Pahu;1499952 wrote: I thought I had provided that information. Here it is: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Index Letter A. That takes you to the index. Then, simply find the name of the scientist on the list and you will see his confirmation of Brown's conclusions.
Repeatedly pasting someone else's speculations is not evidence. The index is simply an index of what is in that book, and you have pasted the entire contents of that book here, time & time again.
The Centre for Scientific Creation is NOT an independent source as it was set up by Brown with himself as the CEO.
Sure I do: Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
You have proved my point. You have replied with an opinion - you have not defined what it actually is, or what it deals with. Evolution deals with changes to things that already exist, or have existed. Evolution is a science as, as with all science, the evidence is there first, and the theories are established to explain the evidence. By definition, therefore, it cannot be evidence free.
I never denied the quote was not taken out of context. The fact remains that Hawking's first part of the context, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator, is accurate and does confirm Brown's conclusion; "Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old—has always been here—everything would have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)"
You most certainly did deny that it was taken out of context, and you are continuing to do so here (although, I suppose that in your usage of a TRIPLE negative, that may not be strictly true - by NEVER DENYING something would mean that you admitted something, but in admitting that the quote was NOT taken out of context, must take it back to denying that it WAS taken out of context, surely?), despite your admitting that it was. Take the very next word in the actual quote - "BUT". Furthermore, the very word, "Suppose" would remain accurate in this context
Definition of Suppose:
Think or assume that something is true or probable but lack proof or certain knowledge
(suppose - definition of suppose in English from the Oxford dictionary)
The rest of Hawking's statement is evidence free speculation.
Just as I said. You cherry pick the parts you want, and try to discredit the rest. For reasons of reference, the entire quote was:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
Here are the facts about quantum mechanics:
QUANTUM
Can the universe come into existence from nothing?
Paul Davies writes: "...the application of quantum mechanics is normally restricted to atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles. Quantum effects are usually negligible for macroscopic objects. Recall that at the heart of quantum physics lies Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that all measurable quantities (e.g., position, momentum, energy) are subject to unpredictable fluctuations in their values. This unpredictability implies that the microworld is indeterministic: to use Einstein's picturesque phraseology, God plays dice with the universe. Therefore, quantum events are not determined absolutely by preceding causes. Although the probability of a given event (e.g., the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus) is fixed by the theory, the actual outcome of a particular quantum process is unknown and, even in principle, unknowable.
Actually, Einstein's quote was "God DOES NOT play dice with the Universe". Although Einstein was undoubtedly a genius, things always continue to move on. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a known fact, although unexplained because of its very nature. Things DO happen from time to time, for no apparent reason. This is the nature of Quantum Mechanics. For example, the Earth's rotation around the Sun is fixed. The Seasons are fixed. Therefore the patterns in weather should be fixed also. However, as we all know, they are not. There is even a high degree of error probability even in short term weather forecasting. This is just a basic example of Uncertainty.
“By weakening the link between cause and effect, quantum mechanics provides a subtle way for us to circumvent the origin-of-the-universe problem. If a way can be found to permit the universe to come into existence from nothing (emphasis mine) as the result of a quantum fluctuation, then no laws of physics would be violated. In other words, viewed through the eyes of a quantum physicist, the spontaneous appearance of a universe is not such a surprise, because physical objects are spontaneously appearing all the time--without well-defined causes--in the quantum microworld. The quantum physicist need no more appeal to a supernatural act to bring the universe into being than to explain why a radioactive nucleus decayed when it did."
Apart from the fact that no physicist would "appeal to supernatural acts", I don't see a problem in that. If anything it reinforces the argument against Creation.
A fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction is moved circularly
The blood is such a fluid
Therefore, the blood is moved circularly.
The middle term in the above syllogism is A fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction. So, we ask: What is the reason for concluding that the blood is moved circularly? The reason or cause (or the cause being/because) is the middle term. In other words, the answer is because any fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction is moved circularly.
"If you prick me, do I not bleed" - even blood can exit the circulation, but is constantly being replaced.
So, any weakening of cause and effect can only end in a weakening of the scientific process. Science is precisely a "knowing", and to know is to know reasoned facts or causes. To reason to a conclusion requires a knowledge of causes. For science is a search for causes, and conclusions of arguments proceed from causes (middle terms).
There you have it. Science is a SEARCH for causes. The effect is already known. The effect is the evidence. With Evolution, the fact that things have changed is the effect - the evidence. The Science of Evolution is the search for the cause. Creationism, on the other hand, makes up a cause then looks for an effect. With Science, even if / when a cause is found, it will continue to search for a cause for that causal effect, as the cause itself would have been the effect of a previous cause - a Chicken & Egg scenario. However, as with your Blood metaphor, it also implies the existence of Time & the Universe of being a Circle - or to put it into Biblical terms - "World without end" - a Mobius loop. A causes B, which causes C, which causes A.
Davies argues that the quantum physicist need not appeal to a supernatural act to bring the universe into being. But it is this word "supernatural" that is a problem here. In a sense this is true, one need not appeal to a supernatural act. But it does not follow that one need not appeal to God, who is Ipsum Esse. For God is intimately involved in every natural process, because to cause an effect is to impart being, and God is the First Cause of all that is, because God's essence is to be. Beings do indeed cause effects, but not without the primal causality of that Being whose nature is to be. For nothing reduces itself from potentiality to actuality except by something already in act. We, as actually existing beings, can impart being upon that which is in potentiality to receive the particular mode of being in question, but none of us can bring something into being from nothing. A habens esse cannot surpass the very limits of its nature, and a thing acts according to its nature. But being (esse) is accidental, so to speak, that is, existence is outside of essence (with respect to those beings whose essence is not to be, but to be some kind of thing). There is a real distinction between essence and existence. So as a moving being I can impart motion upon another thing that is potentially moving, but in order to do that I must first be (for me to be actually moving requires that I first be), and so too the potentially moving thing that is in a state of potentiality. Throughout the motion by which I impart moving existence upon a thing, it is Ipsum Esse who must continue to preserve me and the moving thing being moved by me into existence, otherwise I cannot impart motion to the potentially moving thing. And so as a cause of an effect, I am never more than a secondary cause.
As I said - no physicist would refer to anything being a Supernatural cause.
Moreover, change involves two terminals: the terminal from which (terminus a quo) a change commences, and a terminal towards which (terminus ad quem) the change moves and at which it terminates.
AKA - Evolution.
But nothing cannot be a terminus, because it is nothing. That is why creation (the bringing of something into being, by God, from nothing) is not change. The notion of creation from nothing, without God (Ipsum Esse) of course, leaves us with nothing. So, we have the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing, according to Davies. It cannot be a change, since nothing is not a terminus. And there is no cause to this spontaneous appearance. So there is a potentiality that is actualized, but it is not "somehow" actualized because there is no cause. We cannot ask "how" or "why". To ask "why" is to seek the cause, and there is no cause. But quantum fluctuation is put forth as an agent cause. This is inconsistent. So what then, is the existential status of this quantum fluctuation? What is it? If it is nothing, it cannot be the cause. If it is something, then the universe did not proceed from nothing. Fluctuation is also a term whose meaning, like the meanings of all our words, is derived from our pre-scientific experience. Something fluctuates. The word itself means "change". Fluctuation implies a substrate and a terminus a quo. Something is changing, and the terminus ad quem of that change is the end of the change. Now, is there a cause of this quantum fluctuation? If not, then we posit a change that is not caused, that is, a fulfillment or a realization (actualization) of a potentiality without a prior act. But this too would mean getting something from nothing. There is no cause of the fluctuation, and so we cannot seek to know why there was a fluctuation. Now, if nothing precedes the fluctuation (which is to say that the fluctuation has no substrate), then the fluctuation has nothing for its terminus a quo (for it has no substrate). But nothing cannot be the terminus a quo, because nothing means non-being. It is absurd to posit nothing as being a term "from which".
Which is why Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with Creation, whether it be by a God or by the Big Bang. They are 2 totally different subjects.
Finally, one can apply this type of irrationality to anything, that is, to any situation. What is to prevent a person, suspected of robbing a bank, from simply claiming that the money found in his apartment just spontaneously appeared? What grounds does anyone have for maintaining that such a notion is irrational on one level but not on another? In short, the notion of something coming from nothing is irrational and arbitrary.
Yet Creationists use this argument all the time in their claim of the existence of a God.
Which is a proven fact. The reason I was banned is they could not tolerate facts.
Wrong - you were banned for repeatedly pasting irrelevant crap. Not only that, but it wasn't even your own crap. Furthermore you were pasting the crap to inappropriate places, despite moderator's warnings to desist. You are doing exactly the same thing here. The only difference is that FG is far more tolerant than many other forums.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1499985 wrote:
Evolution is a science as, as with all science, the evidence is there first, and the theories are established to explain the evidence. By definition, therefore, it cannot be evidence free.
Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.
Evolution Is Religion, Not Science | The Institute for Creation Research
So, any weakening of cause and effect can only end in a weakening of the scientific process. Science is precisely a "knowing", and to know is to know reasoned facts or causes. To reason to a conclusion requires a knowledge of causes. For science is a search for causes, and conclusions of arguments proceed from causes (middle terms).
There you have it. Science is a SEARCH for causes. The effect is already known. The effect is the evidence. With Evolution, the fact that things have changed is the effect - the evidence.
There is evidence things change. There is no evidence anything has ever changed into a different kind of life form.
The Science of Evolution is the search for the cause.
Evolution is not science as explained above.
Creationism, on the other hand, makes up a cause then looks for an effect.
For example?
Moreover, change involves two terminals: the terminal from which (terminus a quo) a change commences, and a terminal towards which (terminus ad quem) the change moves and at which it terminates.
AKA - Evolution.
There is evidence things change. There is no evidence anything has ever changed into a different kind of life form.
But nothing cannot be a terminus, because it is nothing. That is why creation (the bringing of something into being, by God, from nothing) is not change. The notion of creation from nothing, without God (Ipsum Esse) of course, leaves us with nothing. So, we have the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing, according to Davies. It cannot be a change, since nothing is not a terminus. And there is no cause to this spontaneous appearance. So there is a potentiality that is actualized, but it is not "somehow" actualized because there is no cause. We cannot ask "how" or "why". To ask "why" is to seek the cause, and there is no cause. But quantum fluctuation is put forth as an agent cause. This is inconsistent. So what then, is the existential status of this quantum fluctuation? What is it? If it is nothing, it cannot be the cause. If it is something, then the universe did not proceed from nothing. Fluctuation is also a term whose meaning, like the meanings of all our words, is derived from our pre-scientific experience. Something fluctuates. The word itself means "change". Fluctuation implies a substrate and a terminus a quo. Something is changing, and the terminus ad quem of that change is the end of the change. Now, is there a cause of this quantum fluctuation? If not, then we posit a change that is not caused, that is, a fulfillment or a realization (actualization) of a potentiality without a prior act. But this too would mean getting something from nothing. There is no cause of the fluctuation, and so we cannot seek to know why there was a fluctuation. Now, if nothing precedes the fluctuation (which is to say that the fluctuation has no substrate), then the fluctuation has nothing for its terminus a quo (for it has no substrate). But nothing cannot be the terminus a quo, because nothing means non-being. It is absurd to posit nothing as being a term "from which".
Which is why Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with Creation, whether it be by a God or by the Big Bang. They are 2 totally different subjects.
Since science disproves evolution (as I have shown) that leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
Finally, one can apply this type of irrationality to anything, that is, to any situation. What is to prevent a person, suspected of robbing a bank, from simply claiming that the money found in his apartment just spontaneously appeared? What grounds does anyone have for maintaining that such a notion is irrational on one level but not on another? In short, the notion of something coming from nothing is irrational and arbitrary.
Yet Creationists use this argument all the time in their claim of the existence of a God.
Wrong! The existence of God is logically based on the facts of science. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
Evidence for the Existence of God
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
AlwaysBeReady.com
The First Cause Argument
Arguments for God's Existence
Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
The reason I was banned is they could not tolerate facts.
Wrong - you were banned for repeatedly pasting irrelevant crap. Not only that, but it wasn't even your own crap. Furthermore you were pasting the crap to inappropriate places, despite moderator's warnings to desist. You are doing exactly the same thing here. The only difference is that FG is far more tolerant than many other forums.
All that "irrelevant crap" is based on the facts of science.
Evolution is a science as, as with all science, the evidence is there first, and the theories are established to explain the evidence. By definition, therefore, it cannot be evidence free.
Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.
Evolution Is Religion, Not Science | The Institute for Creation Research
So, any weakening of cause and effect can only end in a weakening of the scientific process. Science is precisely a "knowing", and to know is to know reasoned facts or causes. To reason to a conclusion requires a knowledge of causes. For science is a search for causes, and conclusions of arguments proceed from causes (middle terms).
There you have it. Science is a SEARCH for causes. The effect is already known. The effect is the evidence. With Evolution, the fact that things have changed is the effect - the evidence.
There is evidence things change. There is no evidence anything has ever changed into a different kind of life form.
The Science of Evolution is the search for the cause.
Evolution is not science as explained above.
Creationism, on the other hand, makes up a cause then looks for an effect.
For example?
Moreover, change involves two terminals: the terminal from which (terminus a quo) a change commences, and a terminal towards which (terminus ad quem) the change moves and at which it terminates.
AKA - Evolution.
There is evidence things change. There is no evidence anything has ever changed into a different kind of life form.
But nothing cannot be a terminus, because it is nothing. That is why creation (the bringing of something into being, by God, from nothing) is not change. The notion of creation from nothing, without God (Ipsum Esse) of course, leaves us with nothing. So, we have the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing, according to Davies. It cannot be a change, since nothing is not a terminus. And there is no cause to this spontaneous appearance. So there is a potentiality that is actualized, but it is not "somehow" actualized because there is no cause. We cannot ask "how" or "why". To ask "why" is to seek the cause, and there is no cause. But quantum fluctuation is put forth as an agent cause. This is inconsistent. So what then, is the existential status of this quantum fluctuation? What is it? If it is nothing, it cannot be the cause. If it is something, then the universe did not proceed from nothing. Fluctuation is also a term whose meaning, like the meanings of all our words, is derived from our pre-scientific experience. Something fluctuates. The word itself means "change". Fluctuation implies a substrate and a terminus a quo. Something is changing, and the terminus ad quem of that change is the end of the change. Now, is there a cause of this quantum fluctuation? If not, then we posit a change that is not caused, that is, a fulfillment or a realization (actualization) of a potentiality without a prior act. But this too would mean getting something from nothing. There is no cause of the fluctuation, and so we cannot seek to know why there was a fluctuation. Now, if nothing precedes the fluctuation (which is to say that the fluctuation has no substrate), then the fluctuation has nothing for its terminus a quo (for it has no substrate). But nothing cannot be the terminus a quo, because nothing means non-being. It is absurd to posit nothing as being a term "from which".
Which is why Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with Creation, whether it be by a God or by the Big Bang. They are 2 totally different subjects.
Since science disproves evolution (as I have shown) that leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
Finally, one can apply this type of irrationality to anything, that is, to any situation. What is to prevent a person, suspected of robbing a bank, from simply claiming that the money found in his apartment just spontaneously appeared? What grounds does anyone have for maintaining that such a notion is irrational on one level but not on another? In short, the notion of something coming from nothing is irrational and arbitrary.
Yet Creationists use this argument all the time in their claim of the existence of a God.
Wrong! The existence of God is logically based on the facts of science. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
Evidence for the Existence of God
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
AlwaysBeReady.com
The First Cause Argument
Arguments for God's Existence
Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
The reason I was banned is they could not tolerate facts.
Wrong - you were banned for repeatedly pasting irrelevant crap. Not only that, but it wasn't even your own crap. Furthermore you were pasting the crap to inappropriate places, despite moderator's warnings to desist. You are doing exactly the same thing here. The only difference is that FG is far more tolerant than many other forums.
All that "irrelevant crap" is based on the facts of science.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1499992 wrote: Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.
Evolution IS a proven fact of Science. First there was the evidence, then a Hypothesis, then as further evidence was found to support the hypothesis it became a Theory. Creationsim never even reaches the stage of Hypothesis, as it is all Supposition.
There is evidence things change. There is no evidence anything has ever changed into a different kind of life form.
There is plenty of evidence of transitional species. Creationists simply refuse to accept it despite it being there in front of them. They deny its existence. None so blind as those who don't want to see.
Evolution is not science as explained above.
For example?
It is exactly as explained, and more.
For example? How about the first time when Darwin hit on the idea? He noticed the way that birds & animals which, despite bearing obvious relationships to other species he was familiar with had developed certain characteristics which made them perfectly suited to their environment. Being a devoutly Religious person he couldn't understand how this could be, as the Scriptures had taught him of the Creation having created all the animals on the world & that, therefore, the same animals should appear worldwide, regardless of the environment. What was a particular species at the time of the flood should be an identical species still, and if it wasn't suited to its environment then it would die & therefore not exist there at all. There is the evidence. The fact that these species did exist indicated that the original supposition was not necessarily so. Therefore a hypothesis was formed. He then went on to look for more evidence, and eventually found it wasn't limited only to that island, but worldwide & across all other species. The Hypothesis then became a Theory. Then, following from patterns formed previously, it was predicted that certain fossil remains should be found in specific areas that would be most likely be of certain appearances. Such predictions have been made & the predicted evidence found in the predicted locations. In Science we call that logical prediction. The Bible calls it Miraculous Prohecy.
There is evidence things change. There is no evidence anything has ever changed into a different kind of life form.
See above.
Since science disproves evolution (as I have shown) that leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
1. Science only disproves anything by proving an opposite to be true.
2. You have not shown anything, as you cannot show anything that is not true.
3. Creation is not anything to do with Evolution. When will you learn to understand that? It's like saying "This recipe is not for a cake, therefore that leaves a computer. That proves that the recipe was made by a computer." It's utter nonsense. Evolution doesn't even discount Creationism. As far as Evolution is concerned, as far as Science is concerned, the things that have evolved could well have been put there by a Creator. Why don't you get that?
4. IF there was a Creation then that MIGHT suggest a Creator (not DEMAND), but NOT anything of the Supernatural type. If there is a cause, then it is natural that that cause results in effect. Therefore, if the process happens it is natural that it happened. Therefore, the Creator is merely a natural reaction - not any sort of being.
Wrong! The existence of God is logically based on the facts of science. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
1. There is no logical argument for a God.
2. Science demands evidence. There is none. Therefore there is nothing in Science to indicate the existence of a God.
3. By saying whether or not there was a time "Before the Universe existed" is Supposition. There is no evidence to support that one way or the other. Therefore there is no evidence to support the existence or non-existence of anything before the Universe. Science simply doesn't know - yet. However, just because Science doesn't know the answer doesn't mean that the only remaining option is the magical "Supernatural" scenario. People didn't used to know what lightning was. They could see it appearing from nowhere in the sky. Obviously there was nothing up there, therefore the cause had to be Supernatural, and therefore were arrows being thrown by God because he was angry. THIS is the sort of thing to be found in your Bible. This is your level of Scientific 'Evidence' which hasn't changed in thousands of years. Are you still saying that lightning is Supernatural, and that they are just arrows being hurled by God in his anger?
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
By their predictions of what might be found at predicted locations, on multiple occasions, that is a repeatable experiment in itself. Scientists have repeatedly observed the evolution of bacteria into totally different forms. Plants & animals are repeatedly cross bred in order to create particular breeds to match the design required. All of these are happening every day. Like it or not, that in itself is repeatable evidence. In nature, without man's intervention, major changes happen over millions of years, rather than a few years. Regrettably we don't have that much time available to wait to see the outcome. However, that does not mean that it is not so. Fossil records have proved it sufficiently.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
See above. Something that is an unknown factor is Supposition - NOT a Scientific 'fact'. To claim it as such simply highlights your level of ignorance - something, incidentally, which you have repeatedly demonstrated, and is definitely a Scientific FACT!!
All that "irrelevant crap" is based on the facts of science.
I'm glad to see you acknowledge it as irrelevant crap, but it has nothing to do with Science.
Evolution IS a proven fact of Science. First there was the evidence, then a Hypothesis, then as further evidence was found to support the hypothesis it became a Theory. Creationsim never even reaches the stage of Hypothesis, as it is all Supposition.
There is evidence things change. There is no evidence anything has ever changed into a different kind of life form.
There is plenty of evidence of transitional species. Creationists simply refuse to accept it despite it being there in front of them. They deny its existence. None so blind as those who don't want to see.
Evolution is not science as explained above.
For example?
It is exactly as explained, and more.
For example? How about the first time when Darwin hit on the idea? He noticed the way that birds & animals which, despite bearing obvious relationships to other species he was familiar with had developed certain characteristics which made them perfectly suited to their environment. Being a devoutly Religious person he couldn't understand how this could be, as the Scriptures had taught him of the Creation having created all the animals on the world & that, therefore, the same animals should appear worldwide, regardless of the environment. What was a particular species at the time of the flood should be an identical species still, and if it wasn't suited to its environment then it would die & therefore not exist there at all. There is the evidence. The fact that these species did exist indicated that the original supposition was not necessarily so. Therefore a hypothesis was formed. He then went on to look for more evidence, and eventually found it wasn't limited only to that island, but worldwide & across all other species. The Hypothesis then became a Theory. Then, following from patterns formed previously, it was predicted that certain fossil remains should be found in specific areas that would be most likely be of certain appearances. Such predictions have been made & the predicted evidence found in the predicted locations. In Science we call that logical prediction. The Bible calls it Miraculous Prohecy.
There is evidence things change. There is no evidence anything has ever changed into a different kind of life form.
See above.
Since science disproves evolution (as I have shown) that leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
1. Science only disproves anything by proving an opposite to be true.
2. You have not shown anything, as you cannot show anything that is not true.
3. Creation is not anything to do with Evolution. When will you learn to understand that? It's like saying "This recipe is not for a cake, therefore that leaves a computer. That proves that the recipe was made by a computer." It's utter nonsense. Evolution doesn't even discount Creationism. As far as Evolution is concerned, as far as Science is concerned, the things that have evolved could well have been put there by a Creator. Why don't you get that?
4. IF there was a Creation then that MIGHT suggest a Creator (not DEMAND), but NOT anything of the Supernatural type. If there is a cause, then it is natural that that cause results in effect. Therefore, if the process happens it is natural that it happened. Therefore, the Creator is merely a natural reaction - not any sort of being.
Wrong! The existence of God is logically based on the facts of science. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
1. There is no logical argument for a God.
2. Science demands evidence. There is none. Therefore there is nothing in Science to indicate the existence of a God.
3. By saying whether or not there was a time "Before the Universe existed" is Supposition. There is no evidence to support that one way or the other. Therefore there is no evidence to support the existence or non-existence of anything before the Universe. Science simply doesn't know - yet. However, just because Science doesn't know the answer doesn't mean that the only remaining option is the magical "Supernatural" scenario. People didn't used to know what lightning was. They could see it appearing from nowhere in the sky. Obviously there was nothing up there, therefore the cause had to be Supernatural, and therefore were arrows being thrown by God because he was angry. THIS is the sort of thing to be found in your Bible. This is your level of Scientific 'Evidence' which hasn't changed in thousands of years. Are you still saying that lightning is Supernatural, and that they are just arrows being hurled by God in his anger?
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
By their predictions of what might be found at predicted locations, on multiple occasions, that is a repeatable experiment in itself. Scientists have repeatedly observed the evolution of bacteria into totally different forms. Plants & animals are repeatedly cross bred in order to create particular breeds to match the design required. All of these are happening every day. Like it or not, that in itself is repeatable evidence. In nature, without man's intervention, major changes happen over millions of years, rather than a few years. Regrettably we don't have that much time available to wait to see the outcome. However, that does not mean that it is not so. Fossil records have proved it sufficiently.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
See above. Something that is an unknown factor is Supposition - NOT a Scientific 'fact'. To claim it as such simply highlights your level of ignorance - something, incidentally, which you have repeatedly demonstrated, and is definitely a Scientific FACT!!
All that "irrelevant crap" is based on the facts of science.
I'm glad to see you acknowledge it as irrelevant crap, but it has nothing to do with Science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1499993 wrote: Evolution IS a proven fact of Science. First there was the evidence, then a Hypothesis, then as further evidence was found to support the hypothesis it became a Theory.
Where is that evidence? The facts of science have disproved evolution, as I have shown many different ways.
Creationsim never even reaches the stage of Hypothesis, as it is all Supposition.
Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation:
I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.
II. Life Was Suddenly Created.
Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.
"One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."
III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.
Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).
[continue]
Where is that evidence? The facts of science have disproved evolution, as I have shown many different ways.
Creationsim never even reaches the stage of Hypothesis, as it is all Supposition.
Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation:
I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.
II. Life Was Suddenly Created.
Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.
"One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."
III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.
Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
[continue]
Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation:
[continued]
IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.
[continue]
Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation:
[continued]
IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation:
[continued]
Your internal server will not let me continue. However, you can read the rest of it here:
Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II) | The Institute for Creation Research
[continued]
Your internal server will not let me continue. However, you can read the rest of it here:
Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II) | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1499993 wrote:
There is plenty of evidence of transitional species. Creationists simply refuse to accept it despite it being there in front of them. They deny its existence. None so blind as those who don't want to see.
Where is that evidence of transitional species?
How about the first time when Darwin hit on the idea? He noticed the way that birds & animals which, despite bearing obvious relationships to other species he was familiar with had developed certain characteristics which made them perfectly suited to their environment.
All life forms have a built in ability to adapt to changes in their environment. But they never change into another kind.
Being a devoutly Religious person he couldn't understand how this could be, as the Scriptures had taught him of the Creation having created all the animals on the world & that, therefore, the same animals should appear worldwide, regardless of the environment.
He was wrong about that too.
What was a particular species at the time of the flood should be an identical species still, and if it wasn't suited to its environment then it would die & therefore not exist there at all. There is the evidence.
Where is the evidence? All that is is the observation that if a life form wasn't suited to its environment then it would die.
The fact that these species did exist indicated that the original supposition was not necessarily so. Therefore a hypothesis was formed. He then went on to look for more evidence, and eventually found it wasn't limited only to that island, but worldwide & across all other species.
The Grants’ research over many years has shown that beak size in finches varies according to many factors—increasing and decreasing over time. It is not directional in any sense, which would be required for molecules-to-man evolution. Adaptation/natural selection has been hijacked and wrongly used by evolutionists as the underlying mechanism of evolution. Rather, it is a mechanism that allows organisms to adapt to their environment.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... aks-again/
The existence of God is logically based on the facts of science. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
1. There is no logical argument for a God.
Sure there is. I just showed it to you.
2. Science demands evidence. There is none. Therefore there is nothing in Science to indicate the existence of a God.
3. By saying whether or not there was a time "Before the Universe existed" is Supposition. There is no evidence to support that one way or the other. Therefore there is no evidence to support the existence or non-existence of anything before the Universe. Science simply doesn't know - yet. However, just because Science doesn't know the answer doesn't mean that the only remaining option is the magical "Supernatural" scenario.
The fact that the universe exists is a self-evident fact. The fact it did not exist before is existed is another self-evident fact. The fact that before the universe existed there was nothing is another self-evident fact. The fact the universe appeared from nothing is another self-evident fact. The fact the universe appearing from nothing is impossible by any natural cause is another self-evident fact. Therefor, logically, the fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing was supernaturally caused is another self-evident fact.
People didn't used to know what lightning was. They could see it appearing from nowhere in the sky. Obviously there was nothing up there, therefore the cause had to be Supernatural, and therefore were arrows being thrown by God because he was angry. THIS is the sort of thing to be found in your Bible. This is your level of Scientific 'Evidence' which hasn't changed in thousands of years. Are you still saying that lightning is Supernatural, and that they are just arrows being hurled by God in his anger?
Where is that mentioned in the Bible. You may find it interesting that the Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
Scientists have repeatedly observed the evolution of bacteria into totally different forms.
Such as?
Plants & animals are repeatedly cross bred in order to create particular breeds to match the design required.
True, but they have never been able to selectively breed anything other than what they started with. For example: When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html
All of these are happening every day. Like it or not, that in itself is repeatable evidence. In nature, without man's intervention, major changes happen over millions of years, rather than a few years. Regrettably we don't have that much time available to wait to see the outcome. However, that does not mean that it is not so. Fossil records have proved it sufficiently.
There are no transitional fossils. The fossils prove all life forms have remained the same for the 6000 years they have existed.
There is plenty of evidence of transitional species. Creationists simply refuse to accept it despite it being there in front of them. They deny its existence. None so blind as those who don't want to see.
Where is that evidence of transitional species?
How about the first time when Darwin hit on the idea? He noticed the way that birds & animals which, despite bearing obvious relationships to other species he was familiar with had developed certain characteristics which made them perfectly suited to their environment.
All life forms have a built in ability to adapt to changes in their environment. But they never change into another kind.
Being a devoutly Religious person he couldn't understand how this could be, as the Scriptures had taught him of the Creation having created all the animals on the world & that, therefore, the same animals should appear worldwide, regardless of the environment.
He was wrong about that too.
What was a particular species at the time of the flood should be an identical species still, and if it wasn't suited to its environment then it would die & therefore not exist there at all. There is the evidence.
Where is the evidence? All that is is the observation that if a life form wasn't suited to its environment then it would die.
The fact that these species did exist indicated that the original supposition was not necessarily so. Therefore a hypothesis was formed. He then went on to look for more evidence, and eventually found it wasn't limited only to that island, but worldwide & across all other species.
The Grants’ research over many years has shown that beak size in finches varies according to many factors—increasing and decreasing over time. It is not directional in any sense, which would be required for molecules-to-man evolution. Adaptation/natural selection has been hijacked and wrongly used by evolutionists as the underlying mechanism of evolution. Rather, it is a mechanism that allows organisms to adapt to their environment.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... aks-again/
The existence of God is logically based on the facts of science. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
1. There is no logical argument for a God.
Sure there is. I just showed it to you.
2. Science demands evidence. There is none. Therefore there is nothing in Science to indicate the existence of a God.
3. By saying whether or not there was a time "Before the Universe existed" is Supposition. There is no evidence to support that one way or the other. Therefore there is no evidence to support the existence or non-existence of anything before the Universe. Science simply doesn't know - yet. However, just because Science doesn't know the answer doesn't mean that the only remaining option is the magical "Supernatural" scenario.
The fact that the universe exists is a self-evident fact. The fact it did not exist before is existed is another self-evident fact. The fact that before the universe existed there was nothing is another self-evident fact. The fact the universe appeared from nothing is another self-evident fact. The fact the universe appearing from nothing is impossible by any natural cause is another self-evident fact. Therefor, logically, the fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing was supernaturally caused is another self-evident fact.
People didn't used to know what lightning was. They could see it appearing from nowhere in the sky. Obviously there was nothing up there, therefore the cause had to be Supernatural, and therefore were arrows being thrown by God because he was angry. THIS is the sort of thing to be found in your Bible. This is your level of Scientific 'Evidence' which hasn't changed in thousands of years. Are you still saying that lightning is Supernatural, and that they are just arrows being hurled by God in his anger?
Where is that mentioned in the Bible. You may find it interesting that the Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
Scientists have repeatedly observed the evolution of bacteria into totally different forms.
Such as?
Plants & animals are repeatedly cross bred in order to create particular breeds to match the design required.
True, but they have never been able to selectively breed anything other than what they started with. For example: When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html
All of these are happening every day. Like it or not, that in itself is repeatable evidence. In nature, without man's intervention, major changes happen over millions of years, rather than a few years. Regrettably we don't have that much time available to wait to see the outcome. However, that does not mean that it is not so. Fossil records have proved it sufficiently.
There are no transitional fossils. The fossils prove all life forms have remained the same for the 6000 years they have existed.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1500000 wrote: Where is that mentioned in the Bible. You may find it interesting that the Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
35 Bible verses about Lightning
Hardly what I would call "Scientifically Accurate".
35 Bible verses about Lightning
Hardly what I would call "Scientifically Accurate".
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1499997 wrote: Where is that evidence? The facts of science have disproved evolution, as I have shown many different ways.
You have shown nothing. You have merely pasted garbage from Brown which has been well & truly debunked.
I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.
This is a typical example of what I've been saying. You open with a supposition. It is an unknown factor. You are stating it as a fact. The remainder of the argument relies on the initial supposition, therefore the remainder of the argument is invalid.
II. Life Was Suddenly Created.
Came into being. Not created. Life is simply a combination of bio-chemicals, coupled with electrical impulses. How or where it began is another unknown. Once again you declare an unknown as fact. As before, the remainder of the argument is invalid.
III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.
Fossil Evidence has simply shown this not to be the case. Once again, the initial premise is false, therefore the remainder of the argument is invalid.
IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.
As above - the fossil evidence proves otherwise.
Where is that evidence of transitional species?
Just a few...
(A few) transitional fossils
Transitional forms
Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory
All life forms have a built in ability to adapt to changes in their environment. But they never change into another kind.
That is what evolution is all about. When one thing changes, no matter how slightly, just how much of a change does it have to be before it can no longer be considered a member of the same species. The transitional species demonstrate plenty of examples whereby they are neither one thing nor the other, as well as the pattern of changes leading up to them as well as since them.
He was wrong about that too.
Darwin realised that. He had originally been a Creationist. It was the Creationist ideal that he realised could not be so. It didn't fit with the evidence to the contrary.
Where is the evidence? All that is is the observation that if a life form wasn't suited to its environment then it would die.
NOW you're beginning to understand the nature of evolution. Survival of the fittest. Those that don't adapt to be best suited to their changing environment perish. Those that adapt best flourish to pass on their evolved genes.
The Grants’ research over many years has shown that beak size in finches varies according to many factors—increasing and decreasing over time. It is not directional in any sense, which would be required for molecules-to-man evolution. Adaptation/natural selection has been hijacked and wrongly used by evolutionists as the underlying mechanism of evolution. Rather, it is a mechanism that allows organisms to adapt to their environment.
Isn't it just great when you try to argue a case but end up reinforcing the argument against yourself. That is exactly what evolution is. You have described how it works, whilst trying to deny that it even exists.
Sure there is. I just showed it to you.
You have not showed any logic whatsoever. Logic relies on something that clearly exists & can be seen to exist. Where there is an unknown factor the logic follows a set course where there can be no other logical option. When an imaginary cause comes into the equation it ceases to be logic. To say that 'something' caused something to happen is logical, as it is immediately acknowledging that that 'something' is an unknown factor. To then say that the 'something' IS something else, with no evidence to that end, that ceases to be logic & immediately becomes supposition, and anything based on that supposition remains further supposition.
You have shown nothing. You have merely pasted garbage from Brown which has been well & truly debunked.
I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.
This is a typical example of what I've been saying. You open with a supposition. It is an unknown factor. You are stating it as a fact. The remainder of the argument relies on the initial supposition, therefore the remainder of the argument is invalid.
II. Life Was Suddenly Created.
Came into being. Not created. Life is simply a combination of bio-chemicals, coupled with electrical impulses. How or where it began is another unknown. Once again you declare an unknown as fact. As before, the remainder of the argument is invalid.
III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.
Fossil Evidence has simply shown this not to be the case. Once again, the initial premise is false, therefore the remainder of the argument is invalid.
IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.
As above - the fossil evidence proves otherwise.
Where is that evidence of transitional species?
Just a few...
(A few) transitional fossils
Transitional forms
Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory
All life forms have a built in ability to adapt to changes in their environment. But they never change into another kind.
That is what evolution is all about. When one thing changes, no matter how slightly, just how much of a change does it have to be before it can no longer be considered a member of the same species. The transitional species demonstrate plenty of examples whereby they are neither one thing nor the other, as well as the pattern of changes leading up to them as well as since them.
He was wrong about that too.
Darwin realised that. He had originally been a Creationist. It was the Creationist ideal that he realised could not be so. It didn't fit with the evidence to the contrary.
Where is the evidence? All that is is the observation that if a life form wasn't suited to its environment then it would die.
NOW you're beginning to understand the nature of evolution. Survival of the fittest. Those that don't adapt to be best suited to their changing environment perish. Those that adapt best flourish to pass on their evolved genes.
The Grants’ research over many years has shown that beak size in finches varies according to many factors—increasing and decreasing over time. It is not directional in any sense, which would be required for molecules-to-man evolution. Adaptation/natural selection has been hijacked and wrongly used by evolutionists as the underlying mechanism of evolution. Rather, it is a mechanism that allows organisms to adapt to their environment.
Isn't it just great when you try to argue a case but end up reinforcing the argument against yourself. That is exactly what evolution is. You have described how it works, whilst trying to deny that it even exists.
Sure there is. I just showed it to you.
You have not showed any logic whatsoever. Logic relies on something that clearly exists & can be seen to exist. Where there is an unknown factor the logic follows a set course where there can be no other logical option. When an imaginary cause comes into the equation it ceases to be logic. To say that 'something' caused something to happen is logical, as it is immediately acknowledging that that 'something' is an unknown factor. To then say that the 'something' IS something else, with no evidence to that end, that ceases to be logic & immediately becomes supposition, and anything based on that supposition remains further supposition.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1500006 wrote: 35 Bible verses about Lightning
Hardly what I would call "Scientifically Accurate".
Those verses are not meant to be scientific. Most of them are about God bringing judgement on the wicked. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
Hardly what I would call "Scientifically Accurate".
Those verses are not meant to be scientific. Most of them are about God bringing judgement on the wicked. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1500008 wrote: You have shown nothing. You have merely pasted garbage from Brown which has been well & truly debunked.
False!
This is a typical example of what I've been saying. You open with a supposition. It is an unknown factor. You are stating it as a fact. The remainder of the argument relies on the initial supposition, therefore the remainder of the argument is invalid.
False!
Came into being. Not created. Life is simply a combination of bio-chemicals, coupled with electrical impulses. How or where it began is another unknown. Once again you declare an unknown as fact. As before, the remainder of the argument is invalid.
Created! If life is so simple, why can no one produce it.
III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.
Fossil Evidence has simply shown this not to be the case. Once again, the initial premise is false, therefore the remainder of the argument is invalid.
False!
As above - the fossil evidence proves otherwise.
False!
Where is that evidence of transitional species?
Just a few...
(A few) transitional fossils
Transitional forms
Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory
All based on evidence free speculation.
That is what evolution is all about. When one thing changes, no matter how slightly, just how much of a change does it have to be before it can no longer be considered a member of the same species. The transitional species demonstrate plenty of examples whereby they are neither one thing nor the other, as well as the pattern of changes leading up to them as well as since them.
Nothing has ever changed into another kind. There is adaptation, but no evolution. For example: When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html
Darwin realised that. He had originally been a Creationist. It was the Creationist ideal that he realised could not be so. It didn't fit with the evidence to the contrary.
Darwin has been proven wrong including his realization. Science has disproved evolution (as I have shown), which leaves creation as the only alternative.
NOW you're beginning to understand the nature of evolution. Survival of the fittest. Those that don't adapt to be best suited to their changing environment perish. Those that adapt best flourish to pass on their evolved genes.
Survival of the fittest explains the fit survive, but not the arrival of the fittest. Evolution does not follow. Creation is the only reality.
Isn't it just great when you try to argue a case but end up reinforcing the argument against yourself. That is exactly what evolution is. You have described how it works, whilst trying to deny that it even exists.
Science has disproved its existence.
You have not showed any logic whatsoever. Logic relies on something that clearly exists & can be seen to exist. Where there is an unknown factor the logic follows a set course where there can be no other logical option. When an imaginary cause comes into the equation it ceases to be logic. To say that 'something' caused something to happen is logical, as it is immediately acknowledging that that 'something' is an unknown factor. To then say that the 'something' IS something else, with no evidence to that end, that ceases to be logic & immediately becomes supposition, and anything based on that supposition remains further supposition.
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. That is a logical statement based on self-evident facts.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
Evidence for the Existence of God
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
AlwaysBeReady.com
The First Cause Argument
Arguments for God's Existence
Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
False!
This is a typical example of what I've been saying. You open with a supposition. It is an unknown factor. You are stating it as a fact. The remainder of the argument relies on the initial supposition, therefore the remainder of the argument is invalid.
False!
Came into being. Not created. Life is simply a combination of bio-chemicals, coupled with electrical impulses. How or where it began is another unknown. Once again you declare an unknown as fact. As before, the remainder of the argument is invalid.
Created! If life is so simple, why can no one produce it.
III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.
Fossil Evidence has simply shown this not to be the case. Once again, the initial premise is false, therefore the remainder of the argument is invalid.
False!
As above - the fossil evidence proves otherwise.
False!
Where is that evidence of transitional species?
Just a few...
(A few) transitional fossils
Transitional forms
Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory
All based on evidence free speculation.
That is what evolution is all about. When one thing changes, no matter how slightly, just how much of a change does it have to be before it can no longer be considered a member of the same species. The transitional species demonstrate plenty of examples whereby they are neither one thing nor the other, as well as the pattern of changes leading up to them as well as since them.
Nothing has ever changed into another kind. There is adaptation, but no evolution. For example: When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html
Darwin realised that. He had originally been a Creationist. It was the Creationist ideal that he realised could not be so. It didn't fit with the evidence to the contrary.
Darwin has been proven wrong including his realization. Science has disproved evolution (as I have shown), which leaves creation as the only alternative.
NOW you're beginning to understand the nature of evolution. Survival of the fittest. Those that don't adapt to be best suited to their changing environment perish. Those that adapt best flourish to pass on their evolved genes.
Survival of the fittest explains the fit survive, but not the arrival of the fittest. Evolution does not follow. Creation is the only reality.
Isn't it just great when you try to argue a case but end up reinforcing the argument against yourself. That is exactly what evolution is. You have described how it works, whilst trying to deny that it even exists.
Science has disproved its existence.
You have not showed any logic whatsoever. Logic relies on something that clearly exists & can be seen to exist. Where there is an unknown factor the logic follows a set course where there can be no other logical option. When an imaginary cause comes into the equation it ceases to be logic. To say that 'something' caused something to happen is logical, as it is immediately acknowledging that that 'something' is an unknown factor. To then say that the 'something' IS something else, with no evidence to that end, that ceases to be logic & immediately becomes supposition, and anything based on that supposition remains further supposition.
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. That is a logical statement based on self-evident facts.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
Evidence for the Existence of God
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
AlwaysBeReady.com
The First Cause Argument
Arguments for God's Existence
Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You are really grasping at straws aren't you. Your response to any argument is "False", despite evidence to the contrary. You can't even explain why you think something is false without resort to more pastes / links to Brown.
No-one ever said anything was simple - that's why Science is still looking for the answer. The very nature of Science still looking proves that they have neither proven nor disproven anything, yet you continue to insist that it has proven something that it hasn't.
Once again you revert to the traditional Creationist's non-logic.
1. Supposition.
No-one knows whether or not there was anything before the Universe, or even if there was a before the Universe. Therefore it is claimed as a proven 'fact' that there wasn't anything. The only FACT is that no-one knows.
2. Contradiction
Claims -
a) The Universe exists.
b) The Universe came from nothing.
c) It is impossible for something to come from nothing.
Yes, the Universe exists. No-one knows if it came from nothing or not. If it did come from nothing then it is possible, because it exists. Q.E.D.
You deny that your only source of information is from Brown's book. I have yet to see you do any independent research of your own.
No-one ever said anything was simple - that's why Science is still looking for the answer. The very nature of Science still looking proves that they have neither proven nor disproven anything, yet you continue to insist that it has proven something that it hasn't.
Once again you revert to the traditional Creationist's non-logic.
1. Supposition.
No-one knows whether or not there was anything before the Universe, or even if there was a before the Universe. Therefore it is claimed as a proven 'fact' that there wasn't anything. The only FACT is that no-one knows.
2. Contradiction
Claims -
a) The Universe exists.
b) The Universe came from nothing.
c) It is impossible for something to come from nothing.
Yes, the Universe exists. No-one knows if it came from nothing or not. If it did come from nothing then it is possible, because it exists. Q.E.D.
You deny that your only source of information is from Brown's book. I have yet to see you do any independent research of your own.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1500016 wrote: You are really grasping at straws aren't you. Your response to any argument is "False", despite evidence to the contrary. You can't even explain why you think something is false without resort to more pastes / links to Brown.
No-one ever said anything was simple - that's why Science is still looking for the answer. The very nature of Science still looking proves that they have neither proven nor disproven anything, yet you continue to insist that it has proven something that it hasn't.
Once again you revert to the traditional Creationist's non-logic.
1. Supposition.
No-one knows whether or not there was anything before the Universe, or even if there was a before the Universe. Therefore it is claimed as a proven 'fact' that there wasn't anything. The only FACT is that no-one knows.
2. Contradiction
Claims -
a) The Universe exists.
b) The Universe came from nothing.
c) It is impossible for something to come from nothing.
Yes, the Universe exists. No-one knows if it came from nothing or not. If it did come from nothing then it is possible, because it exists. Q.E.D.
You deny that your only source of information is from Brown's book. I have yet to see you do any independent research of your own.
Here are the facts: Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
Evidence for the Existence of God
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
AlwaysBeReady.com
The First Cause Argument
Arguments for God's Existence
Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
No-one ever said anything was simple - that's why Science is still looking for the answer. The very nature of Science still looking proves that they have neither proven nor disproven anything, yet you continue to insist that it has proven something that it hasn't.
Once again you revert to the traditional Creationist's non-logic.
1. Supposition.
No-one knows whether or not there was anything before the Universe, or even if there was a before the Universe. Therefore it is claimed as a proven 'fact' that there wasn't anything. The only FACT is that no-one knows.
2. Contradiction
Claims -
a) The Universe exists.
b) The Universe came from nothing.
c) It is impossible for something to come from nothing.
Yes, the Universe exists. No-one knows if it came from nothing or not. If it did come from nothing then it is possible, because it exists. Q.E.D.
You deny that your only source of information is from Brown's book. I have yet to see you do any independent research of your own.
Here are the facts: Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
Evidence for the Existence of God
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
AlwaysBeReady.com
The First Cause Argument
Arguments for God's Existence
Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Acquired Characteristics
Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).
However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need can produce the machinery (d).
Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.
a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism, Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.
b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics. A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.
c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:
“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley). Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation, Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.
d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring. Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter, Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.
“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents. Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants, Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.
“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change. John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly, Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.
“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation). Queitsch et al., p. 618.
e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution? Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Just thought I'd come around and check.
Nope. Still no science.
Nope. Still no science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1500029 wrote: Here are the facts: Before the universe existed there was nothing
Not a fact because nobody knows - therefore speculation.
from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause.
If that's what happened, then it happened. If it happened then it was natural for it to have happened.
Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural,
There is no such thing as supernatural. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it supernatural. Nobody fully understands electricity. Is electricity supernatural?
proving the existence of God.
No facts, therefore nothing proved.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I guess then that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster must be treated with quite some reverence, then, as experiments have been carried out & verified time & time again.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing
As before, it's not a fact as it's an unknown factor.
has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
You still don't seem to understand that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the Universe, do you?
As for only Atheists believing in Evolution, I imagine that you believe Pope Francis is an Atheist then?
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'
Not a fact because nobody knows - therefore speculation.
from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause.
If that's what happened, then it happened. If it happened then it was natural for it to have happened.
Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural,
There is no such thing as supernatural. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it supernatural. Nobody fully understands electricity. Is electricity supernatural?
proving the existence of God.
No facts, therefore nothing proved.
Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I guess then that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster must be treated with quite some reverence, then, as experiments have been carried out & verified time & time again.
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing
As before, it's not a fact as it's an unknown factor.
has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.
You still don't seem to understand that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the Universe, do you?
As for only Atheists believing in Evolution, I imagine that you believe Pope Francis is an Atheist then?
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'
Science Disproves Evolution
As for your next "Acquired Characteristics" pasting - it even begins with a Straw Man statement, demonstrating that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Evolution doesn't occur through changes that are acquired after birth. No-one said they did. It happens from things that they are BORN with. Every lifeform is unique with the combination of it's genes. It has a DNA fingerprint. That's how forensics can identify felons through DNA traces. DNA can also determine parentage, by looking at the branches of the genes. It can follow the branches down the family line to find common ancestors. According to your tenet, if we were to follow that branch back far enough we'd find we were related, having Adam & Eve as our distant descendants - meaning that we were also descended from the interbreeding of their 3 sons (there's a clever trick for you). The nature of this demonstrates that evolution doesn't go from A to B to C in a long continuous line, but branches out in sub branches, intermingling with others, whilst others continue totally independently. Creationists seem to believe that Evolution works by a species changes & replaces the original. This is not the case. It moves on to live alongside it. It is the stronger genes that beings are born with that determine their ability to reproduce & to pass those genes onto the next generation. Brown starts by making out that Evolution is something that it is not & has never claimed to be. As usual he is deliberately being deceptive - a typical Creationist trait.
Science Disproves Evolution
Posted by Pahu
Here are the facts: Before the universe existed there was nothing...
FourPart;1500219 wrote: Not a fact because nobody knows - therefore speculation.
How could there be anything but nothing in the absence of everything?
...from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause.
If that's what happened, then it happened. If it happened then it was natural for it to have happened.
What natural cause brought the universe into existence from nothing?
There is no such thing as supernatural. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it supernatural.
If it isn't natural, isn't it supernatural?
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing
As before, it's not a fact as it's an unknown factor.
Since the universe had a beginning, then before it existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. The reason you will not accept that logic is you do not want to believe is God.
You still don't seem to understand that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the Universe, do you?
I understand that since science disproves evolution, the only alternative is creation, which requires a Creator.
As for only Atheists believing in Evolution, I imagine that you believe Pope Francis is an Atheist then?
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'
I am not sure what the Pope is, but he is wrong if he believes in the scientifically disproved myth of evolution.
Here are the facts: Before the universe existed there was nothing...
FourPart;1500219 wrote: Not a fact because nobody knows - therefore speculation.
How could there be anything but nothing in the absence of everything?
...from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause.
If that's what happened, then it happened. If it happened then it was natural for it to have happened.
What natural cause brought the universe into existence from nothing?
There is no such thing as supernatural. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it supernatural.
If it isn't natural, isn't it supernatural?
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing
As before, it's not a fact as it's an unknown factor.
Since the universe had a beginning, then before it existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. The reason you will not accept that logic is you do not want to believe is God.
You still don't seem to understand that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the Universe, do you?
I understand that since science disproves evolution, the only alternative is creation, which requires a Creator.
As for only Atheists believing in Evolution, I imagine that you believe Pope Francis is an Atheist then?
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'
I am not sure what the Pope is, but he is wrong if he believes in the scientifically disproved myth of evolution.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1500252 wrote: Posted by Pahu
Here are the facts: Before the universe existed there was nothing...
How could there be anything but nothing in the absence of everything?
...from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause.
What natural cause brought the universe into existence from nothing?
If it isn't natural, isn't it supernatural?
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing
Since the universe had a beginning, then before it existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. The reason you will not accept that logic is you do not want to believe is God.
I understand that since science disproves evolution, the only alternative is creation, which requires a Creator.
I am not sure what the Pope is, but he is wrong if he believes in the scientifically disproved myth of evolution.
Sorry. Same old "Evidence-free Speculation."
Again.
Here are the facts: Before the universe existed there was nothing...
How could there be anything but nothing in the absence of everything?
...from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause.
What natural cause brought the universe into existence from nothing?
If it isn't natural, isn't it supernatural?
The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing
Since the universe had a beginning, then before it existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God. The reason you will not accept that logic is you do not want to believe is God.
I understand that since science disproves evolution, the only alternative is creation, which requires a Creator.
I am not sure what the Pope is, but he is wrong if he believes in the scientifically disproved myth of evolution.
Sorry. Same old "Evidence-free Speculation."
Again.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Re-iterating your crap when I have already explained why it is crap doesn't make it any less crap.
FACT - You cannot take an UNKNOWN factor to be a FACT. That is a SUPPOSITION. When the basis of your argument is based on this supposition the rest of it has no value either. There is no more reason to believe that there was always nothing than you do to believe there was always something. For a start off, you believe that there was always a God, who supposedly came from nothing. If he didn't then he must always have existed. You are using the same argument for both situations. You can't have it both ways.
Supernatural is not an alternative for natural. If something happens, by whatever cause, then it is natural for it to happen. Just because you can't explain something doesn't make it supernatural. Lemmings, for instance, are still believed by many to commit suicide by hurling themselves off cliffs. This was a myth brought about because they seemed to diappear for long periods of time every few years. Because no-one could explain it the myth that they disappeared because of their hurling themselves off cliffs was born. There was no evidence to this claim. no-one had ever seen such an event, but it was the only explanation anyone could come up with. You cannot accept the idea of something having possibly always existed, so you argue that it all somehow magically came into being by some Magical Sky Daddy, who supposedly always existed, despite you saying that before the beginning was nothing. So there was nothing but there was something, but there was nothing. It doesn't work. There is NO evidence to back up or even to come close to substantiating this wild fantasy. You cannot, therefore, determine it as a fact.
Gallileo was persecuted by the Church for claiming that the Earth didn't go around the Sun, as laid down in the Bible (as a fact). He was proved to be right, and the Bible wrong. When the rings of Saturn were first discovered, the Vatican declared them to be the Prepuce Of Jesus - which, of course, has to be a fact, because the Church said so.
As for the Pope - I would hardly describe him as being an Atheist. He is just someone who has a handle on the undeniable proven truth of Science - someone who actually opens his eyes & is not stuck in the ignorance of the Middle Ages.
You keep claiming that Science has disproved Evolution, but you cannot show how. The reason you cannot show how is that the only way that Science disproves anything is by proving the opposite to be true. Science has never proven anything of the sort. However, it has come up with, and is continuing to come up with terraquads of evidence to support Evolution, and absolutely nothing to refute it.
FACT - You cannot take an UNKNOWN factor to be a FACT. That is a SUPPOSITION. When the basis of your argument is based on this supposition the rest of it has no value either. There is no more reason to believe that there was always nothing than you do to believe there was always something. For a start off, you believe that there was always a God, who supposedly came from nothing. If he didn't then he must always have existed. You are using the same argument for both situations. You can't have it both ways.
Supernatural is not an alternative for natural. If something happens, by whatever cause, then it is natural for it to happen. Just because you can't explain something doesn't make it supernatural. Lemmings, for instance, are still believed by many to commit suicide by hurling themselves off cliffs. This was a myth brought about because they seemed to diappear for long periods of time every few years. Because no-one could explain it the myth that they disappeared because of their hurling themselves off cliffs was born. There was no evidence to this claim. no-one had ever seen such an event, but it was the only explanation anyone could come up with. You cannot accept the idea of something having possibly always existed, so you argue that it all somehow magically came into being by some Magical Sky Daddy, who supposedly always existed, despite you saying that before the beginning was nothing. So there was nothing but there was something, but there was nothing. It doesn't work. There is NO evidence to back up or even to come close to substantiating this wild fantasy. You cannot, therefore, determine it as a fact.
Gallileo was persecuted by the Church for claiming that the Earth didn't go around the Sun, as laid down in the Bible (as a fact). He was proved to be right, and the Bible wrong. When the rings of Saturn were first discovered, the Vatican declared them to be the Prepuce Of Jesus - which, of course, has to be a fact, because the Church said so.
As for the Pope - I would hardly describe him as being an Atheist. He is just someone who has a handle on the undeniable proven truth of Science - someone who actually opens his eyes & is not stuck in the ignorance of the Middle Ages.
You keep claiming that Science has disproved Evolution, but you cannot show how. The reason you cannot show how is that the only way that Science disproves anything is by proving the opposite to be true. Science has never proven anything of the sort. However, it has come up with, and is continuing to come up with terraquads of evidence to support Evolution, and absolutely nothing to refute it.
Science Disproves Evolution
Mendel’s Laws
Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family.
Figure*3: Dog Variability.* When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations.* It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man.* Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) also confirm these boundaries.
a. Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.
Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:
“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions. James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.
b. “Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.
“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax. William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.
“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced. Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.
Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.
William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 55–56.
c. “...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.
“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
More evidence free regurgitation.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Billions of People in Thousands of Years?
Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning? Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.
SIMPLE, CONSERVATIVE ARITHMETIC REVEALS CLEAR MATHEMATICAL LOGIC FOR A YOUNG AGE OF THE EARTH.
One Plus One Equals Billions
Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.
After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006. This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.
Impact of the Flood
We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people. But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.
FROM TWO PEOPLE, CREATED ABOUT 6,000 YEARS AGO, AND THEN THE EIGHT PEOPLE, PRESERVED ON THE ARK ABOUT 4,500 YEARS AGO, THE WORLD’S POPULATION COULD EASILY HAVE GROWN TO THE EXTENT WE NOW SEE IT—OVER 6.5 BILLION.
Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.
This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billions of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.
Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion.
With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, “If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small? This is a question that evolution supporters must answer.
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-a ... -of-years/
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
More evidence free regurgitation.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Microevolution & Macroevolution are merely words invented by Creationists. They do have one thing in common, however. EVOLUTION. The whole point of Evolution is that it changes. As for being different combinations - would that it were that simple. It's not a simple matter of a piece of a jigsaw matching with a piece of the same colour, but with the same shape as well. If it were just a matter of different combinations there would be no distinct breed at all, as they would all be random combinations. Primates have 24 sets of chromosomes - humans have 23. This originally puzzled scientists - until it was discovered that 2 of those sets had become fused, which further supported how evolution came to be. Scientists knew something was missing. At the time they didn't have the technology to prove it, but they predicted what it probably was and later, when technology improved, they were proved right. Every day more & more discoveries are being made which builds the case for evolution more & more. It seems that the majority of Browns claims are based on questionable data from 30 years ago & more.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1500523 wrote: Primates have 24 sets of chromosomes - humans have 23. This originally puzzled scientists - until it was discovered that 2 of those sets had become fused, which further supported how evolution came to be. Scientists knew something was missing. At the time they didn't have the technology to prove it, but they predicted what it probably was and later, when technology improved, they were proved right. Every day more & more discoveries are being made which builds the case for evolution more & more. It seems that the majority of Browns claims are based on questionable data from 30 years ago & more.
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1 However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.
Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.
In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.
I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7 My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.
Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.
The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.
Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion | The Institute for Creation Research
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1 However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.
Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.
In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.
I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7 My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.
Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.
The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.
Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1500523 wrote: Microevolution & Macroevolution are merely words invented by Creationists. They do have one thing in common, however. EVOLUTION. The whole point of Evolution is that it changes.
Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html
Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1500567 wrote: New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1 However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.
Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.
In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.
I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7 My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.
Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.
The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.
Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion | The Institute for Creation Research
Fascinating how you can come up with 14 year old data that claims to be the authority on DNA and Chromosome formation when 90% of what we now know about the subject has been published since that time.
More evidence-free regurgitation.
Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1 However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.
Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.
In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a lack of synteny.
I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7 My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.
Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the DDX11L2 gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.
The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the DDX11L2 gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase DDX11L genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These DDX11L2 RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.
Functional genes like DDX11L2 do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion | The Institute for Creation Research
Fascinating how you can come up with 14 year old data that claims to be the authority on DNA and Chromosome formation when 90% of what we now know about the subject has been published since that time.
More evidence-free regurgitation.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7 My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene called DDX11L2 on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The DDX11L2 gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.
Just where is this alleged publication and, more importantly, its Peer Reviews (anyone can publish anything they like. Without Peer review it's meaningless)?
As for not being what the scientists expected - have you wondered why the scientists happened to be looking just there, if it happened to be so small in the first place? It's exactly what they had been expecting, and it was exactly where they had been expecting it. The fact is that the EVIDENCE has proven that this fusion exists NOW. You claim that it was there from the very beginning. The onus is now on you to provide evidence to that effect. However, I will concede that the fusion would have been present about 6000 years ago, as fully developed humans have been around much longer than that, despite your claims that the whole Universe never existed that long ago.
Also, please forgive me for saying that you make these claims, as nothing 'you' say is being said by 'you', as you don't appear to have an opinion of your own. You are merely a puppet mouthpiece for your God, Walt Brown.
Just where is this alleged publication and, more importantly, its Peer Reviews (anyone can publish anything they like. Without Peer review it's meaningless)?
As for not being what the scientists expected - have you wondered why the scientists happened to be looking just there, if it happened to be so small in the first place? It's exactly what they had been expecting, and it was exactly where they had been expecting it. The fact is that the EVIDENCE has proven that this fusion exists NOW. You claim that it was there from the very beginning. The onus is now on you to provide evidence to that effect. However, I will concede that the fusion would have been present about 6000 years ago, as fully developed humans have been around much longer than that, despite your claims that the whole Universe never existed that long ago.
Also, please forgive me for saying that you make these claims, as nothing 'you' say is being said by 'you', as you don't appear to have an opinion of your own. You are merely a puppet mouthpiece for your God, Walt Brown.
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1346213 wrote: If I show you evidence to disprove anything here, will you believe it?
Sure as long as you believe the evidence that shows evolution wrong instead of claiming that anything that proves evolution wrong is not evidence like most evolutionists.
Sure as long as you believe the evidence that shows evolution wrong instead of claiming that anything that proves evolution wrong is not evidence like most evolutionists.
-
xfrodobagginsx
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:27 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1346204 wrote:
Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution
Evolution flunks the science test
Irreducible complexity—— Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.
Instantaneous complexity—— Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.
Mathematically impossible—— Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.
SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 28
GREAT POST! The evidence is clear that Evolution is FALSE! Creation is TRUE!
Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution
Evolution flunks the science test
Irreducible complexity—— Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.
Instantaneous complexity—— Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.
Mathematically impossible—— Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.
SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 28
GREAT POST! The evidence is clear that Evolution is FALSE! Creation is TRUE!
Science Disproves Evolution
xfrodobagginsx;1500694 wrote: GREAT POST! The evidence is clear that Evolution is FALSE! Creation is TRUE!
So, you care to actually provide some of that so-called evidence?
After several years,we are still waiting for Pahu to do so.
So, you care to actually provide some of that so-called evidence?
After several years,we are still waiting for Pahu to do so.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Much Evidence Supports Earth as the Origin of Meteorites
• Minerals and isotopes in meteorites are remarkably similar to those on Earth.
• Some meteorites contain sugars, salt crystals containing liquid water,73 and possible cellulose.
• Other meteorites contain limestone, which, on Earth, forms only in liquid water.
• Many meteorites contain excess amounts of left-handed amino acids—a sign of once-living matter.
• NASA has found DNA components in 12 meteorites.
• A few meteorites show that “salt-rich fluids analogous to terrestrial brines flowed through their veins.
• Some meteorites have about twice the heavy hydrogen concentration as Earth’s water today. As explained in the preceding chapter and in Endnote 88 on page 379, this heavy hydrogen came from the subterranean chambers. About 86% of all meteorites contain chondrules, which are best explained by the hydroplate theory.
• Bacteria fossils have been found in three meteorites.
Seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source—and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1500724 wrote:
Much Evidence Supports Earth as the Origin of Meteorites
• Minerals and isotopes in meteorites are remarkably similar to those on Earth.
• Some meteorites contain sugars, salt crystals containing liquid water,73 and possible cellulose.
• Other meteorites contain limestone, which, on Earth, forms only in liquid water.
• Many meteorites contain excess amounts of left-handed amino acids—a sign of once-living matter.
• NASA has found DNA components in 12 meteorites.
• A few meteorites show that “salt-rich fluids analogous to terrestrial brines flowed through their veins.
• Some meteorites have about twice the heavy hydrogen concentration as Earth’s water today. As explained in the preceding chapter and in Endnote 88 on page 379, this heavy hydrogen came from the subterranean chambers. About 86% of all meteorites contain chondrules, which are best explained by the hydroplate theory.
• Bacteria fossils have been found in three meteorites.
Seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source—and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects
Assuming all of those data points are true, they possibly support a similar origin for meteors, and earth material. That is a different kettle of fish, entirely.
I find the sixth point rather humorous.
A few meteorites show that “salt-rich fluids analogous to terrestrial brines flowed through their veins.
Please, do find and post the reference for that one. Should be a good read.
Much Evidence Supports Earth as the Origin of Meteorites
• Minerals and isotopes in meteorites are remarkably similar to those on Earth.
• Some meteorites contain sugars, salt crystals containing liquid water,73 and possible cellulose.
• Other meteorites contain limestone, which, on Earth, forms only in liquid water.
• Many meteorites contain excess amounts of left-handed amino acids—a sign of once-living matter.
• NASA has found DNA components in 12 meteorites.
• A few meteorites show that “salt-rich fluids analogous to terrestrial brines flowed through their veins.
• Some meteorites have about twice the heavy hydrogen concentration as Earth’s water today. As explained in the preceding chapter and in Endnote 88 on page 379, this heavy hydrogen came from the subterranean chambers. About 86% of all meteorites contain chondrules, which are best explained by the hydroplate theory.
• Bacteria fossils have been found in three meteorites.
Seventy-eight types of living bacteria have been found in two meteorites after extreme precautions were taken to avoid contamination. Bacteria need liquid water to live, grow, and reproduce. Obviously, liquid water does not exist inside meteoroids whose temperatures in outer space are near absolute zero (- 460°F). Therefore, the bacteria must have been living in the presence of liquid water before being launched into space. Once in space, they quickly froze and became dormant. Had bacteria originated in outer space, what would they have eaten?
Meteorites containing chondrules, salt crystals, limestone, water, DNA components, possible cellulose, sugars, living and fossil bacteria, terrestrial-like brines, excess left-handed amino acids and heavy hydrogen, and Earthlike minerals, isotopes, and other components implicate Earth as their source—and the fountains of the great deep as the powerful launcher.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids, and Trans-Neptunian Objects
Assuming all of those data points are true, they possibly support a similar origin for meteors, and earth material. That is a different kettle of fish, entirely.
I find the sixth point rather humorous.
A few meteorites show that “salt-rich fluids analogous to terrestrial brines flowed through their veins.
Please, do find and post the reference for that one. Should be a good read.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Still no original arguments I see. No sign of independent thought. Merely more pastings.
First of all - lets take the assumption that meteorites have a similar constitution than that of earth. What does that prove? They are coming TOWARDS us. They are crashing INTO the earth. If the claim that you are constantly making were true, in that they originated on earth, then they would be heading AWAY from us.
Secondly, there was never any question that the matter in space & that of earth comes from the same origin, so it wouldn't be of any surprise that there would be similarity in the consistency of meteorites.
Thirdly, limestone also indicates water and lifeforms. This also indicates possible extra terrestrial life.
Fourthly IF the meteorites had originated from earth, that would not be out of place with the theory (supported by plenty of evidence) that the planet had a devastating impact by an asteroid, millions of years ago, which caused the extinction of the dinosaurs as a result of the ensuing nuclear winter, as debris could well have been scattered into space.
None of Brown's statements come close to disproving Evolution - on the contrary - they actually support it. By his own admission, there have been traces of DNA found in meteorites. Once that DNA reaches a hospitable environment, such as the earth, it can flourish.
First of all - lets take the assumption that meteorites have a similar constitution than that of earth. What does that prove? They are coming TOWARDS us. They are crashing INTO the earth. If the claim that you are constantly making were true, in that they originated on earth, then they would be heading AWAY from us.
Secondly, there was never any question that the matter in space & that of earth comes from the same origin, so it wouldn't be of any surprise that there would be similarity in the consistency of meteorites.
Thirdly, limestone also indicates water and lifeforms. This also indicates possible extra terrestrial life.
Fourthly IF the meteorites had originated from earth, that would not be out of place with the theory (supported by plenty of evidence) that the planet had a devastating impact by an asteroid, millions of years ago, which caused the extinction of the dinosaurs as a result of the ensuing nuclear winter, as debris could well have been scattered into space.
None of Brown's statements come close to disproving Evolution - on the contrary - they actually support it. By his own admission, there have been traces of DNA found in meteorites. Once that DNA reaches a hospitable environment, such as the earth, it can flourish.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1500725 wrote: Please, do find and post the reference for that one. Should be a good read.
Pahu manage to find independent supporting evidence for anything? Get real. If it's not in Brown's story book, he hasn't got a clue. I don't think he even knows how to use Google. When asked for supporting evidence for anything in the book, he just comes up with additional quotes from the book, believing that the book itself can be taken as evidence to support itself - much like a convict on trial: Prosecutor. "Where were you on the night of the murder?" Accused "I was having tea with my Mum". Prosector. "Can anyone verify this claim?" Accused. "Yes, I told the officer who arrested me that I was having tea with my Mum. He'll testify to the fact that I said that". Judge. "Seems like a water tight alibi to me. Case dismissed".
Pahu manage to find independent supporting evidence for anything? Get real. If it's not in Brown's story book, he hasn't got a clue. I don't think he even knows how to use Google. When asked for supporting evidence for anything in the book, he just comes up with additional quotes from the book, believing that the book itself can be taken as evidence to support itself - much like a convict on trial: Prosecutor. "Where were you on the night of the murder?" Accused "I was having tea with my Mum". Prosector. "Can anyone verify this claim?" Accused. "Yes, I told the officer who arrested me that I was having tea with my Mum. He'll testify to the fact that I said that". Judge. "Seems like a water tight alibi to me. Case dismissed".
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu is very prolific with words but has never given us one shred of bona fide scientific evidence. No original research with names and dates, no peer reviews. It is all just wishful thinking. "None are so blind as those who will not hear."
Science Disproves Evolution
Ted;1500885 wrote: Pahu is very prolific with words but has never given us one shred of bona fide scientific evidence. No original research with names and dates, no peer reviews. It is all just wishful thinking. "None are so blind as those who will not hear."
It is not he that is prolific.
He simply regurgitates the junk that Walt Brown's cohorts gather and clutter their website with.
It is not he that is prolific.
He simply regurgitates the junk that Walt Brown's cohorts gather and clutter their website with.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Bounded Variations
Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.
Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few (c). New features apparently don’t evolve.
a. “...the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’ Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.
b. “The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available... Peter R. Sheldon, “Complexity Still Running, Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.
c. Bland J. Finlay, “Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species, Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ho Hum
Science Disproves Evolution
Correct he is prolific with the words of wanna bees.
Science Disproves Evolution
A Moment For Truth
Dave Hunt
America awakened September 11 to appalling scenes on TV of passenger planes deliberately crashing into the towers of the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon. Stunned disbelief gave way to the question, who could so carefully plan and efficiently execute such incredibly inhumane destruction and slaughter?
What cause could so powerfully motivate educated and trained individuals to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of so many total strangers in this manner? In the minds of civilized people these men were unbelievable fanatics. But were they? Could one call the spiritual leader of an entire major country a "fanatic," a man universally recognized as properly representing his religion? Who would know his religion better than the spiritual leader himself? Such was Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini when he declared, "The purest joy in Islam is to kill and be killed for Allah."
Is that fanaticism? And could you call the founder of a major world religion a fanatic? Muhammad, who with his followers slaughtered thousands in establishing and spreading Islam, said of Muslims, "Who relinquishes his faith, kill him...I have been ordered by Allah to fight with people till they testify there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger."
Was Muhammad a fanatic? Are they fanatics who obey him today in exacting the death penalty upon Muslims (as in Afghanistan, the Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan) who for the sake of conscience convert to another religion? Do we need a new definition of "fanatic"?
There is a certain hypocrisy in the new outrage with which America and the world now view terrorism. History's bloodiest, most vicious and successful terrorist, Yasser Arafat, has been given the Nobel Peace Prize and embraced as a world statesman. He is proof to would-be imitators that terrorism pays big. The United Nations, European Union, and countless world political and religious leaders have sided with him in his terrorism against Israel.
Arafat and his PLO held the record for the largest hijacking (four aircraft in a single operation)—which has just been equaled, the greatest number of hostages held at one time (300), the greatest number of people shot at an airport, the largest ransom collected ($5 million paid by Lufthansa), the greatest variety of targets (40 civilian passenger aircraft, five passenger ships, 30 embassies or diplomatic ministries plus innumerable fuel depots and factories), etc.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
A Moment For Truth
[continued]
Instead of being tried by an international tribunal as were the Nazi and Serbian leadership, Arafat's bloody exploits gained for him acceptance as a leader for peace!
In his brief speech to the nation the morning of the 12th, President Bush declared that the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. were "acts of war." Indeed, they were—jihad ("holy war"). He said that "freedom and democracy are under attack [but] we will not allow this enemy to win the war by...restricting our freedoms." Is it a mere coincidence that the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and of vote and conscience which we hold so dear in America are suppressed in every Muslim country? Who dares to make the obvious connection between this declaration of war against America, and the declaration of war against the entire world by Muhammad in the seventh century; a part of Islam ever since? Since its inception, jihad has been waged by Islamic warriors to spread that religion of violence and hatred. Islam does not change. Rioting Muslim mobs invariably chant in their "fanaticism," "Allah is great! Allah is great!"
In the wake of this terrible act of "holy war," our President and Congressional leaders referred to God numerous times and invoked His blessing in tracking down the perpetrators of this infamous deed. The God of the Bible to whom they referred is not Allah, the god of Islam, whom the attacking terrorists served so faithfully!
We may be certain that the hijackers were not Israelis or evangelical Christians. Never! The simple but horrible fact is that only the religion of Islam could supply the motivation for what they did. Why are Muslims responsible for most terrorism in the world today? There is a definitive and foundational reason.
It would be extremely naive to imagine that terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up in Israel or to crash a plane at the loss of their own and many other lives do so for some commendable humanitarian cause. The courage comes solely from a unique doctrine of Islam.
Abu-Bakr, the first Caliph to succeed Muhammad (and one of the few to whom Muhammad promised Paradise without martyrdom), declared that even if he had one foot in Paradise he could not trust Allah to let him in. The only sure way in Islam of achieving Paradise is to sacrifice one's life in jihad. Yes, suicide is forbidden as self-murder. But to sacrifice one's life in killing infidels carries the highest reward.
And what reward does Paradise bring to the jihad martyr? He is promised a palace of pearls in which are 70 mansions; inside each mansion are 70 houses and in each house a bed on which are 70 sheets and on each sheet a beautiful virgin. He is assured that he will have the appetite and strength of 100 men for food and sex. This is the fantastic dream that is fed to Muslim boys from earliest childhood. This motivation alone gives the reckless courage and determination to train and execute terrorist deeds in which they sacrifice their lives in bringing death and destruction to "the enemies of Allah."
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
A Moment For Truth
[continued]
America has been called "the Great Satan" by Muslim leaders around the world. Thus the strike at America was a strike for Allah against his chief enemy. Palestinians danced in the streets to celebrate the destruction in America, shouting victory to Allah. The day before the attack CNN showed routine footage of third grade children in a West Bank school chanting death to Israel. Only indoctrination into Islam makes possible such incredible scenes and the terrorism they celebrate.
Though people of good will naturally recoil from attaching blame to a major world religion itself, we can no longer afford such sentimentality. No longer dare we allow Islam to escape its undeniable responsibility. Yet former President Bush called Islam a peace-loving religion. The devastating acts of war by Islamic terrorists against the United States were greeted by naive statements from well-intentioned government leaders to the effect that we must distinguish between terrorism perpetrated by extremist groups and Islam itself which is peaceful. Yet there are more than 100 verses in the Qur'an advocating the use of violence to spread Islam.
In the Qur'an, Allah commands Muslims, "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends...Slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them.... Fight against such...as believe not in Allah..." (Surah 5:51; 9:5,29,41, etc..). Though most Muslims would shrink from obeying such commands, this is official Islam and it cannot change without admitting that Muhammad was a false prophet and murderer.
Several years ago Steven Emerson produced for PBS an excellent video titled Jihad In America. Its cameras went directly inside cell groups associated with mosques here in America where eager young Muslims were being recruited for jihad against the United States. Muslim leaders are shown giving speeches about bringing America to its knees through terrorism and making cold-blooded statements such as the following from Fayiz Azzam in Brooklyn in1989: "Blood must flow, there must be widows, orphans. Hands and limbs must be severed and limbs and blood must be spread everywhere in order that Allah's religion stand on its feet!" Yes, Allah's religion is the motivation!
In Kansas, in 1988, another leader recruiting Islamic holy warriors against the United States exults, "O, brothers! After Afghanistan [where Muslim freedom fighters, aided by the CIA, drove out the Soviets and installed the brutal Taliban regime] nothing in the world is impossible for us any more! There are no superpowers or minipowers. What matters is will power that springs from our religious belief!" Yes, religious belief, the particular belief of Islam, is the only motivation capable of inspiring such "fanaticism."
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
A Moment For Truth
[continued]
At the beginning of the video, Emerson, who had tracked international terrorism for the prior ten years, reported on what he called "networks of Islamic extremists" inside the US. He accurately warned that "for these militants jihad is a holy war, an armed struggle to defeat nonbelievers, or infidels, and their ultimate goal is to establish an Islamic [worldwide] empire." Yet he later backpedaled into the incredible statement that "Islam as a religion does not condone violence; the radicals represent only themselves—an extremist and violent fringe..." That is simply not true. It is not because men are Arabs or extremists that they turn to terrorism, but because they are devout Muslims. Yet who will face this obvious fact?
Hatred of Israel and the call to destroy America for supporting her are also underlying themes of the terrorists seen in the documentary. Another Muslim leader in the US declares that Washington's Capitol Hill is "Zionist-occupied territory," that the Jews control Congress, and that the United States deserves what it gets so long as it continues to support Israel.
Referring repeatedly to "Islamic holy warriors," the video documented as clearly as could be done that Islam is the driving force behind terrorism. Astonishingly, however, the narrator and counter-terrorism experts being interviewed repeatedly declared that Islam was not to be blamed but only the "fanaticism" of certain individuals. For example, Paul Bremer, former Ambassador-at-Large for counter-terrorism for the State Department, said it is "important to make a distinction...the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs are peace loving." It is true that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and would protest that they support terrorism. Our sympathy is with them. However, should they not ask themselves why they follow a religion founded upon violence, which from its very inception has been spread with the sword?
Under Muhammad's leadership in the seventh century, thousands of Arabs (and many Jews and Christians) in the Arabian Peninsula were killed by Islam's fierce "holy warriors" to force that religion upon the Arab world. Upon Muhammad's death, most Arabians abandoned Islam, imagining that they were free at last. Swiftly, tens of thousands of Arabs were slaughtered in the Wars of Apostasy, which forced Arabia back under Allah. From that base Islam was spread everywhere with the sword.
On radio and TV, during that black Tuesday in September, which we can never forget, we were repeatedly told by well-intentioned government officials that we must be careful not to blame Islam for what a few fanatics had done. In fact, terrorists act in direct obedience to Muhammad, the Qur'an, Allah and Islam. While nominal Muslims reject the idea, all Islamic scholars agree that it is the religious duty of every Muslim to use violence whenever possible to spread Islam until it has taken over the world.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
A Moment For Truth
[continued]
We need to face some simple questions: Is not the attempt to force them into Islam the cause of the cruel enslavement, torture and slaughter of millions in southern Sudan? Is not Islam the driving force behind the murderous and destructive riots against Christians in Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and elsewhere? Is it not the enforcement of Islamic law that makes the Taliban deny all civil rights to those under its control in Afghanistan? And what is it but Islam that unites the otherwise divided Arab world in an implacable and unreasoning hatred against Israel?
No Arab map in the world admits Israel's existence. It is only Islam's claim that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son of promise and that the Holy Land belongs to them, which unites Arabs in the "fanatical" determination to destroy the Jews.
There is a natural reluctance to accept any statement which seems to be a prejudiced attack upon a world religion. It is the fear of such prejudice which prevents the world from facing the truth. But is it prejudice to state the plain facts? No, it is not—but it is difficult to face the truth that Islam itself is a religion of violence and that those who practice it are not extremists and fanatics in the ordinary sense of those words, but sincere followers of Muhammad.
The world has sided with Islam in its false claim to the land of Israel, which is now inaccurately called Palestine. This promised land, given to Israel by the God of the Bible, has been occupied by Jews continuously for the last 3,000 years, and they are the only people to have done so. In recognition of that undeniable historic fact, all of "Palestine" was to be given to the Jews for a national homeland by a 1917 ruling of the League of Nations. But steadily the Jews were betrayed by Britain's administration of this mandate (and the demise of the British Empire can be dated from that betrayal); the land was parceled out to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Israel is now accused of "occupying" land, which actually has been theirs for 3,000 years. The come-lately "Palestinians" are sustained by the world in the lie that they are the original owners of this land. As a result, terrorism is perpetrated not only against Israel but now in this latest act against the United States to apply pressure to force Israel out of its rightful land and to spread Islam around the world.
We have arrived at a defining moment when truth could triumph if the world would recognize that terrorists are not "fanatics" but devout fundamentalist Muslims who are earnestly following their religion. This recognition could bring fresh sympathy for Muslims of all nationalities who are tragically trapped in that system.
The expose of the truth could embarrass Muslim nations into opening the Islamic Curtain and allowing freedom to enter their borders. It could be a new day of open evangelism for the world where not force but love and reason permit each person to determine the faith he would embrace from his heart.
Let us pray to that end.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Natural Selection 1
Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection differs from what the words actually mean. “Selecting implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice. Instead, the complex genetics of each species allows variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a slightly better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments. With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection will be used.
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents. Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children. Only in this sense, does nature “select genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. (a).
a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]
Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.
Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).
Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood. [See pages 108-339]
“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position. Eiseley, p. 76.
Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances. [See Jerry Bergman, “Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory? Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
In some places it is called "verbal diarrhea". Need a lot of TP on this thread.
Science Disproves Evolution
Much of your argument against Evolution and Natural Selection is based on the writings of Darwin, and Wallace, and others from well over a century ago.
There is so much that was unknown at that time. Science does not rest on evidence perceived decades, or centuries ago. Science is an ongoing process.
Below is some very interesting facts, recently uncovered through Scientific study.
From Smithsonian Magazine:
A new study reveals we still don’t know everything about giraffes—and what we don’t know could entirely change how conservationists protect them.
Currently, giraffes are all know as species Giraffa camelopardalis, and up to 11 sub-species are recognized, including the Nubian giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis camelopardalis). But skin biopsies on 190 giraffes from all around Africa revealed that they are about as genetically distinct as a polar bear is from a black bear, the study’s lead author, Axel Janke, told Chris Woolston for Nature.
The authors of this new study, published last week in Current Biology, suggest that giraffes should be divided into four distinct species: the southern giraffe (G. giraffa); the Masai giraffe (G. tippelskirchi); the reticulated giraffe (G. reticulata); and the northern giraffe (G. camelopardalis). The Nubian giraffe would remain a recognized subspecies. By definition, the four newly defined species cannot breed with each other in the wild.
Read more here: There are four distinct species of Giraffes, not one and long thought
Or here:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/ful ... 16)30787-4
As genomes of various species are decoded, and studied, we will likely find much of what was believed to be true, in both the Scientific community and the general population will be revised based on the collection of new data.
There is so much that was unknown at that time. Science does not rest on evidence perceived decades, or centuries ago. Science is an ongoing process.
Below is some very interesting facts, recently uncovered through Scientific study.
From Smithsonian Magazine:
A new study reveals we still don’t know everything about giraffes—and what we don’t know could entirely change how conservationists protect them.
Currently, giraffes are all know as species Giraffa camelopardalis, and up to 11 sub-species are recognized, including the Nubian giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis camelopardalis). But skin biopsies on 190 giraffes from all around Africa revealed that they are about as genetically distinct as a polar bear is from a black bear, the study’s lead author, Axel Janke, told Chris Woolston for Nature.
The authors of this new study, published last week in Current Biology, suggest that giraffes should be divided into four distinct species: the southern giraffe (G. giraffa); the Masai giraffe (G. tippelskirchi); the reticulated giraffe (G. reticulata); and the northern giraffe (G. camelopardalis). The Nubian giraffe would remain a recognized subspecies. By definition, the four newly defined species cannot breed with each other in the wild.
Read more here: There are four distinct species of Giraffes, not one and long thought
Or here:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/ful ... 16)30787-4
As genomes of various species are decoded, and studied, we will likely find much of what was believed to be true, in both the Scientific community and the general population will be revised based on the collection of new data.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Natural Selection 2
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection implies, variations are reduced, not increased (b).
For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,
a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved (c), or
a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism’s proteins, or
a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or
a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more (d), or
a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated (e).
b. “[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested. Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity, Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.
“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well. Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Natural History, Vol. 86, June–July 1977, p. 28.
c. G. Z. Opadia-Kadima, “How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp. 127–135.
d. Eric Penrose, “Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics—A Case of Un-Natural Selection, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, September 1998, pp. 76–83.
e. Well-preserved bodies of members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Because the first antibiotics were developed in the early 1940s, these resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to antibiotics. Contamination has been eliminated as a possibility. [See Rick McGuire, “Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria, Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]
“The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds. Francisco J. Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 65.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.