaceans being found on top of mountains you see as evidence of the water levels once being much higher, thus ignoring the proven fact that mountains are formed by being pushed upwards, which means that they would have once been part of the sea bed & moved upward - not the other way round.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1464411 wrote:
First of all - how many times must we tell you that we're sick & tired of that same book - you've published it countless times by pasting chunks of it in here over & over again, it's still as nonsensical as it ever was.
What do you find nonsensical about it? For example, my last post was about metamorphosis. What is nonsensical about that? Do you deny it happens? If not, how do you explain it in the context of evolution?
Evolution is a matter of improvements made over time by things changing. The better equipped species move on.
Where is your evidence for evolution?
Remember the Silver Grey Moths, which almost died out when the soot from the steam engines made their colouring stick out like a sore thumb on their native Silver Birch trees, making them a prime target for a tasty snack for the birds. Then they evolved & their colouring changed to black, so that once again they were camouflaged, and their numbers, once again increased. Then the trains went over to Diesel, and the Silver Birches reverted to their original clean colour, and once again the moths became a target for the birds & all but died out. But then they re-evolved back to their original colouring & flourished.
This is something which has been observed & recorded over a matter of less than a couple of hundred years. Something we've already been through, which you eventually had to concede.
The ‘textbook story’ of England’s famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) goes like this. The moth comes in light and dark (melanic) forms. Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-coloured covering lichen (plus soot).
The lighter forms, which had been well camouflaged against the light background, now ‘stood out,’ and so birds more readily ate them. Therefore, the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.
The shift in moth numbers was carefully documented through catching them in traps. Release-recapture experiments confirmed that in polluted forests, more of the dark form survived for recapture, and vice versa. In addition, birds were filmed preferentially eating the less camouflaged moths off tree trunks.
The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ‘He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.’
Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution.
Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not ‘evolution in action.’
However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day.
Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromones—in each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:
‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. ¦ In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’
The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).
And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’
Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones—the opposite of textbook predictions!
University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.
He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.
Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘proof’ of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.
Goodbye, peppered moths - creation.com
First of all - how many times must we tell you that we're sick & tired of that same book - you've published it countless times by pasting chunks of it in here over & over again, it's still as nonsensical as it ever was.
What do you find nonsensical about it? For example, my last post was about metamorphosis. What is nonsensical about that? Do you deny it happens? If not, how do you explain it in the context of evolution?
Evolution is a matter of improvements made over time by things changing. The better equipped species move on.
Where is your evidence for evolution?
Remember the Silver Grey Moths, which almost died out when the soot from the steam engines made their colouring stick out like a sore thumb on their native Silver Birch trees, making them a prime target for a tasty snack for the birds. Then they evolved & their colouring changed to black, so that once again they were camouflaged, and their numbers, once again increased. Then the trains went over to Diesel, and the Silver Birches reverted to their original clean colour, and once again the moths became a target for the birds & all but died out. But then they re-evolved back to their original colouring & flourished.
This is something which has been observed & recorded over a matter of less than a couple of hundred years. Something we've already been through, which you eventually had to concede.
The ‘textbook story’ of England’s famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) goes like this. The moth comes in light and dark (melanic) forms. Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-coloured covering lichen (plus soot).
The lighter forms, which had been well camouflaged against the light background, now ‘stood out,’ and so birds more readily ate them. Therefore, the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.
The shift in moth numbers was carefully documented through catching them in traps. Release-recapture experiments confirmed that in polluted forests, more of the dark form survived for recapture, and vice versa. In addition, birds were filmed preferentially eating the less camouflaged moths off tree trunks.
The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ‘He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.’
Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution.
Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not ‘evolution in action.’
However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day.
Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromones—in each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:
‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. ¦ In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’
The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).
And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’
Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones—the opposite of textbook predictions!
University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.
He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.
Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘proof’ of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.
Goodbye, peppered moths - creation.com
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Sexual Reproduction 1
Figure*16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.
1. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
2. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).
3. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
4. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
5. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
6. This remarkable string of “accidents must have been repeated for millions of species.
a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly, mammals—including each of us—would not exist.
“The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged. [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]
b. N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm, Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.
c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm, Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.
d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I hope you're paying Royalties to Walt Brown for the continual reproduction of his work of fiction.
Pahu;1464948 wrote:
Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.
What utter nonsense. No evolutionist would ever dream of such a thing. Where is the source for this claim - Oh - I forgot - the fantasy land of Walt Brown.
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.
Nothing unbelieveable about it at all. It's been demonstrated time & time again. Seeing is believing, apart from those who are so transfixed by their own brainwashing that they simply refuse to see.
1. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
There are quite a few species which reproduce both sexually & asexually. These creatures have been shown through fossil evidence to have existed since primaeval times. As I've pointed out before, many reptiles eggs, such as crocodiles, alligators & turtles will change sex according to temperature. There are some species, such as Clownfish & Corals (which live in symbiosis with each other - quite possibly because they are descended from the same genetic root) which actually change sex, as & when required.
2. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).
So how do you explain hybrids between species (e.g. Mule). Tigers & Lions are compatible & have been known to breed in captivity (a Liger). The only reason it doesn't happen in the wild is that they are from different countries.
Emotional? Don't make me laugh. Are fish which cast their roe & sperm randomly into the waters, perchance to be fertilised, or a flower providing nectar as bait for the bee to spread its pollen, once again by chance doing it as a result of emotion?
3. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
Basically a repeat of 2. Same answer applies.
4. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
Once again, the same as 2 & 3 - restating your (sorry, Walt Brown's) erroneous claims doesn't make them any more true, no matter how often you paste them.
5. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
Another load of rubbish. As the vast majority of evolution happens over eons, changes are gradual in accordance with gradually changing circumstances. When changes happen suddenly, that is where calamity strikes, such as when the comet hit the earth, causing the Ice Age & the downfall of the Dinosaurs, all of which were reptiles & needed the warmth of the sun to survive - apart from those who were beginning to evolve into being warm blooded.
6. This remarkable string of “accidents must have been repeated for millions of species.
Yes - over BILLIONS of years. Don't you understand the basic principle of factorials, or even basic binary. The famous story of a single grain of rice on the first square of a chess board, double that on the 2nd & so on. Doesn't sound much at first - until you start to work it out. If you imagine each grain of rice as being just one life form, reproducing, even as slowly as once a year (although the most basic ones would be reproducing in a matter of hours, but lets say years, just to make it less complicated for your little brain), by the end of of 64 years there would be enough of those grains of rice (or whatever the life form may be) that if laid side by side there would be enough to reach around the sun & back several times - and you would expect that in all that time every single one of them would be a perfect clone of each other? And that is just in 64 years. Take that up to Billions of years. To assume anything OTHER than diversification & evolution is ridiculous.
a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly, mammals—including each of us—would not exist.
Put quite simply, it DOES work to reject it. The foetus actually develops its own antibodies to defend itself - as do the sperm.
“The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged. [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]
Obviously this is either another total misquote, a made up quote, or a statement being taken out of context (all of which are trademarks of Walt Brown, which, for some reason, you seem determined to prove).
Check out the brief summary about him on Charles Janeway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You will see that there is no mention of his being based at London, but American.
He does NOT deny its existence or claim that it can't be explained. Indeed, quite the opposite. He has explained HOW it has come about:
Janeway predicted in 1989 that activation of the adaptive immune response is controlled by the more ancient innate immune system. He proposed a general theory of innate immune recognition (pattern recognition theory) and suggested the principles of innate control of adaptive immunity [1] These predictions have been confirmed in subsequent years and now form the conceptual framework for the current understanding of the innate immune system and the links between innate and adaptive immunity.[2]. Note that this PREDATES Walt Brown's claim to the contrary.
b. N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm, Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.
An appropriate name for someone who comes up with such fairy stories.
c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm, Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.
Ultra Modern Science - even more up to date than your other scientific source - The Bible.
d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
In other words, how can a Amoeba divide? Meiosis is no real different, except that the 2nd division begins before the first one is complete.
How is it that rather than see the obvious you are always seeking to find some fantasy that might explain the facts as they have been observed & blatantly obvious to all concerned, just because you prefer to live in a dreamworld? Or have I answered my own question there.
Tune in next week for another thrilling repeated installment of the unsubstantiated ramblings of Walt Brown.
Pahu;1464948 wrote:
Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.
What utter nonsense. No evolutionist would ever dream of such a thing. Where is the source for this claim - Oh - I forgot - the fantasy land of Walt Brown.
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.
Nothing unbelieveable about it at all. It's been demonstrated time & time again. Seeing is believing, apart from those who are so transfixed by their own brainwashing that they simply refuse to see.
1. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
There are quite a few species which reproduce both sexually & asexually. These creatures have been shown through fossil evidence to have existed since primaeval times. As I've pointed out before, many reptiles eggs, such as crocodiles, alligators & turtles will change sex according to temperature. There are some species, such as Clownfish & Corals (which live in symbiosis with each other - quite possibly because they are descended from the same genetic root) which actually change sex, as & when required.
2. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).
So how do you explain hybrids between species (e.g. Mule). Tigers & Lions are compatible & have been known to breed in captivity (a Liger). The only reason it doesn't happen in the wild is that they are from different countries.
Emotional? Don't make me laugh. Are fish which cast their roe & sperm randomly into the waters, perchance to be fertilised, or a flower providing nectar as bait for the bee to spread its pollen, once again by chance doing it as a result of emotion?
3. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
Basically a repeat of 2. Same answer applies.
4. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
Once again, the same as 2 & 3 - restating your (sorry, Walt Brown's) erroneous claims doesn't make them any more true, no matter how often you paste them.
5. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
Another load of rubbish. As the vast majority of evolution happens over eons, changes are gradual in accordance with gradually changing circumstances. When changes happen suddenly, that is where calamity strikes, such as when the comet hit the earth, causing the Ice Age & the downfall of the Dinosaurs, all of which were reptiles & needed the warmth of the sun to survive - apart from those who were beginning to evolve into being warm blooded.
6. This remarkable string of “accidents must have been repeated for millions of species.
Yes - over BILLIONS of years. Don't you understand the basic principle of factorials, or even basic binary. The famous story of a single grain of rice on the first square of a chess board, double that on the 2nd & so on. Doesn't sound much at first - until you start to work it out. If you imagine each grain of rice as being just one life form, reproducing, even as slowly as once a year (although the most basic ones would be reproducing in a matter of hours, but lets say years, just to make it less complicated for your little brain), by the end of of 64 years there would be enough of those grains of rice (or whatever the life form may be) that if laid side by side there would be enough to reach around the sun & back several times - and you would expect that in all that time every single one of them would be a perfect clone of each other? And that is just in 64 years. Take that up to Billions of years. To assume anything OTHER than diversification & evolution is ridiculous.
a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly, mammals—including each of us—would not exist.
Put quite simply, it DOES work to reject it. The foetus actually develops its own antibodies to defend itself - as do the sperm.
“The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged. [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]
Obviously this is either another total misquote, a made up quote, or a statement being taken out of context (all of which are trademarks of Walt Brown, which, for some reason, you seem determined to prove).
Check out the brief summary about him on Charles Janeway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You will see that there is no mention of his being based at London, but American.
He does NOT deny its existence or claim that it can't be explained. Indeed, quite the opposite. He has explained HOW it has come about:
Janeway predicted in 1989 that activation of the adaptive immune response is controlled by the more ancient innate immune system. He proposed a general theory of innate immune recognition (pattern recognition theory) and suggested the principles of innate control of adaptive immunity [1] These predictions have been confirmed in subsequent years and now form the conceptual framework for the current understanding of the innate immune system and the links between innate and adaptive immunity.[2]. Note that this PREDATES Walt Brown's claim to the contrary.
b. N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm, Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.
An appropriate name for someone who comes up with such fairy stories.
c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm, Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.
Ultra Modern Science - even more up to date than your other scientific source - The Bible.
d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
In other words, how can a Amoeba divide? Meiosis is no real different, except that the 2nd division begins before the first one is complete.
How is it that rather than see the obvious you are always seeking to find some fantasy that might explain the facts as they have been observed & blatantly obvious to all concerned, just because you prefer to live in a dreamworld? Or have I answered my own question there.
Tune in next week for another thrilling repeated installment of the unsubstantiated ramblings of Walt Brown.
Science Disproves Evolution
Sexual Reproduction 2
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?
If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).
e. “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals. Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop, Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.
f. “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory. George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.
“So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics. Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.
“The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists. Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup, New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.
“Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today. Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex? Discover, February 1984, p. 24.
“Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret. Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex, Omni, December 1983, p. 18.
“From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types? Nilsson, p. 1225.
“One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists. [According to evolution, it should not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex? Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.
g. “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself. Pitman, p. 135.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.