Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

K.Snyder;1349838 wrote: Everything is life Pahu. You're defining "life" as being some phenomenon that only a select few have been rewarded to have it which is a contradiction to your logic. Rocks have every means to be life forms, they just miss quite an extensive supply of all of the other elements that make us what we are which includes the make up of those very same rocks.

How's it that you can expect everything that lives have been rewarded this by some sort of divine creation yet suggest "God" doesn't exist?

Hydrogen is life, Oxygen is life, Carbon is life, Angelina Joe Lee's fecal matter is life. EVERYTHING is life!

Why people feel God doesn't logically exist alongside Evolution is an assumption I find to be so incredibly ignorant it beggars disbelief


Your definition of life is unique, and if true, then your conclusions are true. The dictionary gives a different definition of life as "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." I believe that definition agrees with observation and experimentation.

[yaaarrrgg]

Heh, you should stick this one with your Hawking quote:

"your conclusions are true." -- Pahu



I'm curious Pahu why you need to spam a forum with b.s. rather than just publish the work in a peer reviewed science journal.

[K.Snyder]

Pahu;1349869 wrote: Your definition of life is unique, and if true, then your conclusions are true. The dictionary gives a different definition of life as "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." I believe that definition agrees with observation and experimentation.


Yes it does, as much as the dictionary does not allow for any definition outside the scope of what we all know to exist and doesn't account, in any way, what we know not to exist. It's a book that encourages mediocrity and in itself defies the very definition of "life".

It's entirely relevant your use of the name "Pahu" derived from "kalahawahapahu". Without "kalahawahapahu" there is no "Pahu". I doubt you'd suggest that without "Pahu" there would be no you...

Without evolution there is no science...Science is defined as a purpose to show no purpose at all. We as "life" forms invent science based off the fact that we'll all perceive everything differently, evolution is an observation that supposes we as humans either must accept what we "know" as mortality to be true or the alternative being a collective majority's agreement of insanity, that which "creationism" professes, and equally as patronizing

[Pahu]

Embryology 1



Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a).

a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.” Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.” George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.

Hitching, pp. 202–205.

“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.” Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.

“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.” Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10.

“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.” Walter J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684–685.

“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history.” Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.

“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists.” Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked back in the 1920s by embryologists.” David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 119.]

“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.” Ashley Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 20. Embryology

[Pahu]

Parallel Strata



The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time. (The mechanism involved is explained here: (In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Liquefaction: The Origin of Strata and Layered Fossils.)



Figure 11: Polystrate Fossil. Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. [Fossil trees are found worldwide crossing two or more strata]…Had burial been slow, the treetop[s] would have decayed. Obviously, the tree[s] could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide. (Notice the 1-meter scale bar, equal to 3.28 feet, in the center of the picture.)

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 22. Parallel Strata

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 1



If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).

a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.

Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 3



Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[Pahu]

Jewish Olympic Swimmer

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 4



“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that.” Hitching, p. 19. [emphasis in original]

“There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today.” [emphasis in original] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1012583]

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 5



“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.” George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.

“...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.” Ibid., p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 7



In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is...not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless...because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.” “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1012583]

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 8



Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.

Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.

“...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.” David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

“In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing.” Goldschmidt, p. 98.

“When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.” Ibid., p. 97.

“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom,” Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 9



At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).

b. “The prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) evolved from them, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go.... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable.” Katrin Henze and William Martin, “Essence of Mitochondria,” Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces27.html]

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 10




Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants (c), between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects (d), between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones) (e), between fish and amphibians (f), between amphibians and reptiles (g), between reptiles and mammals (h), between reptiles and birds (i), between primates and other mammals (j), and between apes and other primates (k).

c. If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.

“The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissue—that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants] —although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record.” Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.

“The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known...” Ibid.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces27.html]

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 11




“It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.” Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.

“... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink.” E. J. H. Corner, “Evolution,” Contemporary Botanical Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[chonsigirl]

13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

[littleCJelkton]

chonsigirl;1352270 wrote: 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com


That just seemed as it reported that 57% of teachers didn't want to answer the poll to avoid the conflict shown between the 30% of pro-evolutionist teachers vs the 13% of pro-creationist teachers.

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 12



“The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.” Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.

“The origin of angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.” Colin Patterson et al., “Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 13



d. “The insect fossil record has many gaps.” “Insects: Insect Fossil Record,” Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).

e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:

“As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.” Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.

“How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.” Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.

“Origin of the vertebrates is obscure—there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.” Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 14



g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition” occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.



[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]

It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.]

h. “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.” Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu, I hope you are just spamming the forum in a feable attempt to manipulate Google's page rank algorithm, and not suffering from some mental disorder. Why else would someone copy the contents of another website into a public forum with a link on every post?

[Ahso!]

yaaarrrgg;1352650 wrote: Pahu, I hope you are just spamming the forum in a feable attempt to manipulate Google's page rank algorithm, and not suffering from some mental disorder. Why else would someone copy the contents of another website into a public forum with a link on every post?He caught a little spanking from management (along with a total ass-kicking from the members) on JREF for not linking.

[Pahu]

yaaarrrgg;1352650 wrote: Pahu, I hope you are just spamming the forum in a feable attempt to manipulate Google's page rank algorithm, and not suffering from some mental disorder. Why else would someone copy the contents of another website into a public forum with a link on every post?


My reason is to share information that disproves evolution because our behavior is driven by our beliefs. Wrong beliefs lead to wrong behavior.

[Ahso!]

Ignorance is bliss.

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 15



i. “The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.” W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds,” Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.

Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.

A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds,” Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267–1270.] In that report, “Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.” [Ann Gibbons, “Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood,” Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]

Bird and theropod “hands” differ. Theropods have “fingers” I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger” and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds.” [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand,” Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “...this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy.” [Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?” Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[littleCJelkton]

Pahu;1352671 wrote: our behavior is driven by our beliefs. Wrong beliefs lead to wrong behavior.


Few here have displayed this more clearly than you.

[Pahu]

littleCJelkton;1352702 wrote: Few here have displayed this more clearly than you.


Opinions about origins have profound social consequences and even affect the way we think. Consider the following perspectives and some responses. Notice that all these perspectives presume evolution occurred, despite the scientific evidence. We recognize that some people believe that God used evolution to create and that evolution is compatible with the Bible; however, a careful reading shows, in dozens of ways, that it is not.

1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?

2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes?

Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.

3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil?

Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t.



[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ412.html]

[littleCJelkton]

Pahu;1352792 wrote: Opinions about origins have profound social consequences and even affect the way we think. Consider the following perspectives and some responses. Notice that all these perspectives presume evolution occurred, despite the scientific evidence. We recognize that some people believe that God used evolution to create and that evolution is compatible with the Bible; however, a careful reading shows, in dozens of ways, that it is not.

1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?

2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes?

Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.

3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil?

Response: Distinguishing good and evil requires broad, even absolute, standards—and Someone competent to set those standards. Humans instinctively know there is good and evil, right and wrong. Someone implanted that understanding in us; the laws of physics can’t.



[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ412.html]


Case in point

[Pahu]

littleCJelkton;1352795 wrote: Case in point


Another example:

4. Survival of the Fittest. If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved.

[littleCJelkton]

I like circles too at I doo have to give you credit that unlike BB you do not openly insult other, but enjoy continuing to rant to yourself.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1352797 wrote: Another example:

4. Survival of the Fittest. If we evolved by “survival of the fittest,” then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses, or countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilization, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical—if we evolved.Your interpretation of The Theory Of Evolution is no different than a person whao has never read the bible interpreting it's contents.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Pahu]

littleCJelkton;1352800 wrote: I like circles too at I doo have to give you credit that unlike BB you do not openly insult other, but enjoy continuing to rant to yourself.


Here's a few more:



5. Communism. Friederich Engels, one of the founders of communism, wrote Karl Marx, another founder, and strongly recommended Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. In response, Marx wrote Engels that Darwin’s book “contains the basis in natural history for our view [communism].” Marx offered to dedicate his book, Das Capital, to Darwin, but Darwin declined.

Joseph Stalin, ruthless dictator of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953, killed millions of his people. Stalin read Darwin’s book as a student at a church-based school and urged others to read it. During that time, he became an atheist.

10. New Age Movement. If people slowly evolved up from bacteria, then aren’t we evolving toward God? Aren’t we evolving a new consciousness? Aren’t we evolving into a glorious New Age?

Response: These beliefs, built on evolution, continue to spread like a cancer, even in many churches in the world. New age beliefs also will decline as the scientific errors of evolution become known.



6. Personal Responsibility. If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.

Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.

Response: We were created for a purpose, so we have great responsibility, and our Creator will hold us accountable. More will be expected from those who have been given more.

7. Relativism. There are no absolutes, moral or otherwise (except the fact that there are absolutely no absolutes). Your belief is just as good as mine; your truth is just as good as my truth.

Response: Obviously, the One who created the universe, life, and humans has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes—and He has.



8. Social Darwinism. If life evolved, then the human mind evolved. So did products of the human mind and all social institutions: law, government, science, education, religion, language, economics, industry—civilization itself.

Response: Technology progresses, information accumulates, and civilization often improves, but humans remain humans—with all our frailties and shortcomings.



9. Secular Humanism. If the “molecules-to-monkeys-to-man” idea is correct, then man is the highest form of being. Man should be the object of greatest concern, not some fictitious Creator that man actually created.

Response: That philosophy is called secular humanism (a humane, intellectual-sounding term) that claims God is irrelevant and the Bible is fiction. Secular humanism will decline as people increasingly learn the scientific flaws of evolution.

10. New Age Movement. If people slowly evolved up from bacteria, then aren’t we evolving toward God? Aren’t we evolving a new consciousness? Aren’t we evolving into a glorious New Age?

Response: These beliefs, built on evolution, continue to spread like a cancer, even in many churches in the world. New age beliefs also will decline as the scientific errors of evolution become known.

11. Marriage. If marriage is a cultural development, begun by ignorant tribes thousands of years ago, then why not change that custom, as we do other out-of-date customs? Animals don’t marry; why should people? After all, we’re just animals. If people are a product of natural processes, then why not do what comes naturally? What’s wrong with sexual activity outside of marriage as long as no one is hurt?

Response: God instituted marriage when He created a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, and said they should become one.



12. Racism. If humans evolved up from some apelike creature, then some people must have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others.

Response: But that’s racism. That’s the twisted logic Hitler used to try to establish his Aryan master race and to justify killing six million Jews in the Holocaust. This does not mean that evolutionists are racists, although Charles Darwin and many of his followers of a century ago were extreme racists. However, evolution has provided the main rationale for racism. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “Biological arguments for racism ... increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” People with darker skin have suffered greatly from evolutionary racism. Belief in evolution has also caused others to suffer even more. They are victims of a greater holocaust going on all around us—abortion.



13. Abortion. We dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn’t it the mother’s right? Shouldn’t she have a “choice” in such a personal matter? After all, a fetus has no name or personality. During its first three months, it’s just a tiny glob of tissue—no more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn’t a fetus, having less value than an adult, be “terminated” if adults or society would benefit? This will help solve our population problem. We must guide our destiny.

Response: Abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent, defenseless, developing (but completely human) baby. Calling an unborn child merely a “fetus” is dehumanizing. Nor should we speak of “terminating a pregnancy.” That is simply a euphemism for killing a very young human.

Nine years after Darwin published his theory of evolution, Professor Ernst Haeckel announced that animal embryos, including unborn humans, pass through stages that mimic their evolutionary steps. Human embryos begin as microscopic spheres, because, Haeckel said, humans evolved from bacteria, which are sometimes microscopic spheres. Later, unborn babies look like fish, because humans evolved from fish. Still later, human embryos look like chimpanzees, because humans evolved from some apelike ancestor. So, human embryos are not yet human. Can you see the errors in this logic? Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship.

Haeckel faked his drawings to fit his theory. In the following 130 years, hundreds of textbook writers copied these drawings, popularizing the theory. It has since been taught as fact worldwide, even in medical schools. Today the theory is completely discredited, although it is still taught.

Unborn children are human. Each adult’s body has about 100 trillion cells. When you were just one cell inside your mother, all the marvelous, complex information that physically defines you and every organ in your body was there. Although you were tiny and immature, you were completely human when you were one cell. While you were in your mother’s womb, she was your support system, just as medical support systems are needed by some sick or elderly people. Needing a support system does not remove a person from the human race or justify killing that person.

Although these matters have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or false, they have much to do with the importance of the issue and the adverse consequences of teaching that evolution is a fact. These social problems did not originate with evolution, but they follow logically from evolution. No doubt most evolutionists are as opposed as creationists to many of these social problems, but from an evolutionist perspective these behaviors are easily justified, rationalized, or tolerated. Evolution, while not the cause of evil, can usually defend or justify such behavior—with seeming scientific credibility.

Obviously, the creator of a complex machine can best provide its operating instructions. Likewise, only our Creator has the authority and ability to establish timeless moral absolutes. By what logic could anyone oppose these thirteen viewpoints if there were no moral absolutes? Without moral absolutes, “right” and “wrong” will be decided by whoever is in control, but that will change from time to time. A false understanding of origins has subtle and far-reaching consequences.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ412.html]

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1352801 wrote: Your interpretation of The Theory Of Evolution is no different than a person whao has never read the bible interpreting it's contents.

Ignorance is bliss.


What's your interpretation?

[yaaarrrgg]

Pahu;1352804 wrote: 6. Personal Responsibility. If everything came into existence by chance and natural processes, then we have no responsibility to some supernatural being. Religions would be a crutch for the weak-minded and superstitious. Churches would be monuments to human ignorance.

Furthermore, if evolution happened, then we and our actions are consequences of billions of years’ worth of natural events—over which we had no control. Our responsibility for our situation is relatively small. If bad things happen to us, we are primarily victims.




Even the last pope admitted that evolution occured.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1352805 wrote: What's your interpretation?People all over the internet have been taking the time to explain Evolutionary Theory to you bit by bit and you ignore what they so generously share with you. If you want to know what Evolutionary Theory is read up on it. If you'd like me to recommend some reading material to you I'll be happy to do that, otherwise carry on sounding like a "tinkering bell". You don't realize just how uninformed you appear with this gibberish you continue to copy and paste.

If I hadn't read the bible, I would not ask you what it says or read (and copy/paste) other's criticisms of it, I would read it myself (which I had done a few times).

[Ahso!]

Green Sea Slug Is Part Animal, Part Plant | Wired Science | Wired.com

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1352853 wrote: Green Sea Slug Is Part Animal, Part Plant | Wired Science | Wired.com


The Green Sea Slug disproves evolution:



Evolutionists believe kleptoplasty

arose in the sacoglossans via lateral

gene transfer (LGT: the transfer of

genetic material by means other than

reproduction) from the algae directly to

the sea slugs. The evidence they cite to

confirm this is the presence of nuclear

DNA in E. chlorotica identical or

nearly identical to their algal prey that

enables them to use the chloroplasts.10

Some of the identical strands found

between E. chlorotica and V. litorea

by Pierce et al. are around 800–1,000

bp long.11 Therefore, LGT is a possible

explanation, though common design

for the purpose of kleptoplasty is

probably more likely.

Moreover, LGT between such diverse eukaryotic

organisms would itself

require an incredibly complex

and coordinated information

system to facilitate such a

transition. How would such a

mechanism originate? Neo-

Darwinism? Experimental

science is hard-pressed to

find examples of a random

mutation that produces

new information, where

neo-Darwinism requires

many.12

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_ ... _10-12.pdf

[Ahso!]

You could have also done your copy and paste exercise from here and avoided the pdf > Photosynthetic sea slugs

[Ahso!]

Let's do this one: Evolution says God is real!

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 16



Theropod “arms” (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.

“...most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx .” Hinchliffe, p. 597.

See “What Was Archaeopteryx?” here:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Was Archaeopteryx?

Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.

j. “When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural....It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known...” William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25–26.

“The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record.” A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.

“Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.” Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.

k. “At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids.” Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[Pahu]

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

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[Ahso!]

Ahso!;1352950 wrote: Let's do this one: Evolution says God is real!Pahu, you're supposed to type: Evolution says God is real!, disproves Evolution. Then you're supposed to copy and paste something.

[Ahso!]

Found this, Pahu. Perhaps it will help you get a grip on reality.The clergy members who are celebrating Evolution Weekend recognize the critical role science education should play in our society -- and they recognize that religion plays a different, but, in their minds, no less important, role. Join these forward-looking individuals, celebrate Evolution Weekend and help create a population that better understands both religion and science.Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Appreciating Religion and Science on Evolution Weekend

[Pahu]

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.

[continue]

[Pahu]

[continued]

“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

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces28.html]

[Snowfire]

Ahso!;1353226 wrote: Found this, Pahu. Perhaps it will help you get a grip on reality.Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Appreciating Religion and Science on Evolution Weekend


There's none so deaf as those that don't want to hear

[Pahu]

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

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. Missing Trunk

[littleCJelkton]

Hey can we now consider this thread just place to spam stuff as is appearent in the previous threads. I once did that but was warned by the Mod's for doing so. Yet we still let this continue?

[Pahu]

littleCJelkton;1353268 wrote: Hey can we now consider this thread just place to spam stuff as is appearent in the previous threads. I once did that but was warned by the Mod's for doing so. Yet we still let this continue?


Is that your idea of a rational response to the scientific information disproving evolution?

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1353276 wrote: Is that your idea of a rational response to the scientific information disproving evolution?


Your problem, Pehu, is that what you present bears no resemblance to scientific information that disproves evolution. You don't even know what evolution is, for christ sake.