ForumGarden

Fossil Gaps 17




In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled (l).

l. “It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled. Nilsson, p. 1212.

“...experience shows that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting. Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History), “The Nature of the Fossil Record, Adventures in Earth History, editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644–645.

“A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known. Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p. 302.

On pages 303–309, Davidheiser, a Ph.D. zoologist and creationist, lists 75 other forms of life whose ancestry is unknown.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Missing Trunk 1



The “evolutionary tree has no trunk. In what evolutionists call the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified (a), and dispersed—worldwide (b).

a. “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348.

“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. Ibid., p. 344.

“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Ibid., p. 350.

“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. Ibid., p. 351.

“The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time...The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. Stephen Jay Gould, “An Asteroid to Die For, Discover, October 1989, p. 65.

“And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 229.

Richard Monastersky, “Mysteries of the Orient, Discover, April 1993, pp. 38–48.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Missing Trunk 2




“One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age. Daniel I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna, Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7.

“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable? Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution, Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.

“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin. T. Neville George (Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow), “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective, Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5.

b. Strange Cambrian fossils, thought to exist only in the Burgess Shale of western Canada, have been discovered in southern China. See:

L. Ramsköld and Hou Xianguang, “New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans, Nature, Vol. 351, 16 May 1991, pp. 225–228.

Jun-yuan Chen et al., “Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators, Science, Vol. 264, 27 May 1994, pp. 1304–1308.

Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in widely separated locations stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Missing Trunk 3




Evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Almost all of today’s plant and animal phyla—including flowering plants (c), vascular plants (d), and vertebrates (e)—appear at the base of the fossil record.

c. “... it is well known that the fossil record tells us nothing about the evolution of flowering plants. Corner, p. 100.

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Occurrence of Microflora in the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab, Nature, Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796–797.

A. K. Ghosh, J. Sen, and A. Bose, “Evidence Bearing on the Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab, Geological Magazine, Vol. 88, March–April 1951, pp. 129–133.

J. Coates et al., “Age of the Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range, Nature, Vol. 155, 3 March 1945, pp. 266–267.

Clifford Burdick, in his doctoral research at the University of Arizona in 1964, made discoveries similar to those cited in the four preceding references. [See Clifford Burdick, “Microflora of the Grand Canyon, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 3, May 1966, pp. 38–50.] Burdick was denied a doctor’s degree at the University of Arizona because of these discoveries. [See Jerry Bergman, “Clifford Burdick: Unjustly Expelled Twice, Parts I and II, Creation Matters, September/October and July/August 2010.

d. S. Leclercq, “Evidence of Vascular Plants in the Cambrian, Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1956, pp. 109–114.

e. John E. Repetski, “A Fish from the Upper Cambrian of North America, Science, Vol. 200, 5 May 1978, pp. 529–531.

“Vertebrates and their progenitors, according to the new studies, evolved in the Cambrian, earlier than paleontologists have traditionally assumed. Richard Monastersky, “Vertebrate Origins: The Fossils Speak Up, Science News, Vol. 149, 3 February 1996, p. 75.

“Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate. Paul Chien (Chairman, Biology Department, University of San Francisco), “Explosion of Life, www.origins.org/articles/chien_explosionoflife.html, p. 3. Interviewed 30 June 1997.

“At 530 million years, the 3-centimeter-long Haikouichthys appears to be the world’s oldest fish, while another new specimen, Myllokunmingia, has simpler gills and is more primitive. To Conway Morris and others, the presence of these jawless fish in the Early Cambrian suggests that the origin of chordates lies even farther back in time. Erik Stokstad, “Exquisite Chinese Fossils Add New Pages to Book of Life, Science, Vol. 291, 12 January 2001, p. 233.

“The [500] specimens [of fish] may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of a storm-induced burial....The possession of eyes (and probably nasal sacs) is consistent with Haikouichthys being a craniate, indicating that vertebrate evolution was well advanced by the Early Cambrian. D. G. Shu et al., “Head and Backbone of the Early Cambrian Vertebrate Haikouichthys, Nature, Vol. 421, 30 January 2003, pp. 527, 529.

D. G. Shu et al., “Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China, Nature, Vol. 402, 4 November 1999, pp. 42–46.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Missing Trunk 4




Many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today (f). Complex species, such as fish (g) worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish (h) sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animal species (living and extinct), have no known evolutionary ancestors (i). Insects and other arthropods found in amber, supposedly 100–230 million-years-old, look like those living today (j). The fossil record does not support evolution (k).

f. “Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution, Science, Vol. 241, 15 July 1988, p. 291.

“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time [Cambrian] (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

“Stephen Jay Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed—we have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now. Chien, p. 2.

“It was puzzling for a while because they [evolutionary paleontologists] refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist now—that’s more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now. Ibid., p. 3.

g. “But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing, a matter of hot dispute among the experts, each of whom is firmly convinced that everyone else is wrong...I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law. Errol White, “A Little on Lung-Fishes, Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, Vol. 177, Presidential Address, January 1966, p. 8.

“The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes... J. R. Norman, A History of Fishes, 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 343.

“All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms? Gerald T. Todd, “Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes—A Causal Relationship? American Zoologist, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1980, p. 757.

h. Cloud and Glaessner, pp. 783–792.

i. “There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like...Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred. Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1962), pp. 14–15.

“There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods. Frank M. Carpenter, “Fossil Insects, Insects (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 18.

j. “For the most part, an ant living 100 million years ago looks like an ant today. Paul Tafforeau, as quoted by Amy Barth, Discover, July/August 2009, p. 38.

“At 230 million years old, the mite fossils are about 100 million years older than previous finds and indicate that mites’ basic body blueprint was built to last. Meghan Rosen, “Amber-Tombed Mites Look Familiar: Oldest Arthropods Sealed in Resin Similar to Modern Forms, Science News, Vol. 182, 6 October 2012, p. 14.

k. “If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling. Marshall Kay and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965), p. 103.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Writing Doll



This is an amazing creation by a Swiss clockmaker 240 years ago. What is even more amazing is this man, who used his intelligence to design this mechanical writing doll, is himself not considered by evolutionists to have been created by an Intelligent Designer even though he is far more amazing than his creation.

Writing Doll

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 1




Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order (a).

a. Walter E. Lammerts has published eight lists totaling almost 200 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. [See “Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United States: Parts I–VIII, Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1984, p. 88; December 1984, p. 150; March 1985, p. 200; December 1985, p. 127; March 1986, p. 188; June 1986, p. 38; December 1986, p. 133; and June 1987, p. 46.]

“In the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change: modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and a plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing the sequence. But the predictive (or postdictive) power of theory is almost nil. David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record, Science, Vol. 213, 17 July 1981, p. 289.

“Fossil discoveries can muddle our attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees—fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodgepodges of defining features of many different groups. Neil Shubin, “Evolutionary Cut and Paste, Nature, Vol. 394, 2 July 1998, p. 12.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 2




In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs (b). A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years (c). Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan (d) and Arizona (e).

b. Y. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, “A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch? Moskovskaya Pravda [Moscow Truth], 5 February 1984.

c. Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93–96, 100.

d. Alexander Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs, Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10. [For an alternate but equivalent translation published by an anti-creationist organization, see Frank Zindler, “Man—A Contemporary of the Dinosaurs? Creation/Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1986, pp. 28–29.]

e. Paul O. Rosnau et al., “Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona? Parts I and II, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 26, September 1989, pp. 41–48 and December 1989, pp. 77–98.

Jeremy Auldaney et al., “More Human-Like Track Impressions Found with the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta Formation at Tuba City Arizona, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 34, December 1997, pp. 133–146 and back cover.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 3




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 4




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



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

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

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

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

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

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

A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796–797.

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

J. Coates et al., pp. 266–267.

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

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Out-of-Sequence Fossils 5



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

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

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



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

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Ape-Men? 1


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

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

Since 1953, it has been universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bowden, pp. 56–246.

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Still waiting for the science, Mr Brown.

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


Every post is scientifically valid.

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


Well, it is encouraging that you contradict your first sentence with your second sentence. So you now admit I am using science and scientists to disprove the science of evolution, but you believe that science does not replace the evolution myth?



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


You are free to draw your own conclusions. Since the facts of science disprove evolution, the only alternative is an Intelligent Designer. Magic usually means the illusion of some phenomena by means of trickery. The universe and life were created by the miraculous power of God.

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


Evolution is not science. It is speculation masquerading as science. Real science is the testing of the truth of a hypothesis by the use of controlled experiment. It is the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.

There are four things we need to be aware of with the scientific method:



1) The controlled environment.

2) Observation made.

3) Data needs to be drawn from that observation.

4) Hypothesis empirically verified.

Scientific method is “The principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment and the formation and testing of hypotheses (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976).

“The scientific method, however it is defined, is related to measurement of phenomena and experimentation or repeated observation (The Encyclopedia Britannica).

There are two methods of proof: Scientific and Evidential/Historical.

Scientific proof is based on showing that something is a fact by repeating the event in the presence of the person questioning the fact. For this modern scientific method you need to have a controlled environment where the event can be repeated over and over and over again, observation made of it, data drawn from it, and hypothesis (not fact!) empirically verified.

Assume we have a fact in question. To be proven scientifically it must be related to measurement of phenomena and experimentation, or repeated observation. Science is limited, very limited.

Legal proof is based upon showing that something is true or a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The scientific method can only be used to prove repeatable events, but is not adequate for people or events within history.

Ape-Men? 2




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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

g. Hammond, p. 43.

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

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Ape-Men? 3




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bowden, pp. 138–142, 144–148.

Hitching, pp. 208–209.

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

i. Ibid., pp. 108–138.

Bowden, pp. 90–137.

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

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

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Ape-Men? 4




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Ape-Men? 5




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu, you can't go down the evolutionary ladder millions of years, then say "they have no resemblence to humans. Of course they do! They are mammals! Following your logic I might say that the earliest mammal, a shrew-like mammal, can't possibly be related to mammals of today.

Saint_;1449610 wrote: Pahu, you can't go down the evolutionary ladder millions of years, then say "they have no resemblence to humans. Of course they do! They are mammals! Following your logic I might say that the earliest mammal, a shrew-like mammal, can't possibly be related to mammals of today.


What evidence is there for the existence of an evolutionary ladder and millions of years? Consider the following:

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1

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].

[continue]

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1

[continued]



"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.

"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).

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.



Scientists Speak About Evolution

Pahu;1449621 wrote: What evidence is there for the existence of an evolutionary ladder and millions of years?


DNA Evidence.

Global Gene Project Traces Humanity's Migrations

Saint_;1449624 wrote: DNA Evidence.

Global Gene Project Traces Humanity's Migrations


SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT DNA



Scientists wish to tell you that the DNA molecule stands as a wall, blocking the possibility that one species could change into another. And where there is no trans-species change, there is no evolution. In addition, DNA could not originate by chance. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about DNA

Impossible for DNA to Self-produce: It could not come about by chance

Devastating Math Probabilities: Forget the possibility

DNA Barrier Forbids Change: One species could never change into another

Vast Information within It: Too much data within each molecule to permit switchovers

Conclusion: Not chance, but Someone made DNA

This material is excerpted from the book, DNA AND CELLS. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, DNA and Cells.

IMPOSSIBLE FOR DNA TO SELF-PRODUCE

It could not make itself or come into existence by chance.

"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 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 of 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.

"To involve purpose is in the eyes of biologists the ultimate scientific sin . . The revulsion which biologists feel about the thought that purpose might have a place in the structure of biology is therefore revulsion to the concept that biology might have a connection to an intelligence higher than our own."—Sir Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 32.

DEVASTATING MATH PROBABILITIES

The possibilities of it occurring by chance are devastating.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression)."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

"This means 1 / 1089190 DNA molecules, on the average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code the 124 proteins. 1089190 DNA's would weigh 1089147 times more than the earth, and would certainly be sufficient to fill the universe many times over. It is estimated that the total amount of DNA necessary to code 100 billion people could be contained in ½ of an aspirin tablet. Surely 1089147 times the weight of the earth in DNA's is a stupendous amount and emphasizes how remote the chance is to form the one DNA molecule. A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have formed."—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 115.

"Nowadays computers are operating within a range which is not entirely incommensurate with that dealt with in actual evolution theories. If a species breeds once a year, the number of cycles in a million years is about the same as that which one would obtain in a ten-day computation which iterates a program whose duration is a hundredth of a second . . Now we have less excuse for explaining away difficulties [via evolutionary theory] by invoking the unobservable effect of astronomical [enormously large] numbers of small variations."—*M.P. Schutzenberger, Mathematical Challenges in the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (1967), pp. 73-75 [an address given at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology Symposium].

"We believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology."—M.P. Schutzenberger, Mathematical Challenges in the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (1967), pp. 73-75 [an address given at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology Symposium].

[continue]

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT DNA

[continued]

"Time is no help. Bio-molecules outside a living system tend to degrade with time, not build up. In most cases, a few days is all they would last. Time decomposes complex systems. If a large `word' (a protein) or even a paragraph is generated by chance, time will operate to degrade it. The more time you allow, the less chance there is that fragmentary `sense' will survive the chemical maelstrom of matter."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 233.

"So the simultaneous formation of two or more molecules of any given enzyme purely by chance is fantastically improbable."—*W. Thorpe, "Reductionism in Biology," in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (1974), p. 117.

DNA BARRIER FORBIDS CHANGE

The DNA barrier forbids trans-species changes—one species changing into another.

"*Alfred Wallace, the co-developer (with *Charles Darwin) of the evolutionary theory, survived Darwin by several decades and was alive when Mendelian genetics was rediscovered and began to be investigated. Wallace, clearly recognized that Mendelian principles were a total variance with evolutionary theory.

"But, on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution, I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, as extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to every varying condition."—*Alfred Russel Wallace, Letters and Reminiscences by James Marchant (1916), p. 340.

"The usual answer to this question is that there was plenty of time to try everything. I could never accept this answer. Random shuttling of bricks will never build a castle or a Greek temple, however long the available time. A random process can build meaningful structures only if there is some kind of selection between meaningful and nonsense mutations."—*A. Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Evolutionary Paradox and Biological Stability," in Molecular Evolution, p. 111.

VAST AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WITHIN IT

The amount of information within each DNA system is vast. There is too much data within each molecule to permit switchovers.

" if written out, would fill a thousand 600-page books. Each cell is a world brimming with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of atoms called molecules . . Our 46 chromosome `threads' [in one DNA molecule] linked together would measure more than six feet. Yet the nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an inch in diameter."—*Rick Gore, "The Awesome Worlds Within a Cell," National Geographic, September 1976, pp. 357-358, 360.

"There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store in the Encyclopedia Britannicas."—*R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 115-116.

CONCLUSION

Not chance, but Someone made DNA.

"The presence of a living unit is exactly opposite to what we would expect on the basis of pure statistical and probability considerations."—*Peter Mora, "Urge and Molecular Biology," in Nature (1963), p. 215.

"It is very hard to avoid using words that suggest purpose when describing the wonderfully adapted structures that occur in the living world."—*L.E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection (1973), p. 182.

"That life is, . . is a miracle from the point of view of the physical scientist."—*E.P. Wigner, "The Probability of a Self-Reproducing Unit," in the Logic of Personal Knowledge (1961), p. 231.

"To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (9182), pp. 108, 117.

"The answer would seem to me, combined with the knowledge that life is actually there, to lead to the conclusion that some sequences other than chance occurrences must have led to the appearance of life as we know it."—*J.D. Bernal, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and Their Molecular Matrices (1965), p. 53.

"There is a growing likelihood that the genome may contain even more than one hundred thousand million bits of information."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 351.

"Rather than accept that fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act. By `better' I mean less likely to be wrong."—*Fred Hoyle "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections, in Engineering and Science, November 1981, pp. 8, 12.

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT DNA

Ape-Men? 6




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

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable. [See pages 37-43]

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

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

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

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

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

v. Boyce Rensberger, “Facing the Past, Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1449996 wrote: . Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man


Pahu, how can you admit to different evolutionary stages of man, then deny evolution itself? Or are you saying the Neanderthals were not men?

Saint_;1450038 wrote: Pahu, how can you admit to different evolutionary stages of man, then deny evolution itself? Or are you saying the Neanderthals were not men?


Different evolutionary stages of man is an assumption, not an observed fact. For example:



Figure 3: Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.



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





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



In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?

Fossil Man




Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull (a), the Castenedolo skeletons (b), Reck’s skeleton (c), and possibly others (d). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (e). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

a. Bowden, pp. 76–78.

Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Imsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50–52, 82, 83.

Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons.

As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the “Castenedolo find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs. Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.

However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the un-fossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Again, fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.

b. Bowden, pp. 183-193

c. Ibid., 78–79.

J. D. Whitney, “The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California, Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard College, Vol. 6, 1880, pp. 258–288.

Bowden, pp. 76–78.

Cousins, pp. 50–52, 82, 83.

W. H. B., “Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California, American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.

Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, “The Case for the Calaveras Skull, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248–256.

Cousins and Whitney state that the Calaveras was fossilized. This does not mean that it was pre-flood. Fossilization depends on chemistry much more than time.

For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava that evolutionists would date at 25 million years old—too old to be human. See, for example:

Whitney, pp. 262–264, 266, 274–276.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294–301.

George F. Becker, “Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189–200.

d. Fix, pp. 98–105.

J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp. 316–318.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

We love bad archeology.

Bad Archeology? What is it?

Chemical Elements of Life 1




The chemical evolution of life is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen (a). However, the closer one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.

Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon (b). One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, today’s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on the earth’s surface since the first fossils formed.

Oxygen. No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earth’s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many substances should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth (c). Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation (d). But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life (e). The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously—in other words, by creation.

a. The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%).

b. Carbon is only the 18th most abundant element, by weight, in the earth’s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite.

c. “The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem. Leigh Van Valen, “The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen, Science, Vol. 171, 5 February 1971, p. 442.

d. Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen. [See ]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 29. Proteins If the atmosphere had no oxygen as life evolved, how did the atmosphere get its oxygen?

Cyanobacteria break down carbon dioxide and water and release oxygen. In 1987, William J. Schopf claimed that he and his graduate student had discovered fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cyanobacteria. This, he said, is how the atmosphere gained its oxygen after these bacteria—shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiation—evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved.

Schopf’s former graduate student and other experts have now charged Schopf with withholding evidence that those fossils were not cyanobacteria. Most experts feel betrayed by Schopf, who now accepts that his “specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all. [See Rex Dalton, “Squaring Up over Ancient Life, Nature, Vol. 417, 20 June 2002, pp. 782–784.] A foundational building block in the evolution story—that had become academic orthodoxy—has crumbled.

e . Hitching, p. 65.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

This is a big thread, the largest I have seen here. Very well done.

I think God created a different version of evolution, but he definitely created evolution. Just not the evolution from ape to human. But he created it, like from Pupi to Butterfly, that is an evolution God designed and created. And I think he incorporated " Levels of evolution" within the human body. Like growing taller, older, stronger, types of evolution.

And I most definitely believe he designed the human consciousness to evolve. No doubt about it.

Mickiel;1453450 wrote: This is a big thread, the largest I have seen here. Very well done.

I think God created a different version of evolution, but he definitely created evolution. Just not the evolution from ape to human. But he created it, like from Pupi to Butterfly, that is an evolution God designed and created. And I think he incorporated " Levels of evolution" within the human body. Like growing taller, older, stronger, types of evolution.

And I most definitely believe he designed the human consciousness to evolve. No doubt about it.


What you are describing is God's built in ability for all life forms to grow and develop from the seed or egg, not evolution.

Here is an interesting article concerning butterflies:



Metamorphosis 1




Most insects (87%) undergo complete metamorphosis. It begins when a larva (such as a caterpillar) builds a cocoon around itself. Then its body inside disintegrates into a thick, pulp-like liquid. Days, weeks, or months later, the adult insect emerges—one that is dramatically different, amazingly capable, and often beautiful, such as a butterfly. Food, habitat, and behavior of the larva also differ drastically from those of the adult.

Evolution claims that:

Mutations slightly alter an organism’s genetic material which later generations inherit. On rare occasions the alterations are beneficial, enabling the offspring to reproduce more of themselves and the improved genetic material. [Supposedly] after many generations, dramatic changes, even new organs, accumulate.

If this were true, each organism must be able to reproduce and must be superior, in some sense, to its ancestors. How then could metamorphosis evolve in many stages (a)?

What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as “mush. From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards. As Michael Pitman wryly noted:

“Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process pre-programmed from the first “production run? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot? (b)

The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pinhead (c)? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce (d)?

Charles Darwin wrote:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (e).

Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution “breaks down.

Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larva’s and an adult’s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation.



Figure 15: Metamorphosis. Many animals experience an amazing transformation that refutes evolution. One example is the monarch butterfly. As a two-week-old caterpillar (left), it builds a chrysalis around itself (center). Then its complex organs disintegrate. From an evolution perspective, this should cause the insect’s extinction—a thousand times over. Two weeks later, a beautiful butterfly emerges with different and even more remarkable capabilities (right). Some people might believe that a complex machine, such as an automobile, evolved by natural processes, but if they saw that machine disintegrate and quickly reemerge as an airplane, only the most naive and unscientific would still believe that natural processes could produce such marvelous designs.

a. “Certainly it [metamorphosis] demonstrates the absurdity of invoking natural selection by successive mutation to explain such an obviously, yet subtly programmed, process. Why on that basis, should the ancestral insect have survived the mutations that projected it into the chrysalid stage, from which it could not yet develop into an adult? Where was natural selection then? How could pre-programmed metamorphosis, in insect, amphibian or crustacean, ever have evolved by chance? Indeed, how could development have evolved piece-meal? The ball is in the evolutionist’s court, tangled in a net of inexplicability. Michael Pitman, “Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Company, 1984), p. 71.

“Apart from the many difficulties in understanding how such a radical change [as metamorphosis] comes about, there is the larger question of why it should happen? Can there really be an evolutionary advantage in constructing one sort of organism and then throwing it away and starting again? Taylor, p. 177.

“There is no evidence of how such a remarkable plan of life [metamorphosis] ever came about ... Peter Farb, “The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), p. 56.

“Does any one really believe that the ancestors of butterflies were as adults just masses of pulp enveloped in cases, having no means of procuring external nourishment? If not, it is for the evolutionist to explain how the process of metamorphosis became intercalated in the life-history of the caterpillar. Douglas Dewar, “The Transformist Illusion (Murfreesboro, Tennessee: DeHoff Publications, 1957), p. 213.

Finding how metamorphosis evolved in one species, genus, family, order, or class is just the first question. Because many different larva-to-adult patterns exist, many other explanations are also needed.

b. Pitman, pp. 193–194.

c. Christine Merlin et al., “Antennal Circadian Clocks Coordinate Sun Compass Orientation in Migratory Monarch Butterflies, Science, Vol. 325, 25 September 2009, pp. 1700–1704.

Jules H. Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarch—the Miracle Butterfly (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1995).

d. An evolutionist might claim that larvae once reproduced, but then lost that capability. If so, why is there no sign of any remnant reproductive equipment in any of the hundreds of thousands of larva types?

e. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 179.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[QUOTE=Pahu;1453478]What you are describing is God's built in ability for all life forms to grow and develop from the seed or egg.

QUOTE]





Yes, and I think its a thin line between Metamorphsis and evolution. I really don't think they should be seperated, unless we call them brothers and sisters, God created them both to be " Processes" or stages of development; one could, if they wanted, define both using the same definition. Or at least including some same componants of definition.

Again anything other than " From it to developing into a human", is a definition of evolution, just not a biblical one. But, evolution IS a reality that does exist and was formed by God; and I think it is incorrect to state that evolution does not exist, because our consciousness is evolving everyday.

AND, the New Birth the bible speaks of IS an example of evolution to come for humanity. Just not the scientific way of explaining evolution.

Mickiel;1453483 wrote: [QUOTE=Pahu;1453478]What you are describing is God's built in ability for all life forms to grow and develop from the seed or egg.




Yes, and I think its a thin line between Metamorphsis and evolution. I really don't think they should be seperated, unless we call them brothers and sisters, God created them both to be " Processes" or stages of development; one could, if they wanted, define both using the same definition. Or at least including some same componants of definition.

Again anything other than " From it to developing into a human", is a definition of evolution, just not a biblical one. But, evolution IS a reality that does exist and was formed by God; and I think it is incorrect to state that evolution does not exist, because our consciousness is evolving everyday.

AND, the New Birth the bible speaks of IS an example of evolution to come for humanity. Just not the scientific way of explaining evolution.


Here is the dictionary definition of evolution:

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Biology

a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Yes, and I think its a thin line between Metamorphsis and evolution. I really don't think they should be seperated, unless we call them brothers and sisters, God created them both to be " Processes" or stages of development; one could, if they wanted, define both using the same definition. Or at least including some same componants of definition.

Evolution is an alleged unintelligent process that completely rules out God. Creation requires an Intelligent Designer. The two concepts are not logically compatible.

Pahu;1453517 wrote: Here is the dictionary definition of evolution:

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.






If this is not a description of what God is doing to humanity, I just don't know what is.

Evolution is our birthright and destiny.

Chemical Elements of Life 2




Nitrogen. Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments [f].

Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life [g].

f. “If there ever was a primitive soup [to provide the chemical compounds for evolving life] , then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. Indeed to the contrary, the very oldest of sediments ... are extremely short of nitrogen. J. Brooks and G. Shaw, Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 359.

“No evidence exists that such a soup ever existed. Abel and Trevors, p. 3.

g. “The acceptance of this theory [life’s evolution on earth] and its promulgation by many workers [scientists and researchers] who have certainly not always considered all the facts in great detail has in our opinion reached proportions which could be regarded as dangerous. Ibid., p. 355.

Certainly, ignoring indisputable, basic evidence in most scientific fields is expensive and wasteful. Failure to explain the evidence to students betrays a trust and misleads future teachers and leaders.

Readers should consider why, despite the improbabilities and lack of proper chemistry, many educators and the media have taught for a century that life evolved on earth.

Abandoning or questioning that belief leaves only one strong contender—creation. Questioning evolution in some circles invites ostracism, much like stating that the proverbial emperor “has no clothes.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

I believe in evolution, just not ape to human, but I believe God created certain things to evolve, including humans. We have evolved in many ways, even physical, and we continue to evolve consciously.

5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving | Mental Floss

Proteins 1




Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link together if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earth’s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed (a). Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken some water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen (b).

a. An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that “imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers. Philip Morrison, “Earth’s Earliest Biosphere, Scientific American, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp. 30–31.

Charles F. Davidson, “Geochemical Aspects of Atmospheric Evolution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 53, 15 June 1965, pp. 1194–1205.

Steven A. Austin, “Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere? ICR Impact, No. 109, July 1982.

“In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved sedimentary rocks. Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, “Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1976, p. 1161.

“What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it. Philip H. Abelson, “Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55, June 1966, p. 1365.

b. R. T. Brinkmann, “Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No. 23, 20 October 1969, pp. 5355–5368.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Proteins 2




To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid (c). However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur (d). Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids (e).

c. “It is difficult to imagine how a little pond with just these components, and no others [no contaminants], could have formed on the primitive earth. Nor is it easy to see exactly how the precursors would have arisen. Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.

d. “But when multiple biopolymers must all converge at the same place at the same time to collectively interact in a controlled biochemical cooperative manner, faith in ‘self-organization’ becomes ‘blind belief.’ No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap. Abel and Trevors, p. 9.

e. “I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life]. George Wald, “The Origin of Life, p. 50.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Proteins 3




Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth’s heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed (f). The many attempts to show how life might have arisen on earth have instead shown

(a) the futility of that effort (g),

(b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life (h), and

(c) the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.

f. “The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them. D. E. Hull, “Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation, Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694.

Pitman, p. 140.

Duane T. Gish, Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life, ICR Technical Monograph, No. 1 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).

g. “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. Crick, p. 88.

Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize winner and the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, did not give up. He reasoned that if life could not have evolved on earth, it must have evolved somewhere else in our galaxy and been transported to earth—an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermia—that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that “it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation. He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [See Eugene N. Parker, “Shielding Space Travelers, Scientific American, Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40–47.]

h. Robert Shapiro, Origins (New York: Bantam Books, 1986).

The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:

Organic molecules in life are of two types: proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Nucleic acids, which are incredibly complex, were not produced, nor would any knowledgeable person expect them to be produced.

The protein “building blocks were merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory. (In 2011, several more amino acids were found in Miller’s old experimental materials, but the more complex amino acids found in life were still missing. See Eric T. Parker et al., “Primordial Synthesis of Amines and Amino Acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-Rich Spark Discharge Experiment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 21 March 2011, pp. 1–6.)

Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.

Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness. [See: [Handedness: Left and Right ]

Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)

All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.

“The story of the slow paralysis of research on life’s origin is quite interesting, but space precludes its retelling here. Suffice it to say that at present the field of origin-of-life studies has dissolved into a cacophony of conflicting models, each unconvincing, seriously incomplete, and incompatible with competing models. In private even most evolutionary biologists will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life. Behe, “Molecular Machines, pp. 30–31.

Rick Pierson, “Life before Life, Discover, August 2004, p. 8.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

So a question:

Given that Evolution, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is an observed and confirmed phenomenon, Can you state clearly what, exactly, science has disproved about it?

LarsMac;1456419 wrote: So a question:

Given that Evolution, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is an observed and confirmed phenomenon, Can you state clearly what, exactly, science has disproved about it?


If you will review my posts you will find exactly how science disproves evolution. Here is more:

Evolution

Evolution - Conservapedia



Counterexamples to Evolution



The theory of evolution does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. If any one of the 49 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[2]), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%.

Counterexamples

Logical examples

1. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage and the staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.

2. Evolution predicts that human intelligence should increase over time, when in fact all evidence is that it is decreasing: declining SAT scores, shortening attention spans, and increasing mental problems.

3. The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.

4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible perpetual motion machine.

5. The Law of Large Numbers states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time and large numbers of examples.

6. More than 70% of Earth is covered with water, devastating flooding is frequent, and a massive ancient flood is historically recorded by every culture. Limestone and fossils exist at the highest peaks of altitude. Yet mammals cannot survive large floods. It is impossible to increase the period of time to permit evolution without also increasing the likelihood of extinction of mammals due to large flooding.

7. Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[3] Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.



Parrot feathers are a problem for evolutionists.

8. Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to arise repeatedly via evolution is impossible, as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.[4]

9. Pleiotropy, the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.[5]

10. The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles[6][7]

11. For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. [8]

12. There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.

13. If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.

14. Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.

15. The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria are, and always have been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerance of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.

[continue]

Counterexamples to Evolution

[continued]



Lack of mechanism





Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."[9]

1. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation[10]

2. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.

[continue]

Counterexamples to Evolution

[continued]

Lack of mechanism

3. The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.[11][12]



The beauty of God's creation, such as autumn foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary paradigm.

4. Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing science, creating art and music, dancing, and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.

5. Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.[13]

6. Evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.

7. Evolution requires that random mutations cause one kind to change into another, but this has never been observed.

8. The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."[14]

For the rest of the post, go here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexa ... _Evolution

In other words, "No."

I noticed that in the first of this lengthy thread a claim that 'Scientists' had disproved Evolution, yet no source was quoted to quantify this supposed new 'evidence'.

True scientists are, by their very nature, unbiased taking evidence to form a theory & then to challenge that theory with further evidence to confirm or deny. 'Christian Scientists' do not fall under this bracket.

While I agree that there is nothing to disprove the existence of a God, if I were to say that there are a load of flying pink bunnies dotted around the earth that become invisible when anyone approaches, there's nothing to disprove that either.

Evolution, on the other hand, is backed up by 100s of years of gathered evidence charting billions of years of change.

I have a Bible somewhere which has the year printed on each page, based on the ages of the quoted generations, thus placing the creation of the earth at less than 6000 years B.C., yet there are other cultures who have written records of their own civilisations that go way beyond that.

Evolution is not only in the past. It is happening all the time. One example is a moth that would feed & breed on the Silver Birch tree. Over the years its colouring had become the same speckled silver-grey as the bark of the tree. Then came the Steam Engine, and railways were built everywhere. As the trees became blacked with soot the moths became all but extinct, making themselves a prime target for birds to have a quick snack. Then it was noticed that a new variation of the moth was beginning to emerge, with a black colouring to match the dirty, soot covered trees. For years they went on to survive fine. Then came the diesel engines & the trees returned to their silvery colour. Once again the moths nearly became extinct - that is until they evolved, once again, to their original colour. This is evolution that has been witnessed & recorded. An undeniable FACT.

God supposedly created Man in His own image. If that were so, then what use did he have for genitals? What use would God have for genitals?

The planet, the seas, the land, all flora & fauna, and even Mankind, all in the course of 6 days. It has to be true. It's written there in the Bible - irrefutable scientific evidence!!

FourPart;1456679 wrote: I noticed that in the first of this lengthy thread a claim that 'Scientists' had disproved Evolution, yet no source was quoted to quantify this supposed new 'evidence'.

True scientists are, by their very nature, unbiased taking evidence to form a theory & then to challenge that theory with further evidence to confirm or deny. 'Christian Scientists' do not fall under this bracket.


Christian and non-Christian scientists use the same methods.

While I agree that there is nothing to disprove the existence of a God, if I were to say that there are a load of flying pink bunnies dotted around the earth that become invisible when anyone approaches, there's nothing to disprove that either.


True, however there is proof God exists.

Evolution, on the other hand, is backed up by 100s of years of gathered evidence charting billions of years of change.


Where is that evidence?

I have a Bible somewhere which has the year printed on each page, based on the ages of the quoted generations, thus placing the creation of the earth at less than 6000 years B.C., yet there are other cultures who have written records of their own civilisations that go way beyond that.


Such as?

Evolution is not only in the past. It is happening all the time. One example is a moth that would feed & breed on the Silver Birch tree. Over the years its colouring had become the same speckled silver-grey as the bark of the tree. Then came the Steam Engine, and railways were built everywhere. As the trees became blacked with soot the moths became all but extinct, making themselves a prime target for birds to have a quick snack. Then it was noticed that a new variation of the moth was beginning to emerge, with a black colouring to match the dirty, soot covered trees. For years they went on to survive fine. Then came the diesel engines & the trees returned to their silvery colour. Once again the moths nearly became extinct - that is until they evolved, once again, to their original colour. This is evolution that has been witnessed & recorded. An undeniable FACT.


All that was witnessed and recorded was when the environment favored one color, it grew in numbers, and vice verse. Both colored moths existed at the same time and still do. There was no evolution.

God supposedly created Man in His own image. If that were so, then what use did he have for genitals? What use would God have for genitals?


God is a spiritual being. He created mankind in His own image, which included mind, spirit and free will.

The planet, the seas, the land, all flora & fauna, and even Mankind, all in the course of 6 days. It has to be true. It's written there in the Bible - irrefutable scientific evidence!!


Revelation not science. Science is the examination of the material universe. It cannot concern itself with spiritual matters. It does not follow that the spiritual does not exist. The Bible has been found to be true and authored by God:



Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology has confirmed 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 Prophecy

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.

FourPart;1456679 wrote: I noticed that in the first of this lengthy thread a claim that 'Scientists' had disproved Evolution, yet no source was quoted to quantify this supposed new 'evidence'.

True scientists are, by their very nature, unbiased taking evidence to form a theory & then to challenge that theory with further evidence to confirm or deny. 'Christian Scientists' do not fall under this bracket.

While I agree that there is nothing to disprove the existence of a God, if I were to say that there are a load of flying pink bunnies dotted around the earth that become invisible when anyone approaches, there's nothing to disprove that either.

Evolution, on the other hand, is backed up by 100s of years of gathered evidence charting billions of years of change.

I have a Bible somewhere which has the year printed on each page, based on the ages of the quoted generations, thus placing the creation of the earth at less than 6000 years B.C., yet there are other cultures who have written records of their own civilisations that go way beyond that.

Evolution is not only in the past. It is happening all the time. One example is a moth that would feed & breed on the Silver Birch tree. Over the years its colouring had become the same speckled silver-grey as the bark of the tree. Then came the Steam Engine, and railways were built everywhere. As the trees became blacked with soot the moths became all but extinct, making themselves a prime target for birds to have a quick snack. Then it was noticed that a new variation of the moth was beginning to emerge, with a black colouring to match the dirty, soot covered trees. For years they went on to survive fine. Then came the diesel engines & the trees returned to their silvery colour. Once again the moths nearly became extinct - that is until they evolved, once again, to their original colour. This is evolution that has been witnessed & recorded. An undeniable FACT.

God supposedly created Man in His own image. If that were so, then what use did he have for genitals? What use would God have for genitals?

The planet, the seas, the land, all flora & fauna, and even Mankind, all in the course of 6 days. It has to be true. It's written there in the Bible - irrefutable scientific evidence!!


Pahu has been flogging this dead horse for nigh on 4 years.

I find it funny that every single one one of the points he makes actually goes to SUPPORT the principle of evolution, once you remove the falsehoods that have been added, denying the existence of evidence to prove the case for evolution. The fact is that the physical evidence is overwhelming & well documented by geology, history & observation. Yet there is absolutely NO evidence against it. NO evidence for a God or anything like it.

As for the bit about limestone & fossiilsed sea creatures being found on the tops of mountains. I absolutely agree. You really should look up something about how mountains are formed. They are pushed upward over eons from the ground by the geological fault lines - much like if you push the ends of a piece of paper towards each other - or do you also deny the existence of Continental Shift? Once upon a time, the whole earth was probably covered by water - only not as deep as it is now. The masses of rock have simply been forced above the water level firstly to form little islands, where you'd get all sorts of creatures in the rock pools. As the rock pools began to dry up as the islands got bigger, only those that could adapt to their new environment survived to breed & pass on their adaptations to the following generations. Evolution in action. Anything that doesn't change to suit a changing environment will die off. The are many asexual species that continue to multiply with only one sex / clones of themselves, but they tend to be in very stable environments.

Plants moved on to evolve from the earliest ferns to produce seeds - originally self pollenated by the wind - later aided by the evolution of insects, so the introduction of different genders was never something that had to be there from the start, as claimed - the physical EVIDENCE proves otherwise.

Amphibians - the evolutionary stage between water & land.

Incidentally, crocodiles are reckoned to be a surviving dinosaur species and, as with many other reptiles, their eggs change sex according to temperature.

The beauty of Nature is only a perceived thing. In reality it's nothing but imagination. The colours of Autumn are nothing but the colours of death & decaying fauna.

Pahu;1346204 wrote: 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.


Whew! We must be on borrowed time in that case. The dodo bird and the tazmanian tiger (only to mention the most popular) have been extinct ..... er ...... uh ..... how long is it now?

BTW: I have discovered that you are a robot. I'll prove it to you, but first things first. Prove your above statment and then it'll be my turn.