Science Disproves Evolution

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu;1346565 wrote: Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).


So then, does God have a mommy God and daddy God? (avoid shooting foot in answer please)

[Pahu]

Language 2



If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; Linear B, 1200 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection. The best evidence shows that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex (f). Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages (g).



Figure 202:

Language Divergence. Languages are related, as are genes. One of thousands of examples is the word for “from, of.” It exists in French (de), Italian (di), Spanish (de), Portuguese (de), and Romanian (de). So, these languages, now spoken generally in southwestern Europe, are twigs on a tree branch called the Romance languages (Romance referring to Rome). This branch joins a larger branch that includes all languages derived primarily from Latin. They merge with other large branches, such as the Germanic branch that includes English, into a family called the Indo-European languages. When these and other languages are traced back in time, they appear to converge near Mount Ararat, a likely landing site of Noah’s Ark. [See

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Noah’s Ark Probably Exists.a. Linguists admit that they do not understand the origin of languages, only how languages spread.

If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, so humans probably did not evolve either.

f. David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), pp. 83–89.

George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged the vast gulf that separates animal communication and human languages. Although he recognized the apparent pattern of language development from complex to simple, he could not digest it. He simply wrote, “Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex.” He then shifted to a new subject. George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 116.

“Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed....Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers....The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.” George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man,” Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.

“The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification.” Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2nd edition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p. 10.

“The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples.” Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 9.

g. “It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or dead. Language alters

even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor degenerates.” Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words,” Scientific American, Vol. 264, April 1991, p. 144.

“Noam Chomsky...has firmly established his point that grammar, and in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved...Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have come into being all at once.” John Maddox, “The Price of Language?” Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1997, p. 424.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 13. Language

[Ahso!]

Here we go with the spam. Isn't there anything mods can do about this?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1346594 wrote: Here we go with the spam. Isn't there anything mods can do about this?


Are you suggesting I be silenced? That isn't surprising. I am not interested in entering into endless quibbling over the information I am sharing because I believe the information speaks for itself. If you disagree, that’s fine. I believe the free exchange of facts is a healthy, profitable way to discover truth, but your disagreement is with known physics confirmed by the scientists being quoted, not me.

The mentality of unredeemed human nature has remained unchanged since Cain murdered Abel over a disagreement. History is full of examples of people silencing those with whom they disagree:

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace because they refused to worship the king’s idol.

Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den for worshipping God, contrary to the king’s decree.

Jesus was crucified because the religious authorities disagreed with Him.

His disciples were tortured and murdered because the authorities disagreed with them.

Thousands were murdered for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church during the inquisition.

Hitler murdered millions of Jews, Christians and others because he disagreed with them.

Over 100,000,000 people have been murdered under atheist communism for disagreeing with them.

Muslims murder everyone who disagrees with them.

So you are definitely in the majority when you want to silence me because you disagree with the facts I am sharing that challenge your worldview.

The refusal to believe facts in this and other instances may run deeper than just simple fear, hatred or partisanship. Perhaps some people invest so much of themselves into a certain political, religious, philosophical or scientific viewpoint, that their identity and sense of self becomes bonded to it. The bond is so strong that any fact that disproves even a small part of their particular viewpoint is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own self-identity. This can lead to retaliation in the form of wild accusations or character attacks upon the people promoting such facts (i.e. stop the message by killing the messenger).

If this is true, then you can probably never prove any disagreeable facts to such people. They’ve traded introspection and reason for the security, comfort, and certainty that their viewpoints, and thus their identities, are always 100 percent correct.

[littleCJelkton]

[QUOTE=Pahu;1346565]You ask a lot of questions based on your preconceive assertions. I will answer one of them: "Does God exist?"

QUOTE]



I did not preconceive any assertions, they were asserted as I perceived this thread.

[littleCJelkton]

Ahso!;1346594 wrote: Here we go with the spam. Isn't there anything mods can do about this?
unfortunately not,

but if you, I, or K.Snyder, or Yarg were to start spamming stuff like this. You know flying spaghetti monsters, leprechaun riding Unicorns, and such. then we would hear about it.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1346600 wrote: Are you suggesting I be silenced? You were silenced long ago - before we ever met. It's not you talking, and hasn't been for a very long time. The more you post, the more silent you as an individual become, you're simply unconscious of that fact. When you gave up your right to think critically as an individual, you silenced yourself, but then again, some professionals might diagnose you with Stockholm Syndrome. You're a person who lost his right and ability to be authentic, which brought out the see/do breed of monkey you embody. You could have been completely aware of all this had you the courage to think for yourself the day you realized you wanted to be a Marine. You're a taker and deliverer of orders - nothing more.

You may, with my permission, continue to be a victim of yourself (and others), or you can begin the journey of self discovery now. It's never too late, you know.

[Saint_]

I love how the Evolution deniers never seem to have any logical alternative to Evolution. It's always, "We all just appeared."

[Pahu]

Saint_;1346652 wrote: I love how the Evolution deniers never seem to have any logical alternative to Evolution. It's always, "We all just appeared."


I thought that is what evolutionists believe; magic without a magician!

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1346654 wrote: I thought that is what evolutionists believe; magic without a magician!See, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, do you. Hurry and go find what someone else says about this and return with it. Either way, you'll prove yourself a fool.

[Saint_]

Not al all, "In the Beginning, God Created Evolution."

[Ahso!]

Saint_;1346658 wrote: Not al all, "In the Beginning, God Created Evolution."I've heard this put another way: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 'Evolve'." (Something like that). Of course it's rather silly to rely on the bible, which is a mythical story, in order to authenticate scientific fact.

Not my cup of tea, but if it assists others to begin to see the light, I can live with it. You are still left with the impossible task of explaining where God came from. OTOH, for those who can seperate Science from Theology...

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1346656 wrote: See, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, do you. Hurry and go find what someone else says about this and return with it. Either way, you'll prove yourself a fool.


Coming up!

[Pahu]

Saint_;1346658 wrote: Not al all, "In the Beginning, God Created Evolution."


God created mankind with free will, which he has chosen to reject facts in favor of what he wants to believe, using his vast imagination to invent the myth of evolution despite facts to the contrary!

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1346661 wrote: I've heard this put another way: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 'Evolve'." (Something like that). Of course it's rather silly to rely on the bible, which is a mythical story, in order to authenticate scientific fact.

Not my cup of tea, but if it assists others to begin to see the light, I can live with it. You are still left with the impossible task of explaining where God came from. OTOH, for those who can seperate Science from Theology...


God has always existed.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1346666 wrote: God has always existed.Only in your mind. But I don't begrudge you for that, I once believed it myself. It's difficult to cut the cord when life seems scary, and you need an ever present father figure to protect you. You thought the hope of going to war would prove to yourself you're not afraid, but that just backfired, and you became even more frightened.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1346666 wrote: God has always existed.What about Irreducible Complexity?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1346674 wrote: What about Irreducible Complexity?


Read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe

[Pahu]

Speech



Speech is uniquely human (a). Humans have both a “prewired” brain capable of learning and conveying abstract ideas, and the physical anatomy (mouth, throat, tongue, larynx, etc.) to produce a wide range of sounds. Only a few animals can approximate some human sounds.

Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This helps make vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the airflow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds (b).



Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired” brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.

a. Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 106–109.

“If we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in the human brain].” Ibid., p. 164.

b. Jeffrey T. Laitman, “The Anatomy of Human Speech,” Natural History, Vol. 93, August 1984, pp. 20–26.

“Chimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just as most mammals do, but they don’t have the capacity for true language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols....Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series....I conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other nonhuman primates.” Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York: Vantage Press, 1987), p. 83.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 14. Speech

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1346681 wrote: Read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael BeheHave you read Behe's book?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1346684 wrote: Have you read Behe's book?


No.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1346686 wrote: No.How then do you know what's in it?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1346688 wrote: How then do you know what's in it?


I have read portions of it, enough to know Behe shows the science proving irreducible complexity, which you asked for.

[littleCJelkton]

kinda like sniping out what you need to make an opinion like this;

I fully believe in God and that he created all living being and I believe those who don't believe so are stupid and will burn in eternal damnation.

If I only read portions of it I can make this out if it.

I fully believe that I will burn in stupid eternal damnation.

[Saint_]

Hey Pahu, are you familiar with the work of Dr. Spencer Wells who proved that mankind descended from a single group of hominids that moved outwards from Africa? He did it with DNA. Pretty convincing stuff. Unless you don't believe in DNA either.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1346689 wrote: I have read portions of it, enough to know Behe shows the science proving irreducible complexity, which you asked for.But that would seem impossible because he would be proving a negative. The link I provided to you earlier is the actual science performed by Kenneth Miller, a world recognized microbiologist, and a theist (he's catholic). If you read the parts you claim to have and checked the research, you'd know better. There is no actual research in Behe's book, it's a hypothesis.

Anyway, you've shown that you don't even agree with Irreducible Complexity because you claim it does not apply to every living thing since you exempt your living God from it. If God then made man in his image, man would also be exempt from Irreducible Complexity.

What about the angels? What about Adam?

[Pahu]

Saint_;1346692 wrote: Hey Pahu, are you familiar with the work of Dr. Spencer Wells who proved that mankind descended from a single group of hominids that moved outwards from Africa? He did it with DNA. Pretty convincing stuff. Unless you don't believe in DNA either.


I have heard the name, but I am not familiar with his work. It's hard to believe DNA would prove evolution. It is my understanding it disproves evolution. Evolutionists thought that when the DNA code was unraveled, it would clearly show the path of evolution. By comparing differences in DNA, they thought they would be able to see the sequence of modifications in the DNA code that produced each species in turn. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, it hasn’t worked out that way. Studies of DNA are raising some questions that evolutionists are finding hard to answer.

This is the problem that the evolutionists have. Some critters that they think evolved from the same ancestor have very different DNA sequences. Their DNA is more like other critters that traditionally have been thought to have evolved from a much different ancestor. Given these large differences in DNA, it is difficult to support the idea that some similar critters were really built from slightly different corruptions of a single original set of instructions.

Evolutionists believe that there are so many mutation opportunities that one can use statistics to predict how many mutations will occur over a given time interval. Therefore, they can use the number of mutations as way to determine how much time has elapsed. They think that certain similar critters must have shared a common ancestor, and therefore had common DNA. They think that the number of differences in their DNA is the result of mutations at a particular rate, which can be used to tell how long ago the two species diverged.

When they compare the DNA from species (various mammals, for example) that they are sure diverged at a particular time, they don’t get the expected results. Since there are more differences than they expect, they either have to believe that the split occurred longer ago, or that mutations happened faster in the past than they do now.

Since they believe “the present is the key to the past”, many evolutionists are reluctant to assume that the past rates were appreciably faster than present rates. There is no evidence to support the faster rate, other than the large differences in the DNA of “closely related species.” This forces them to believe that the species diverged sooner than they used to believe. That’s why some evolutionists now believe that mammals evolved before dinosaurs became extinct.

Of course, there is another possibility. The DNA of “closely related species” might be very different because the species are not really related at all. They were all created separately and distinctly. They just happen to bear a superficial resemblance which mislead people into thinking that they evolved from a common ancestor. The DNA analysis might not show the expected evolutionary development because evolution didn’t happen.

The DNA Dilemma

[littleCJelkton]

I like bananas

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1346486 wrote: Sure. If I show you scientific facts disproving evolution, will you admit them to be valid?Remember making this statement, Pahu? So far you've offered no scientific facts at all, only conjecture. You've told me to read a book which not only can you not provide the page(s) to the actual science, but you haven't even read the damn book yourself. I'm still waiting for you to make good on your promise. WHERES THE BEEF?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1346694 wrote: But that would seem impossible because he would be proving a negative. The link I provided to you earlier is the actual science performed by Kenneth Miller, a world recognized microbiologist, and a theist (he's catholic). If you read the parts you claim to have and checked the research, you'd know better. There is no actual research in Behe's book, it's a hypothesis.


How do you know since you haven't read Behe's book? He has responded to Miller's criticism:



“A True Acid Test”

Response to Ken Miller



http://www.trueorigin.org/behe02.asp

[Ahso!]

Of course Behe is going to attack any criticism towards his own work. Are you serious about this line of debate? The trick here, Pahu, is to offer a qualified independent third party source that corroborates Behe's assertions. I'll wait, but not too long, for you to provide a source independent of any association to Behe or the discovery institute.

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu;1346718 wrote:

Note: Though Behe is not a creationist, this response to criticism is provided here for the benefit of those considering the questionable nature of today’s mainstream evolutionary paradigm.




LOL... not even Behe wants to attach his name to the quack theory.

[Ahso!]

yaaarrrgg;1346731 wrote: LOL... not even Behe wants to attach his name to the quack theory.I know what you mean, though Behe is really just a liar in order to push his religious agenda. Its funny, the Christians seem to be the most consistent purveyors of lies, this thread being a perfect example of that fact. Just look at the title and then inspect the contents of whats been offered - total bullshit, not one bit of legitimate scientific information offered from Pahu.

[littleCJelkton]

Ahso!;1346744 wrote: I know what you mean, though Behe is really just a liar in order to push his religious agenda. Its funny, the Christians seem to be the most consistent purveyors of lies, this thread being a perfect example of that fact. Just look at the title and then inspect the contents of whats been offered - total bullshit, not one bit of legitimate scientific information offered from Pahu.


We had one like this not to long ago too, I remember debating the proofs of god. Where there is one I guess others follow.

[yaaarrrgg]

Ahso!;1346744 wrote: I know what you mean, though Behe is really just a liar in order to push his religious agenda. Its funny, the Christians seem to be the most consistent purveyors of lies, this thread being a perfect example of that fact. Just look at the title and then inspect the contents of whats been offered - total bullshit, not one bit of legitimate scientific information offered from Pahu.


Good point. It does seem silly that these Christians get hung up on the Hebrew word 'yom' (day) in the creation story when they completely ignore most of what the Bible says anyway.

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 1



In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and Braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease (a). It seems obvious that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence (b).

a. In 2010, another level of complexity was discovered in the genetic code. On a strand of DNA, a sequence of three adjacent nucleotides form a unit in the genetic code called a codon. Prior to 2010, some codons were thought to have the same function as others. That turns out to not be the case.

“...synonymous codon changes can so profoundly change the role of a protein adds a new level of complexity to how we interpret the genetic code.” Ivana Weygand-Durasevic and Michael Ibba, “New Roles for Codon Usage,” Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1474. Also see Fangliang Zhang et al., “Differential Arginylation of Actin Isoforms Is Regulated by Coding Sequence-Dependent Degradation,” Science, Vol. 329, 17 September 2010, p. 1734–1537.

b. “Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation.” Anne-Claude Gavin et al., “Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery,” Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 15. Codes, Programs, and Information

[Saint_]

Pahu, people like you are a complete mystery to me. How can you be so intelligent, and scientifically knowledgeable, yet still deny Natural Selection? Isn't it bright-sun obvious to you that the strong survive and good adaptations allow survival? How can you refute that bad mutations will die off while good ones will live?

It's elementary!

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu;1346843 wrote:

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease (a). It seems obvious that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence


Having information coded into a sequence, and that information saying something "intelligent" are two different things. There's a lot of coded information that produces lousy designs, which make no sense except in light of evolution.

Consider wisdom teeth. You are telling me some creator was smart enough to do DNA programming, but too dumb to correctly count the number of teeth we needed? Is the creator some kind of idiot savant? The only way these teeth make sense, is that they are a left over from when humans had larger jaws. And perhaps tooth rot (again bad tooth design) prevented their complete obsolescence. What would have been smarter design, would be to have the correct number of teeth, and for these teeth replace themselves every ten years.

Then again, I doubt you can actually respond to this point, since you seem to be stuck in copy/paste mode.

[Saint_]

yaaarrrgg;1346900 wrote:

Consider wisdom teeth. You are telling me some creator was smart enough to do DNA programming, but too dumb to correctly count the number of teeth we needed?


Great point. And how about your appendix? Sure was important thousands of years ago, but why have it now? And then there's the whole "coccyx" problem. Why design a species that walks upright with a tail?

Then again, I doubt you can actually respond to this point, since you seem to be stuck in copy/paste mode.


How true. The Good Lord forbid that he actually listen to other viewpoints. He might get corrupted and rethink his crusade.

[Pahu]

Saint_;1346894 wrote: Pahu, people like you are a complete mystery to me. How can you be so intelligent, and scientifically knowledgeable, yet still deny Natural Selection? Isn't it bright-sun obvious to you that the strong survive and good adaptations allow survival? How can you refute that bad mutations will die off while good ones will live?

It's elementary!


Where did you get the idea I deny natural selection? 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

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 5. Natural Selection

[Pahu]

yaaarrrgg;1346900 wrote: Having information coded into a sequence, and that information saying something "intelligent" are two different things. There's a lot of coded information that produces lousy designs, which make no sense except in light of evolution.

Consider wisdom teeth. You are telling me some creator was smart enough to do DNA programming, but too dumb to correctly count the number of teeth we needed? Is the creator some kind of idiot savant? The only way these teeth make sense, is that they are a left over from when humans had larger jaws. And perhaps tooth rot (again bad tooth design) prevented their complete obsolescence. What would have been smarter design, would be to have the correct number of teeth, and for these teeth replace themselves every ten years.

Then again, I doubt you can actually respond to this point, since you seem to be stuck in copy/paste mode.


Are you assuming you are smarter than God? Assuming He does exist and created everything, we can also assume He knows what He is doing, even if we are unable to understand the "why" of everything. He also revealed we rebelled against His will, which caused many imperfections to take place. There are consequences for wrong thoughts, words and deeds. For example, if we step off a thousand foot cliff, there is a predictable result.



Evolutionists have taught that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors that possessed larger jaws and teeth than us. In the process of evolution the jaw has become smaller, allowing less room for the third molars and causing numerous dental problems. Our better understanding of the complex teeth-jaw relationship has revealed this explanation is far too simplistic. Research now indicates that the reasons for most third molar problems today are not due to evolutionary changes but other reasons. These reasons include a change from a course abrasive diet to a soft western diet, lack of proper dental care, and genetic factors possibly including mutations. Common past dental practice was a tendency to routinely remove wisdom teeth. Recent empirical research has concluded that this practice is unwise. Third molars in general should be left alone unless a problem develops and then they should be treated as any other teeth. At times removal is required, but appropriate efforts to deal with problem teeth should be implemented before resorting to their extraction.

http://creation.com/are-wisdom-teeth-th ... reation-tj

[Pahu]

Saint_;1346907 wrote: Great point. And how about your appendix? Sure was important thousands of years ago, but why have it now? And then there's the whole "coccyx" problem. Why design a species that walks upright with a tail?


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

There are no such things as a Vestigial Organ creation or evolution tonsils Appendix wisdom teeth whales legs goose bumps creation vs. evolution baby born with tail

http://www.train2equip.com/paperVestigial.asp

A common claim made by those who believe in evolution, is that the human appendix is useless. They believe it is gradually reducing in size through time. They believe that it was once larger in our alleged "ape man" ancestors. But due to our lower consumption of plant material it has shrunk.

The most important thing to remember is that we do not have preserved organs of any hominid. We only have bone fragments. Even if we had preserved organs it would be difficult to prove their purpose without a living sample of that creature to test.

But lets just suppose for the sake of the argument that the appendix has shrunk through time. Is that evidence for evolution? No. Remember that all evidence is interpreted. So lets look at the same evidence from a Creation/Degeneration perspective. It may well be that if the appendix has shrunk through the course of mans history. If it has then the change in diet (vegetarian Genesis 1:29 and then allowing meat Gen 9:3 ), in addition to the effects of the curse (Genesis 3) may be responsible.

But is the appendix useless today? The answer appears to be "no". In the course of development, the human embryo has a "very early and rapid development during the critical stages of bowel growth and organization". ("The Human Vermiform Appendix-a General Surgeon's Reflections” by J. Warwick Glover Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 3:31-38, 1988).

Glover goes on to say: "However, microscopically the tissues of the appendix are complicated and highly specialized, but this qualitative aspect of the organ's growth does not occur until just after birth when the neonate takes on essential bacteria to reside in its colon." ("The Human Vermiform Appendix-a General Surgeon's Reflections” by J. Warwick Glover Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 3:31-38, 1988). The appendix helps establish and maintain the bowel-blood barrier for bacteria in this area.("The Human Vermiform Appendix-a General Surgeon's Reflections” by J. Warwick Glover Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 3:31-38, 1988).

Therefore, since it has a purpose the appendix can not be claimed to be a vestigial organ, but rather the result of creative design.

Genesis 6-9 Commentary Noah’s Ark Noah's Ark Fact or Fairy Tale?

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.

Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs - Answers in Genesis

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 2



No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs (d).

d. “No matter how many ‘bits’ of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it ‘information’ if it doesn’t at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a ‘program.’ Another name for computer software is an ‘algorithm.’ No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organisms with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?” Abel and Trevors, p. 8.

“No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms.” Jack T. Trevors and David L. Abel, “Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life,” Cell Biology International, Vol. 28, 2004, p. 730.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 15. Codes, Programs, and Information

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu;1346922 wrote: Are you assuming you are smarter than God? Assuming He does exist and created everything, we can also assume He knows what He is doing, even if we are unable to understand the "why" of everything. He also revealed we rebelled against His will, which caused many imperfections to take place. There are consequences for wrong thoughts, words and deeds. For example, if we step off a thousand foot cliff, there is a predictable result.


If you really think that, how about you don't ever go to the dentist or doctor then? Because getting those teeth removed would question God's infinite wisdom of putting too many teeth in your head. Take your proper punishment for the horrible act of when Adam ate fruit (which by the way is healthy).

[littleCJelkton]

Pahu;1346922 wrote: Are you assuming you are smarter than God? Assuming He does exist and created everything, we can also assume He knows what He is doing, even if we are unable to understand the "why" of everything. He also revealed we rebelled against His will, which caused many imperfections to take place. There are consequences for wrong thoughts, words and deeds. For example, if we step off a thousand foot cliff, there is a predictable result.

http://creation.com/are-wisdom-teeth-th ... reation-tj


So we are back to sqare one and assuming everything. If we are assuming things then can't we assume God Doesn't exist or God exist's but didn't create everything or God exists and create everything but doesn't know what it is doing?

[Pahu]

littleCJelkton;1346938 wrote: So we are back to sqare one and assuming everything. If we are assuming things then can't we assume God Doesn't exist or God exist's but didn't create everything or God exists and create everything but doesn't know what it is doing?


Should our assumptions be left untested by evidence?

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1346994 wrote: Should our assumptions be left untested by evidence?You've offered nothing other than the opinions of others, and you've labeled it 'evidence'. Let's see some peer reviewed science, Palu.

[littleCJelkton]

Pahu;1346994 wrote: Should our assumptions be left untested by evidence?


No, I am surprised to hear you say this as your the one with the untested assumptions. How do you measure, test , analyze God? You can test, analyze, and measure fossil records, DNA, geological dating by rocks and sediment, Radiation.

[Ahso!]

Apparently to Pahu, the definition of scientific evidence is any opinion, founded or unfounded (mostly unfounded), given by a a person recognized by the religious right-wing as a scientist. Actual science does not need to be part of the equation.

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 3




Life contains matter, energy, and information (e).

e. How can we measure information? A computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. Information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u” that directly follows a “q”. If compression could be accomplished to the maximum extent possible (eliminating all redundancies and unnecessary information), the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or widget.

Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log24 = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.

Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.

While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.

“Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.” Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics; or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1948), p. 132.

Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3×10^24 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 15. Codes, Programs, and Information