ForumGarden

Pahu;1465429 wrote: [From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


Ta-da - What did I tell you?

All it takes is a quick scan to the bottom of one of your usual epic posts, see that name Walt Brown to know that the rest of the post can be totally disregarded, thus saving time by not having to trawl through it all.

Quite frankly I don't even believe that you really believe any of the crap you spout. Everything you post, when it's not the usual Walt Brown plagiarism shows that you have a very 2 dimensional view of the world. Everything you say goes to show that you think of evolution as being that there is a change, and ZAP!! POW!!, the entire species changes to something else. This most certainly is not the case. In the same way you are assuming that life suddenly changed from being asexually reproductive to sexually reproductive. This, too, can be demonstrated by the many lifeforms which are hermaphrodites, not only self reproducing, but sexually as well. These are life forms that demonstrates various levels of the evolutionary progression. As for changing sex - in case you weren't aware, even humans change sex. We all start off as female & then mutate according to the XX or XY chromosome. Plus, of course, there are those that are occasionally born with both genital parts.

Evolution doesn't happen overnight. nor is it a sudden change across a single species. Sexual reproduction evolved because it proved to be an effective way to further the species as it encourages & accelerates diversification. Without it all life would remain clones of its parents, which is fine, until there is a change in the conditions, making it impossible for that particular organic design to thrive, whereas those that adapt to their environment are the ones that survive.

An amoeba, as I'm sure you're aware, reproduces by dividing itself in 2. However, once in a while it will divide itself in 3, or even 4. Even something as simple as this is a form of evolution, as it means that the progeny are also likely to result in multi divisions - which is the way that multi-cell life forms develop.

If you were to stack copies of War & Peace as high as Mount Everest, symbolically as a time scale of the earth, about half way up would be the beginnings of life. The final page would be the first recognisable emergence what might be identified as Human. It didn't all happen within 6 days.

Symbiotic Relationships




Different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. At the broadest level, the animal kingdom depends on the oxygen produced by the plant kingdom. Plants, in turn, depend on the carbon dioxide produced by the animal kingdom.

More local and specific examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp (a), the yucca plant and the yucca moth (b), many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. *In other words, creation.

a. Oscar L. Brauer, “The Smyrna Fig Requires God for Its Production, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol.*9, September 1972, pp.*129–131.

Bob Devine, Mr.*Baggy-Skin Lizard (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), pp.*29–32.

b. Jerry A. Powell and Richard A. Mackie, Biological Interrelationships of Moths and Yucca Whipplei (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966).

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

More plagiarism.

Has this epic of Walt Brown's fantasies officially been declared as Public Domain or are you blatantly continuing to breach the Copyright Laws.

What about "Thou Shalt Not Steal" - I believe there's a reference to it somewhere in that other Fairy Tale book of yours.

I've told you before, I'm not going to bother referring to it, as you copied & pasted the entire book by now countless times & it makes no difference how many times you repeatedly paste it, it doesn't make it any less garbage.

I will admit it does have one very good purpose - try sticking a nail through it & hanging it on your bathroom door. At least it has the right name for colour co-ordination.

FourPart;1465880 wrote: More plagiarism.

Has this epic of Walt Brown's fantasies officially been declared as Public Domain or are you blatantly continuing to breach the Copyright Laws.


The information I am sharing is not a copyright violation. The author, Walt Brown, has given permission:

“Any portion of this book may be reproduced for teaching or classroom use. ¨For all other uses, simply reference this book and Walt Brown as your source.

“There is no charge for reading or printing any or all portions of it.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Preface



What about "Thou Shalt Not Steal" - I believe there's a reference to it somewhere in that other Fairy Tale book of yours.


Abortion and atheism are fair tales, the Bible is not:

Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecies

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

I've told you before, I'm not going to bother referring to it, as you copied & pasted the entire book by now countless times & it makes no difference how many times you repeatedly paste it, it doesn't make it any less garbage.

This is page 121 of page 121 in this forum. On eavery page you have repeatedly pasted the same old crap, time & time again, with scarcely any argument from yourself, and in the rare times when you do actually put some input for yourself all it ever does is back up the case for the opposite of what you claim.

However, you earlier quote (one of YOURS for a change) I do agree with 100%.

Abortion and atheism are fair tales, the Bible is not:
Mind you, who mentioned anything about Abortion? I certainly didn't. Although you are right. It IS a fair tale, because it is an actual thing. It is proved to be true. And you're right. The Bible has not.

The reset of your post is not even worthy of reading, let alone commenting on as it never brings anything new to the discussion. It's like a low budget TV station - constantly running reruns of the worst crappy programmes that no-one's interested in, apart from a few morons here & there that don't have the intelligence to understand that the more the reuns are aired, the less credibility the have.

Work it out. Walt Brown is the station. His book (note, singular) is the rerun. Its moron viewer....

Go figure.

FourPart;1465954 wrote: This is page 121 of page 121 in this forum. On eavery page you have repeatedly pasted the same old crap, time & time again, with scarcely any argument from yourself, and in the rare times when you do actually put some input for yourself all it ever does is back up the case for the opposite of what you claim.

However, you earlier quote (one of YOURS for a change) I do agree with 100%.

Mind you, who mentioned anything about Abortion? I certainly didn't. Although you are right. It IS a fair tale, because it is an actual thing. It is proved to be true. And you're right. The Bible has not.

The reset of your post is not even worthy of reading, let alone commenting on as it never brings anything new to the discussion. It's like a low budget TV station - constantly running reruns of the worst crappy programmes that no-one's interested in, apart from a few morons here & there that don't have the intelligence to understand that the more the reuns are aired, the less credibility the have.

Work it out. Walt Brown is the station. His book (note, singular) is the rerun. Its moron viewer....

Go figure.


I meant to say evolution and atheism are fairy tales. Sorry about that.

I won't argue evolution with you, because it's useless...

But I will point out that you believe in science, since you quote it often enough and are using technology that you cannot deny, so how is it that you think that science is right about so many things but not this one. Just because it conflicts with your religion?

A true scientist cannot believe one tenet of science and ignore others.

I continue to object to even the title of this presumptuous thread.

Science does not disprove.

Scientific method will prove (test) the hypothesis, and the theory, but it cannot "disprove" anything.

It can be used to prove, or it can, through its use, fail to prove an idea.

Then of course, Pahu's notion of "Science" is to quote statements from people who may be scientists, or may be non-scientists, expressing their opinions. Many of these statements are taken completely out of context from their original conversation, and therefore have no meaning. What you show in this gathering is part of how science works. Scientists continue to ask the question, and pose objections, and look for ways to test those questions, to see how they hold up. In doing so, they continue to test, revise, redefine and understand how something really works. This is the process from which those quotes are taken.

Sorry, bud, but you fail on so many fronts, here. You fail to offer any science, and you fail to prove your OP statement.

All you succeed in doing is to continuously expose the ignorance of the anti-evolution types.

Just sayin'

Saint_;1465967 wrote: I won't argue evolution with you, because it's useless...

But I will point out that you believe in science, since you quote it often enough and are using technology that you cannot deny, so how is it that you think that science is right about so many things but not this one. Just because it conflicts with your religion?

A true scientist cannot believe one tenet of science and ignore others.


Science disproves evolution, as I have been showing.

Pahu;1465976 wrote: Science disproves evolution, as I have been showing.


And as we have been saying, you have yet to show anything.

Pahu;1465976 wrote: Science disproves evolution, as I have been showing.
If you had bothered to READ Lar's post - or more to the point UNDERSTAND what he was saying (and I agree, that in your case there is clearly a major difference, as has so often been demonstrated) is that the nature of science is that it doesn't DIS-prove anything. It only PROVES something. It's very much like a Court of Law. The Defendant is considered Innocent, by default, until PROVED Guilty. It is for this reason that Science cannot PROVE the non-existence of Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants, simply because they haven't observed one. If they happen to find one, however, the case has been proved that they do exist.

The point is, though, that Science has, indeed, PROVED evolution time & time again. Evolution, the Defendant, has been proved Guilty & has been duly sentenced to a life imprisonment in the Institution of Fact.

Religion, on the other hand, makes wild claims (such as the existence of Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants) & trying to portray them as fact simply because it cannot be disproved.

Pahu;1465976 wrote: Science disproves evolution, as I have been showing.


Pahu, If you say "science" you have to have a consensus among the world's scientific community. The vast overwhelming majority state the evolution is a fact. They have genetics, fossils, radioactive dating, and DNA on their side. you may be able to find a precious few people on the Earth that say it is flat...but that doesn't make it so.

FourPart;1465987 wrote: If you had bothered to READ Lar's post - or more to the point UNDERSTAND what he was saying (and I agree, that in your case there is clearly a major difference, as has so often been demonstrated) is that the nature of science is that it doesn't DIS-prove anything. It only PROVES something.


When science proves something, it is disproving the opposite. For example, when scientist Louis Pasteur proved that maggots come from eggs laid in meat, it disproved the belief that they spontaneously generated from nothing.

The point is, though, that Science has, indeed, PROVED evolution time & time again.


Where is that proof?

Religion, on the other hand, makes wild claims (such as the existence of Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants) & trying to portray them as fact simply because it cannot be disproved.


What religion claims the existence of Fluffy Flying Pink Elephants?

LarsMac;1465985 wrote: And as we have been saying, you have yet to show anything.


Obviously you have not been paying attention. Every post shows that science disproves evolution. For example:

Sexual Reproduction



Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.a

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical,b and electricalc compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes that scientists can describe only in a general sense.d

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.e

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction.f But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime?

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.g

a . In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly, mammals—including each of us—would not exist.

The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged. [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

b . N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm, Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.

c . Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm, Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.

d . For example, how could meiosis evolve?

e . “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals. Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop, Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

f . “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory. George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

u “So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams, 1975; John Maynard Smith, 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics. Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

u “The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists. Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup, New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.

u “Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today. Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex? Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

u “Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret. Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex, Omni, December 1983, p. 18.

u “From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types? Nilsson, p. 1225.

u “One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists. [According to evolution, it should not.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex? Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.

g . “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself. Pitman, p. 135.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 37.** Sexual Reproduction

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION

[continued]



"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

Scientists Speak About Evolution

Saint_;1465992 wrote: Pahu, If you say "science" you have to have a consensus among the world's scientific community.


False. A few hundred years ago the scientific community thought the earth was flat.

The vast overwhelming majority state the evolution is a fact. They have genetics, fossils, radioactive dating, and DNA on their side. you may be able to find a precious few people on the Earth that say it is flat...but that doesn't make it so.


SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION



Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

[continue]

Pahu;1466045 wrote: False. A few hundred years ago the scientific community thought the earth was flat.


That was more like a few thousand years ago.

The idea that Middle age Europeans thought the earth flat is a long ago debunked myth.

Pahu;1466045 wrote:

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION



Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

...

[continue]


Yadda, yadda,...

Sorry but we have already made the determination that quoting people who are, or may be scientists, is not, in fact, science.

And, must I bring up, again, the fact that we have not even come to an agreement as to the definition of this "Evolution" that you propose science has disproved.

Pahu;1346204 wrote:

Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution

Evolution flunks the science test


Actually, your first post in this thread is what fails 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.


This part ignores single-celled life and especially viruses. And of course life is interrelated, it all descended from the original organisms. You actually support evolution by stating that everything is interrelated. That's exactly what evolution states, that modern life is related to all other forms that came before it.

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.


Illogical. You assume that the total modern life form tried to assemble itself without all the parts. Evolution states that life in the beginning was simple without many of the parts you assume it should have. This is borne out by fossils that are missing many of the parts that modern animals have. In fact, you ignore any existing animal that has lost the parts, such as eyesight, that other animals have. Have you ever addressed the fact that humans have vestigial tails? Occasionally, someone is born with a throwback gene and actually has one. How do you explain that? How do you explain the fact that the human appendix is now vestigial if "every part is interrelated?"



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.


This part is literally ridiculous. I am a mathematician and it is obvious that you and these "mathematicians" you quote do not understand probability. If they exist at all. The odds of winning the lottery are 620 million to one. You would have to play the lottery every day for thousands of lifetimes to even have a single chance of winning. Yet people win all the time! How do you explain that? It's simple, probability is just the chance of something happening. It doesn't mean it will or won't happen. You could flip a quarter and have it land heads every time for thousands of times. It's improbable, but it could happen.

DNA is exactly like that. It did happen because it was mathematically possible.

DNA Proves Evolution | Eveloce

DNA Proves Evolution

Posted on August 4, 2011

In many ways our DNA defines us. Consider identical twins, which are the result of an embryo splitting in early life. They are actually a single individual that divided into two parts during the early stages of embryonic development. They don’t call them identical for nothing. Studies show that in addition to looking the same they are also extremely similar in almost all other measurable respects, including intelligence. And, of course, the reason that they are so alike is that they have identical DNA.

But what makes most people so different from each other? We are only beginning to understand how our DNA differences distinguish us. The Human Genome Project, finished about a decade ago, was a huge first step. It defined the sequence of the A, T, G and C building blocks of our three billion bases of DNA. Like the Moon Project, it was an amazing accomplishment for mankind.

In a sense it was like our DNA defined itself, through us. Our DNA, which encodes us, was actually able to determine its own sequence, using people as a tool for the process. A very smart molecule indeed.

One of the most incredible discoveries to come from the Human Genome Project was the remarkably small number of genes we have. It turns out that we only have about 25,000 genes!! This seems a pitifully puny number.

Think of it. We all start a single cell, a fertilized egg, a very small speck of protoplasm barely visible to the naked eye. And this one cell somehow turns itself into a complete person. And people are incredibly complicated. They can weigh one or two hundred pounds or more. They have arms and legs and complex organs like the liver, heart and kidney. And they have a brain, which has about 100 billion neurons with over 100 trillion specific interneuronal connections. Wow!! All of this from just a single cell equipped with a genetic program of only 25,000 genes in its nucleus. Truly amazing.

And then we sequenced the DNAs of several people, and compared them. It turns out that our sequences are about 99.9% identical, from one person to the next. Our individual differences are defined by the 0.1% sequence variation, the several million bases that fluctuate among the three billion total. As we sequence the DNAs of more and more people we will begin to define the complex equations that relate these sequence differences to specific traits.

And when we sequenced the DNAs of other animals we made more interesting discoveries. It turns out that all mammals-including lions, cows, pigs and elephants- also have three billion total bases of DNA, and about 25,000 genes. Indeed, we all have pretty much the same set of genes. To paraphrase Mario Capecchi, a Nobel laureate, who I once published a paper in Nature with, mouse and man are 99% genetically identical. What he meant by this is that for every gene a person has there is about a 99% chance that the mouse will have a corresponding very similar gene. All mammals have the same genes, but those genes will differ in exact base sequence from each other. His point was that the mouse is an excellent genetic model system for scientific study, because it so closely recapitulates man.

But another key conclusion is obvious. All mammals are very closely related.

Of course the chimpanzee is the extreme example of this, with DNA sequence that is about 99% identical to that of man Chimp, human DNA comparison finds vast similarities, key differences - seattlepi.com. The chimp doesn’t just have the same set of genes as man, indeed about one third of chimp genes encode proteins that are exactly the same as their human counterparts Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This sort of result is exactly what evolution predicts, and creationist/anti-evolutionists have to struggle very hard to explain it Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a common ancestry? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?.

But instead of looking at close relatives, let’s look at very distant relatives, like the fruit fly. Shockingly there is some fascinating evidence that we are even genetically related to these little bugs.

Geneticists discovered some crazy mutant fruit flies about a century ago. One mutation, for example, gave a fly that had legs growing out of the head where the antennae were supposed to be. Imagine that! During development the cells that were supposed to make antennae instead made legs that now protruded from the head! Another interesting mutation gave a fly with no eyes.

As technology advanced it became possible for us to manipulate the genes of the fly. We could alter the gene involved in leg/antennae development and re-create a fly with legs coming out of the head. But even more remarkable, we learned how to introduce human genes into the fly. And when we made similar alterations to the human counterpart of the fly gene, and put it in the fly, we got the same result, a fly with legs on the head! The human gene seemed to be functionally equivalent when placed in the context of the fly. A truly surprising and amazing discovery!

We could also take the fly gene found to be critically important for making eyes and cause it to be mis-expressed during development. It was found that if this gene was activated on the legs, for example, one could make a fly with extra eyes on its legs! Indeed it was possible to make a fly with lots of eyes, on the legs, on the antennae, and at other places on the body. But, once again, the most remarkable result came when we took the human gene most closely related to the fly eye gene and placed it in the fly. Just like for the fly eye gene, we found that if we turned on the human gene at various locations during development we could make a fly that had fly eyes all over its body. Once again, the fly and human eye genes appeared to be functionally equivalent.

These results show a remarkable, and quite unexpected, conservation of developmental genetic programs stretching across enormous evolutionary distances. Many human genes seem to work quite well, thank you, when functionally tested in fruit flies, where they initiate genetic cascades that drive the formation of discrete fly body parts. That is, in many cases fly and human genes are functionally interchangeable.

These experiments demonstrate evolutionary relatedness not only between chimps and people, but also between insects and people.

And this is one way that DNA proves evolution.

About the Author: Steve Potter, PhD, is a Professor of Pediatrics, in the Division of Developmental Biology, at Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati. He has authored Designer Genes: A New Era in the Evolution of Man, published by Random House 2010 Designer Genes: A New Era in the Evolution of Man: Steven Potter: 9781400069057: Amazon.com: Books. In addition he has written over one hundred science papers, and co-authored the third edition of the medical school textbook, Larsen’s Human Embryology.

Pahu;1466045 wrote: False. A few hundred years ago the scientific community thought the earth was flat.


I see. So you don't think the majority of the scientific community is trustworthy? You don't think modern science is much more capable today, than hundreds of years ago?

Yet you quote your "science" constantly.

Saint_;1466065 wrote:

Have you ever addressed the fact that humans have vestigial tails? Occasionally, someone is born with a throwback gene and actually has one. How do you explain that? How do you explain the fact that the human appendix is now vestigial if "every part is interrelated?"


The standard definition of ‘vestigial’ is an organ that once was useful in an animal’s evolutionary past, but that now is useless or very close to useless. The list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999. Evidently to salvage this once-critical support for evolution, a new revisionistic definition of a vestigial structure is now sometimes used. This definition involves the idea that a vestigial organ is any part of an organism that has diminished in size during its evolution because the function it served decreased in importance or became totally unnecessary. This definition is problematic because it is vague and would allow almost every structure in humans to be labeled as vestigial.

http://creation.com/do-any-vestigial-or ... reation-tj

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp

The tailbone or coccyx has often been presumed to be vestigial and a leftover remnant to our alleged mammal and reptilian ancestors who also had tails. Evidence that is cited includes the variable number of bony segments humans can have (usually 4 but can be 3 or 5) as well as “babies born with tails. But these so called tails are not really tails at all and instead are a type of fatty tumor. There are no bones or muscles in them at all, and thus, it cannot truly be considered a vestigial organ.

Spinney acknowledges that the coccyx now has a “modified function, notably as an anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place. In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -vestigial

Vestigial Structures in Humans

5 Useless Body Parts | Vestigial Organs

Human vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently, the rest of the world doesn't agree that there are no vestigial organs. But of course, that would clash with your completely unscientific views of how the Earth and mankind was created.

So the supposed presupposition of a tailbone having been modified over eons of evolution is false, despite the mounds of scientific evidence to the contrary, yet the idea of some imaginary Deity have created it, for no apparent reason, with no evidence to support them claim has to be the only answer? Yeah, makes sense.

A question you have never answered. How come, if Adam was created in God's own image, then what was the purpose of his having a penis? A God would surely have no need of one. Furthermore, what would be the point of His having any physical form at all? These questions have never been addressed in the Bible, yet you constantly argue that He has supposedly 'revealed' himself. There is absolutely no evidence to this end. This is how Religions are formed. Someone doesn't know the answer, so he guesses & then relates his guesses on to subsequent generations as sacred fact, and that to dispute it becomes blasphemous. Science, on the other hand, creates a hypothesis, based on the evidence, presupposing the hypothesis to be flawed, and then sets to recreate the scenario in order to prove it as true. Creationism does the exact opposite. It makes a guess, with no foundation, and then denies any further evidence which comes to light that proves the contrary.

Your view on creationism presupposes that God could never have had a plan to involve Evolution as part of His Grand Scheme of things. A friend of mine is a Lay Preacher, yet he fully accepts Evolution as fact. The only difference in his views & mine is that he believes that it was God who created the Primordial Slime.

Now, don't you think that to 2nd guess God's intentions is a little presumptuous?

FourPart;1466074 wrote:

A question you have never answered. How come, if Adam was created in God's own image, then what was the purpose of his having a penis? A God would surely have no need of one. Furthermore, what would be the point of His having any physical form at all?


Hahahaha...stop it! You're killin' me!

Now, don't you think that to 2nd guess God's intentions is a little presumptuous?


As is his limiting the Creator by stating that life cannot exist on other planets. Holding up a deity as omniscient and all-powerful, then denying his abilities...makes no sense to me.

FourPart;1466074 wrote: So the supposed presupposition of a tailbone having been modified over eons of evolution is false, despite the mounds of scientific evidence to the contrary...


Where is that scientific evidence to the contrary?

...yet the idea of some imaginary Deity have created it, for no apparent reason, with no evidence to support them claim has to be the only answer?


The God of the Bible is not imaginary.

In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -vestigial

A question you have never answered. How come, if Adam was created in God's own image, then what was the purpose of his having a penis? A God would surely have no need of one. Furthermore, what would be the point of His having any physical form at all? These questions have never been addressed in the Bible, yet you constantly argue that He has supposedly 'revealed' himself. There is absolutely no evidence to this end.


The creation of man in the image of God included mind, spirit and free will. The physical creation was to allow mankind to express itself in a physical, three diminsional world.



This is how Religions are formed. Someone doesn't know the answer, so he guesses & then relates his guesses on to subsequent generations as sacred fact, and that to dispute it becomes blasphemous.


That is true of most religions. It is not true of the Bible:

Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecies

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

Science, on the other hand, creates a hypothesis, based on the evidence, presupposing the hypothesis to be flawed, and then sets to recreate the scenario in order to prove it as true. Creationism does the exact opposite. It makes a guess, with no foundation, and then denies any further evidence which comes to light that proves the contrary.


False! Creationism bases its conclusions on the facts of science. Creation science is the systematic study of nature by scientists holding to the creationist worldview, which asserts that the cosmos and life on Earth are the result of a supernatural or intelligent causation. The term (also known as Scientific creationism) is most often used in connection with religious concepts of creation -- specifically, the Judeo-Christian understanding of creation, based on the accounts of Genesis. It is also frequently applied to describe the defense of creationism on scientific grounds.

Creation science is primarily concerned with two issues:

Understanding the discoveries of science within the interpretive framework of creationism;

Documenting and demonstrating how the findings of science are consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

Most creationist research focuses on issues related to the origin or history of the universe, Earth, and life. Each of these areas of scientific inquiry are analyzed by creation scientists who hold to various postulates regarding the extent to which natural processes were responsible. The most divisive topics are those that address chronology, as there are many who believe the cosmos to be billions of years old, while others hold it to be much younger than modern science asserts.

In contrast to religious creationism, intelligent design (ID) posits that certain aspects of the physical universe (particularly life) are designed, but makes no specific claims regarding the identity of the designer. Although typically considered a subset of creation science, ID is distinguished by the absence of presuppositions regarding a creation. ID has instead developed as a field of inquiry to study the empirical scientific evidence of design that has been discovered in nature.

Creation science - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Your view on creationism presupposes that God could never have had a plan to involve Evolution as part of His Grand Scheme of things. A friend of mine is a Lay Preacher, yet he fully accepts Evolution as fact. The only difference in his views & mine is that he believes that it was God who created the Primordial Slime.


The problem your friend faces is evolution teaches a natural, mindless cause of origins. The Bible teaches intelligent design. The two ideas are not compatible.

Now, don't you think that to 2nd guess God's intentions is a little presumptuous?


Yes, so why are you presuming to 2nd guess God's intentions?

Pahu;1466087 wrote: Where is that scientific evidence to the contrary?


You have asked the same thing so many times, and I have answered it so many times that I'm not even going to bother answering it. Try reading back through the thread & find the answer. If you tried reading & taking any notice from time to time you might pick up on a bit more.

Yes, so why are you presuming to 2nd guess God's intentions?
I am not the one presuming to 2nd guess Go's intentions, as I don't believe in the existence of a God. You are the one doing the 2nd guessing.

As to the rest of the post. Nothing new. Same old pastes. Same old crap.

Immune Systems




How could immune systems of animals and plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize the best defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.

If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense (a). Obviously, for each organism to have survived, this information must have all been there from the beginning. *Again, creation.

(a.) “We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system. Behe, p.*138.

“Unfortunately, we cannot trace most of the evolutionary steps that the immune system took. Virtually all the crucial developments seem to have happened at an early stage of vertebrate evolution, which is poorly represented in the fossil record and from which few species survive. Even the most primitive extant vertebrates seem to rearrange their antigen receptor genes and possess separate T and B cells, as well as MHC molecules. Thus has the immune system sprung up fully armed. Avrion Mitchison, “Will We Survive? Scientific American, Vol.*269, September 1993, p.*138.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Another cut & paste to be ignored. Not worth reading again... and again... and again...

Improbabilities




To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that even one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zero (a)—far less than 1 in 10^450.To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible universe with a “simple form of life, such as bacteria. Next, suppose we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all their atoms, then let them form new links.If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would one bacterium of any type reemerge? The chances (b) are much less than one in 10^99,999,999,873. Your chances of randomly drawing one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms are about one chance in 10^112—much better.



Figure*17: White Blood Cell. A white blood cell is stalking the green bacterium, shown at the lower right. Your health, and that of many animals, depends on the effectiveness of these “search-and-destroy missions. Consider the capabilities and associated equipment this white blood cell must have to do its job. It must identify friend and foe. Once a foe is detected, the white blood cell must rapidly locate and overtake the invader. Then, the white blood cell must engulf the bacterium, destroy it, and have the endurance to repeat this many times. Miniaturization, fuel efficiency, and compatibility with other parts of the body are also key requirements. The equipment for each function requires careful design. Unless all this worked well from the beginning of life, a requirement that rules out evolution, bacteria and other agents of disease would have won, and we would not be here to marvel at these hidden abilities in our bodies.

A few “stem cells in your bone marrow produce more than 100 billion of these and other types of blood cells every day. Each white blood cell moves on its own at up to 30 microns (almost half the diameter of a human hair) each minute. So many white blood cells are in your body that their total distance traveled in one day would circle the earth twice.

Coppedge, pp.*71–72.

“Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Even if we take the simplest large protein molecule that can reproduce itself if immersed in a bath of nutrients, the odds against this developing by chance range from one in 10^450 (engineer Marcel Goulay in Analytical Chemistry) to one in 10^600 (Frank Salisbury in American Biology Teacher). * Fix, p.*196.

“I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ‘others’ are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles. Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist, Vol.*92, 19*November 1981, p.*526.

“The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability. ... A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance. Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p.*257.

(b) Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology: Biological Organization as a Problem in Thermal Physics (New York: Academic Press, 1968), pp.*2–12, 44–75.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[ignore] Paste [/ignore]

Living Technology 1




Most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems—including those involving electrical, acoustical, mechanical, chemical, and optical phenomena. Detailed studies of various animals also have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that the world’s best designers, using the most sophisticated technologies, cannot duplicate. Examples of these designs include molecular-size motors in most living organisms (a); advanced technologies in cells (b); miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises, and whales; frequency-modulated “radar and discrimination systems of bats (c); efficient aerodynamic capabilities of hummingbirds; control systems, internal ballistics, and the combustion chambers of bombardier beetles (d); precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds, fish, and insects (e); and especially the self-repair capabilities of almost all forms of life. No component of these complex systems could have evolved without placing the organism at a selective disadvantage until the component’s evolution was complete. All evidence points to intelligent design.





Figure*18: Arctic Tern Migration Routes and Cockpit. The Arctic Tern, a bird of average size, navigates across oceans, as shown above, with the skill normally associated with navigational equipment in modern intercontinental aircraft. A round trip for the tern might be 22,000 miles. The tern’s “electronics are highly miniaturized, extremely reliable, maintenance free, and easily reproduced. Furthermore, this remarkable bird needs no training. If the equipment in the lower picture could not have evolved, how could the tern’s more amazing “equipment have evolved?

Equally amazing is the monarch butterfly which flies thousands of miles from breeding grounds in Canada to wintering grounds in Mexico.* In its pinhead-size brain, the butterfly processes information from its antennae and navigates using a magnetic compass and sunlight.

a. “Life implies movement. Most forms of movement in the living world are powered by tiny protein machines known as molecular motors. Manfred Schliwa and Günther Woehlke, “Molecular Motors, Nature, Vol.*422, 17 April 2003, p.*759.

b. “We would see [in cells] that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.

“What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle. Denton, p. 329.

c. “Ounce for ounce, watt for watt, it is millions of times more efficient and more sensitive than the radars and sonars contrived by man. Pitman, p. 219.

d. Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975), pp. 2–9.

Thomas Eisner and Daniel J. Aneshansley, “Spray Aiming in Bombardier Beetles: Jet Deflection by the Coanda Effect, Science, Vol. 215, 1 January 1982, pp. 83–85.

Behe, pp. 31–36.

e. Jason A. Etheredge et al., “Monarch Butterflies (Danaus plexippus L.) Use a Magnetic Compass for Navigation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 96, No. 24, 23 November 1999, pp. 13845–13846.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

While very fascinating, I have to ask, Why do you suppose that this is evidence of Intelligent Design?

LarsMac;1466873 wrote: While very fascinating, I have to ask, Why do you suppose that this is evidence of Intelligent Design?


Perhaps because there is no other explanation!

Ah, but there is, and a much simpler explanation than you think.

Evolution.

The various life forms evolved to exploit certain aspects of nature.

Evolution is all part of that plan.

As far as the migration like that as far as the butterflies are concerned, there is a simpler solution. It's called the Jet Stream. In the same way, during the war, the Japanese experimented with paper hot air lantern ballons, loaded with incendiary devices designed to drop on America. As a weapon they weren't up to much, but they still made the journey. Do you consider that to be Intelligent Design? A miniature Hot Air Balloon - it rises - defeating the force of gravity - look, it's going in the same direction as the wind. Absolute proof of a God.

In the same way most of the Long Haul flights also follow the Jet Streams as, although by no means the shortest route, it's the most cost effective one to take as it uses the least fuel.

Most migratory birds & animals simply follow the supply of food. Most birds feed on insects. As the seasons change, insects are more plentiful in different parts of the world. No major mystery there.

You say there is no other explanation. On the contrary, there are a multitude of other explanations. You just don't want to see them because it conflicts with your blinkered point of view.

As usual, you're simply grasping at straws.

LarsMac;1466877 wrote: Ah, but there is, and a much simpler explanation than you think.

Evolution.

The various life forms evolved to exploit certain aspects of nature.

Evolution is all part of that plan.


Since science has disproved evolution, that leaves creation.

FourPart;1466892 wrote: As far as the migration like that as far as the butterflies are concerned, there is a simpler solution. It's called the Jet Stream. In the same way, during the war, the Japanese experimented with paper hot air lantern ballons, loaded with incendiary devices designed to drop on America. As a weapon they weren't up to much, but they still made the journey. Do you consider that to be Intelligent Design?


It was the intelligent design of the Japanese, wasn't it?

You say there is no other explanation. On the contrary, there are a multitude of other explanations.


What are those multitude of other explanations?

Pahu;1466950 wrote: Since science has disproved evolution, that leaves creation.


You've failed to prove such a thing. Your circular logic must make you dizzy.

Interesting that even Pope Francis believes in the Big Bang and Evolution

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.


Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand' - Europe - World - The Independent

Well,...

Pope Francis: Media Gets It Wrong on Evolution and Creationism

Moral of this story: Don’t believe most of what you read about the Vatican. Papal coverage has gone wild.


Some interesting points of view, though.

I personally like this:

“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.

And I was careful not to quote the Daily Mail too. Seems they all got a bit over excited, bless them.

From the Slate...

At one point, Francis added that “The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it.




Pope, evolution: Francis statement on science echoes earlier Church pronouncements.

Well, I always thought that Evolution was a pretty intelligent design, myself.

Pahu;1466951 wrote: It was the intelligent design of the Japanese, wasn't it?


Oh, I get it now. The Jet Stream was invented by the Japanese. Damned clever these Orientals.

Just because we use water for drinking, doesn't mean we invented it.

Living Technology 2




Many bacteria, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and some Streptococci, propel themselves with miniature motors at up to 15 body-lengths per second (f), equivalent to a car traveling 150 miles per hour—in a liquid. These extremely efficient, reversible motors rotate at up to 100,000 revolutions per minute (g). Each shaft rotates a bundle of whiplike flagella that acts as a propeller. The motors, having rotors and stators, are similar in many respects to electrical motors (h). However, their electrical charges come from a flow of protons, not electrons. The bacteria can stop, start, and change speed, direction, and even the “propeller’s shape (i). They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mechanisms, and a short-term memory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit inside the circular cross section of a human hair (j).



Figure*19: Bacterial Motor. Drawing based on a microphotograph of the flagellum of a salmonella bacterium.



Figure*20: Illustration of a Bacterial Motor. Although no one completely understands how these tiny motors work, many studies have deduced the presence of the above components.

Evolutionary theory teaches that bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolve, and, therefore, they are simple. While bacteria are small, they are not simple. They can even communicate among themselves using chemicals (k).

Some plants have motors that are one-fifth the size of bacterial motors (l). Increasing worldwide interest in nanotechnology is showing that living things are remarkably designed—beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

f. David H. Freedman, “Exploiting the Nanotechnology of Life, Science, Vol. 254, 29 November 1991, pp. 1308–1310.

Tom Koppel, “Learning How Bacteria Swim Could Set New Gears in Motion, Scientific American, Vol. 265, September 1991, pp. 168–169.

Howard C. Berg, “How Bacteria Swim, Scientific American, Vol. 233, August 1975, pp. 36–44.

g. Y. Magariyama et al., “Very Fast Flagellar Rotation, Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, p. 752.

h. Could a conventional electrical motor be scaled down to propel a bacterium through a liquid? No. Friction would overcome almost all movement. This is because the ratio of inertial-to-viscous forces is proportional to scale. In effect, the liquid becomes stickier the smaller you get. Therefore, the efficiency of the bacterial motor itself, which approaches 100% at slow speeds, is remarkable and currently unexplainable.

i. C. Wu, “Protein Switch Curls Bacterial Propellers, Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 86.

j. Yes, you read this correctly. The molecular motors are 25 nanometers in diameter while an average human hair is about 75 microns in diameter.

k. “Bacteria can organize into groups, they can communicate. ... How could this have evolved? E. Peter Greenberg, “Tiny Teamwork, Nature, Vol. 424, 10 July 2003, p. 134.

Bonnie L. Bassler, “How Bacteria Talk to Each Other: Regulation of Gene Expression by Quorum Sensing, Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1 December 1999, pp. 582–587.

l. “...the smallest rotary motors in biology. The flow of protons propels the rotation... Holger Seelert et al., “Proton-Powered Turbine of a Plant Motor, Nature, Vol. 405, 25 May 2000, pp. 418–419.

“The ATP synthase [motor] not only lays claim to being nature’s smallest rotary motor, but also has an extremely important role in providing most of the chemical energy that aerobic and photosynthetic organisms need to stay alive. Cross, Richard L. “Turning the ATP Motor, Nature, Vol. 427, 29 January 2004, pp. 407–408.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1467273 wrote:

Evolutionary theory teaches that bacteria were one of the first forms of life to evolve, and, therefore, they are simple. While bacteria are small, they are not simple. They can even communicate among themselves using chemicals
Simple, in relative terms. Of course they are. Surely even you must see that? No-one could compare a sponge with a human for complexity. However, if you put a sponge in a liquidiser it will reform into its constituent parts. A human cannot do this, whereas a sponge can BECAUSE of it's simplicity.

A grain of sand is relatively simple, despite being comprised of millions of molecules which, in turns are made up of millions of atoms, yet that grain of sand, when combined with others of different types & under different conditions can be used to make bricks which, in turn can be used to buld houses, etc., yet you can't compare the simplicity of a grain of sand with the complexity of a house, but broken down to their bare essentials they are identical.

The Validity of Thought 1




If life is ultimately the result of natural processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts—including what you are thinking now—would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of irrational causes. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance or natural processes (a).

a. “But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters,

Vol.*1, p.*313.

“For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. J.*B.*S. Haldane, Possible Worlds (London: Chatto & Windus, 1927), p.*209.

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i. e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. C.*S. Lewis, God In the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp.*52–53.

“Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense. But Naturalism [evolution], as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. C.*S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1947), p.*21.

C. S. Lewis, “The Funeral of a Great Myth, Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), p.*89.

“If the universe is a universe of thought, then its creation must have been an act of thought. James H. Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, new revised edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1932), p.*181.

“A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that produced the theory. The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit. Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), p.*62.



“One of the absurdities of materialism is that it assumes that the world can be rationally comprehensible only if it is entirely the product of irrational, unguided mechanisms. Phillip E. Johnson, “The Wedge in Evolutionary Ideology: It’s History, Strategy, and Agenda, Theology Matters, Vol.*5, No.*2, March/April 1999, p.*5.

Phillip E. Johnson has also made the point that intelligence might produce intelligence. However, for lifeless, inorganic matter to produce intelligence, as the theory of evolution claims, would be an astounding miracle.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

The Validity of Thought 2




By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution. “Science itself makes no sense if the scientific mind is itself no more than the product of irrational material forces (b).

A related issue is the flexibility and redundancy of the human brain, which evolution or natural selection would not produce. For example, every year brain surgeons successfully remove up to half of a person’s brain. The remaining half gradually takes over functions of the removed half. Also, brain functions are often regained after portions of the brain are accidentally destroyed. Had humans evolved, such accidents would have been fatal before these amazing capabilities developed. Darwin was puzzled by the phenomenal capability of the brain (c).

Thoughts are not physical, although they use physical things, such as the brain, oxygen, electrons, and sensory inputs. The mind thinks, but the brain, like a powerful computer, can’t really “think. Nor can any physical substance. Albert Einstein put his finger on this profound issue:

“I am convinced that ... the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all—when viewed logically—the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences. ... we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf—logically unbridgeable—which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions (d).

C. S. Lewis put it in another way:

“If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees (e).

So Who or what provided humans (and to a much lesser extent animals) with the ability and freedom to think? It certainly wasn’t dead matter, chance, evolution, or time.

b. Phillip Johnson, “The Demise of Naturalism, World, 3 April 2004, p.*38.

c. “Behind Darwin’s discomfiture [on how the human brain evolved] was the dawning realization that the evolution of the brain vastly exceeded the needs of prehistoric man. This is, in fact, the only example in existence where a species was provided with an organ that it still has not learned how to use. Richard M. Restak, The Brain: The Last Frontier (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979), p.*59.

d. Albert Einstein, “Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Knowledge, The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Vol.*5 of The Library of Living Philosophers, editor Paul Arthur Schilpp (LaSalle, Illinois, Open Court, 1944), p.*289.

e. Philip Van der Elst, C. S. Lewis: A Short Introduction (New York: Continuum, 1996), p. 24.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Life Science Conclusions 1




When Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, the “evolutionary tree had only a few gaps. Believers in his new theory thought that these gaps would be filled as scientific knowledge increased. Just the opposite has happened. As science has progressed, these “missing links have multiplied enormously, and the obstacles to “bridging these gaps have become even more obvious. For example, in Darwin’s day, all life fell into two categories (or kingdoms): animals and plants. Today, it is generally accepted that life falls into five radically different kingdoms, of which animals and plants comprise only two. (None of the five include viruses, which are complex and unique in their own way.) In the 1800s, the animal kingdom was divided into four animal phyla; today there are about forty.

Darwin suggested that the first living creature evolved in a “warm little pond. Today, almost all evolutionary biologists will privately admit that science has no explanation for how life evolved. We now know that the chance formation of the first living cell is a gigantic leap, vastly more improbable than for bacteria to evolve into humans. In Darwin’s day, a cell was thought to be about as simple as a ping-pong ball. Even today, many evolutionists say that bacteria are simple and one of the first forms of life to evolve. However, bacteria are marvelously integrated and complex manufacturing facilities with many mysteries yet to be understood, such as bacterial motors and communication among bacteria. Furthermore, cells come in two radically different types—those with a nucleus and those without. The evolutionary leap from one to the other is staggering to imagine.

The more evolutionists learn about life, the greater complexity they find. A century ago there were no sophisticated microscopes. Consequently, gigantic leaps from single- to multiple-cell organisms were grossly underestimated. Each type of cell in a multicellular organism has a unique job that is controlled by only part of the organism’s DNA. If that organism evolved, its delicate controls (directing which of the myriad of DNA instructions to follow, which to ignore, and when) must also have evolved. Had it not evolved perfectly the first time, that organism would have been diseased. If that first unique cell could not reproduce, the new function would disappear. If just one reproducing cell is out of control, the organism would have one type of cancer.

Development of the computer has also given us a better appreciation of the brain’s intricate electronics, extreme miniaturization, and vast storage capabilities. The human eye, which Darwin admitted made him shudder, was only a single jump in complexity. [See Endnote 9b on page*58.] We now know there are at least a dozen radically different kinds of eyes, each requiring similar jumps if evolution happened. Likewise, the literal leap we call “flight must have evolved not once, but on at least four different occasions: for birds, some insects, mammals (bats), and reptiles (pterosaurs). Fireflies produce light without heat, a phenomenon called bioluminescence. Other species, including certain fish, crustaceans, squids, plants, bacteria, and fungi, also have lighting systems. Did all these remarkable capabilities evolve independently?

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

I'll leave you to continue pasting to yourself. It's no fun trying to debate with someone who doesn't have mind of their own.

Life Science Conclusions 2






Figure�*21: Integration and Compatibility. An organ is a complex structure of different types of tissues and cells, all of which work together to perform a specific function such as seeing, hearing, digesting, or pumping. (Shown are a few of the amazing human organs: eye, ear, stomach, heart, skin, and brain.) A system, such as the nervous system, circulatory system, skeletal system, or reproductive system, consists of related organs and other tissues and cells that have even broader functions. In a healthy body, all systems work properly. Life depends on a broad, compatible, and complex hierarchy: molecules --> cells --> tissues --> organs --> systems --> body --> other organisms --> the environment.�* All are carefully balanced and integrated with each other.

Arbitrarily changing one component at any level will often be harmful at that level and to the vertical hierarchy. For example, change one type of molecule throughout a category of cells, and the result may be damaged cells and a diseased body. Environmentalists and ecologists are aware of this critical balance (regarding, say, the spotted owl and the environment), but often they fail to ask, “Who or what created this balance? Some fail to see the incredible complexity, integration, and systems engineering that extends throughout the universe—from carbon atoms to galaxies to physical laws.

Humans are only one of millions of different organisms. To integrate all organisms into a living ecosystem requires stupendous design and balance. If evolution happened, time and natural processes alone must have maintained a livable environment for most forms of life as each new organism came into existence and proliferated. No global contaminants, plagues, predators, or famines could be allowed for billions of years. Imagine what would happen if a few organisms at the base of the food chain became extinct.

Who or what has the ability to design, construct, and harmoniously integrate and maintain all of life? Time and natural processes, as evolution states, or an infinitely intelligent Creator?

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]