Science Disproves Evolution

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
Universe Stretched
[continued]

The Evidence

Accelerating Expansion. The redshift of distant starlight suggests an expansion. However, a big bang should produce only a decelerating expansion, not the accelerating expansion observed. [See "Dark Thoughts" on page 32.] Stretching, completed during the creation week, could have produced the accelerated expansion which is shown by the light that has finally reached earth from the edge of the visible universe.

Star Formation. Astronomers recognize that the densest gas cloud seen in the universe today could not form stars by any known means, including gravitational collapse, unless that gas was once thousands of times more compact. [See “Interstellar Gas” on page 93.] Apparently, stars were formed before or as the heavens were stretched out.

Intergalactic Medium (IGM). Outer space is nearly a perfect vacuum. The IGM (the vast space between galaxies) contains about 10–100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. However, almost every hydrogen atom in the IGM, out to the farthest galaxies the best telescopes can see (13 billion light-years away), has been ionized—has lost its electron.

According to the big bang theory, for the first 400,000 years after the big bang, the expanding universe was so hot that all matter was ionized. Only after the universe had expanded (and cooled) enough could protons acquire an electron and become neutral hydrogen. Then, after matter in the universe was no longer ionized, stars and galaxies, according to the theory, began evolving. Had the hydrogen remained ionized, the mutual repulsion of the positive hydrogen ions would have prevented hydrogen from coming together to form stars. (Note: other reasons why stars and galaxies could not have evolved are given on pages 3134.)

This presents a major problem. What reionized the hydrogen that today pervades the IGM? No explanation has been found. Most big-bang theorists had guessed that the radiation from the earliest stars and galaxies—after the universe had already expanded for hundreds of millions of years—was powerful enough to reionize the IGM. This now appears to not be the case.[SUP]4[/SUP]

According to the stretching explanation, when the universe was created, it was extremely compact, so the intense light of DAY 1 and/or the light of stars and galaxies (created on DAY 4) ionized the surrounding gases. Then, the heavens were stretched out. Therefore, hydrogen in the IGM has always been ionized, just as we see it today.

Black Holes. Black holes come in two varieties: massive black holes (MBHs) and stellar black holes (SBHs). MBHs are millions to a few billion times more massive that the sun. They lie at the center of every large nearby galaxy—and perhaps every galaxy. SBHs have masses that are only a few tens times greater than the sun; probably millions of SBHs are scattered throughout our Milky Way Galaxy.[SUP]5[/SUP] In both types of black holes, mass is so concentrated that nothing within a specific distance from a black hole (called the event horizon) should escape their gravity—not even light.

Astronomers admit that galaxies and black holes must have existed very soon after the universe began,[SUP]6[/SUP] but the big bang theory says that 300,000 years after the big bang (before stars formed) all matter was spread out uniformly. That uniformity would prevent gravity from forming galaxies and black holes, even over the supposed age of the universe.[SUP]7[/SUP] However, they could easily have formed or existed soon after the creation of matter and the universe, if the universe was much more compact[SUP]8[/SUP] and the heavens were stretched out before a complete collapse into one huge black hole.

Even though nothing should escape black holes, some are expelling powerful jets at “up to 99.98 percent of the speed of light. These amazing outflows traverse distances larger than galaxies.”[SUP]9[/SUP] Stars sometimes expel jets, so this paradox could be resolved if space was stretched out after stellar jets and black holes began forming.

Quasars. Quasars are the most luminous stable objects in the universe. Most black holes have already pulled in almost all the dust within their vicinity. However, some black holes are at such extreme distances from us (and therefore seen as they were far back in time) that they are seen still pulling in large amounts of nearby matter. The gravitational potential energy of all that falling matter is converted to bright radiation. The combination—a MBH with bright radiation from infalling matter—is called a quasar (quasi-stellar radio source, QUASi-stellAR). Light we are now seeing from quasars was emitted soon after time began, before most of the matter surrounding those distant MBHs was pulled into them.

One quasar has been found that has two billion times the mass of the Sun, and yet is so far from earth that big-bang theorists say it must have formed (by some unknown mechanism) very soon after the universe began. (This contradicts their view that the universe began with a superhot expansion, then 100,000,000 years later, stars began forming.) “It is safe to say that the existence of this quasar will be giving some theorists sleepless nights.”[SUP]10[/SUP] However, these massive objects could have formed in a very compact universe if the stretching occurred several days after the universe began, but after some gravitational clumping began.

Likewise, much of the expansion of supernova remnants over great distances may be due to the stretching, rather than the passage of millions of years.

Galaxies and Their Black Holes. The masses of massive black holes are positively correlated with the size of each of their galaxies. (The larger the galaxy, the larger its black hole.[SUP]11[/SUP]) According to the standard explanations for galaxy formation, this should not be,[SUP]12[/SUP] because black holes are so small in volume compared to galaxies. If a massive black hole formed first, it would not be able to form a large galaxy, because black holes cannot affect something as large as a galaxy. Nor would a large galaxy necessarily produce a large black hole. Instead, “the correlation means that the black hole and galaxy had to form together,”[SUP]13[/SUP] something standard astronomy is unable to explain.

But this is precisely what should happen based on the stretching explanation. Before the universe was stretched out, some regions contained more mass than other regions. The denser concentrations collapsed rapidly, forming massive black holes, but the stretching that quickly followed prevented all that concentration of mass from ending up in the black hole. Instead, a large galaxy was formed around the massive black hole. Less-dense concentrations formed less-massive black holes and the stretching that quickly followed produced a smaller galaxy.

Central Stars. About forty stars orbit within a few dozen light-hours of the black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. Those stars could never have evolved that close to a black hole, which has the mass of 4,300,000 suns, because the black hole’s gravity would have prevented gas from collapsing to become a star.[SUP]14[/SUP] However, those stars could have formed in a much denser environment,[SUP]15[/SUP] before space was stretched out during the creation week.

Some astronomers say that these stars evolved far from the black hole and then migrated great distances toward the black hole. Such a migration, which seemingly violates the laws of physics,[SUP]16[/SUP] must have been fast because the stars are so massive that their lifetimes are very short in astronomical terms. Also, matter (or stars) migrating toward black holes must radiate vast amounts of energy as happens with quasars, but that energy is not observed in any wavelength for these central stars.

Spiral Galaxies. If spiral galaxies formed billions of years ago, their arms should be wrapped more tightly around their centers than they are. Also, nearer galaxies should show much more “wrap” than more distant spiral galaxies. [See Figure 203 on page 397.] However, if space was recently stretched out, spiral galaxies could appear as they do.

Dwarf Galaxies. Dwarf galaxies are sometimes embedded in a smoothly rotating disk of hydrogen gas that is much larger than the galaxy itself. The mass (hidden or otherwise) of each dwarf galaxy is insufficient to pull the gas into its disk shape,[SUP]17[/SUP] but if this matter was once highly concentrated and then the space it occupied was recently stretched out, all observed characteristics would be explained.


Figure 204: Dwarf Galaxy. An enormous hydrogen disk (blue) surrounds the dwarf galaxy UGC 5288 (bright white). This isolated galaxy, 16 million light-years from Earth, contains about 100,000 stars and is 1/25 the diameter of our Milky Way Galaxy, which has at least 100,000,000,000 stars. The dwarf’s mass is about 30 times too small to gravitationally hold onto the most distant hydrogen gas, so gravity could not have pulled the distant hydrogen gas into its disk. Because the gas is too evenly distributed and rotates so smoothly, it was not expelled from the galaxy or pulled out by a close encounter with another galaxy.
Hydrogen gas would have assumed this shape if space was once more compact and later was stretched out. Before the stretching, gravitational forces would have been much more powerful, thereby producing this smooth rotational pattern. This would have occurred recently, because the gaseous disk has not dispersed into the vacuum of space. (The galaxy is seen in visible light; the hydrogen disk is seen by a fleet of 27 radio telescopes.)

Heavy Elements in Stars. According to the big bang theory, there are three generations of stars, each with increasing amounts of heavy elements. The first generation should contain only hydrogen and helium. After hundreds of millions of years, second-generation stars would begin forming with heavier elements made inside first-generation stars that later exploded. Although some first-generation stars should still be visible, not one has ever been found. [See Endnote 56n on page 90.]

According to the stretching explanation, stars have always had some heavier chemical elements. The most distant stars, galaxies, and quasars that can be analyzed contain some of these heavier chemical elements.

Stellar Velocities. Stars in the outer parts of spiral galaxies travel much faster than they should based on physical laws. However, if those stars were nearer the centers of their galaxies only thousands of years ago—before the heavens were stretched out—they would have had those higher speeds then, and would retain them after the heavens were stretched out. Appeals to so-called dark matter, which has not been directly measured or detected, would not be needed (or imagined) to explain those velocities.)

Speeding Galaxies. A similar observation can be made about tight clusters of galaxies. Galaxies in clusters are traveling much faster than they should, based on their distances from their clusters’ centers of mass.

Distant Galaxies. Massive galaxies and galaxy clusters are now found at such great distances that they must have formed soon after the universe began. The big bang theory cannot explain how such distant galaxy concentrations could have formed so quickly that their light could travel for almost 13-billion years to reach planet Earth.[SUP]18[/SUP] [See "How Old Do Evolutionists Say the Universe Is?" on pages 410-411.]

The stretching explanation says that galaxies and galaxy clusters began before the heavens were stretched out, when all matter was relatively confined. Stretching produced most of the great distances separating those galaxies from Earth.

Strings of Galaxies. Obviously, gravity would not pull matter into long strings of hundreds or thousands of galaxies—even if the universe were unbelievably old. Instead, gravity, if acting over enormous time and distances, would pull matter into more spherical globs. Yet, long, massive filaments of galaxies have been discovered.[SUP]19[/SUP]

These strings of galaxies can be understood if galaxies were formed when all matter in the universe was initially confined to a much smaller volume. (In that small space, stars and galaxies formed either by the direct acts of a Creator or by the powerful gravitational forces resulting from so much extremely confined mass.) Then, the heavens were rapidly stretched out. Just as one might pull taffy into long strings, the stretched out heavens might contain long, massive strings of thousands of galaxies. A surprising number appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars, as prominent astronomers have noted. [See "Connected Galaxies" on page 40.]

Colliding Galaxies. Some galaxies contain two distinct rotating systems, as if a galaxy rotating one way collided with another rotating the opposite way. Today, based on the vast distances between galaxies and their relatively slow speeds, such mergers should rarely happen—but many have happened.[SUP]20[/SUP]

Does this mean that the universe must be billions of years old? No. Before the heavens were stretched out, galaxies would have been closer to each other, resulting in much greater speeds and frequent collisions.

If some galaxies merged over billions of years, why haven’t the different rotations within a merged galaxy homogenized by now? Clearly, those mergings did not happen billions of years ago.[SUP]21[/SUP]

Helium-2 Nebulas. Clouds of glowing, blue gas, called helium-2 nebulas, have been set aglow by something hot enough to strip two electrons from each helium atom. No known star—young or old—is hot enough to do so,[SUP]22[/SUP] but compressed conditions before the heavens were stretched out would do this.

Dark “Science.” The big bang theory must invoke unscientific concepts, such as “dark matter” and “dark energy,” to try to explain the “stretched out heavens.” What is dark matter and dark energy? Even believers in those ideas don’t know, and some admit that those phrases are “expressions of ignorance [by those who accept the big bang theory]”.[SUP]23[/SUP] Dark matter, dark energy, and many other scientific problems with the big bang theory are discussed, beginning on page 31.

Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB is often given as evidence for the big bang theory. Actually, that radiation, when studied closely, is a strong argument against the big bang and evidence for the sudden creation of matter within an immense universe. [For details, see pages 407409.]

Summary
With both the big bang and stretching explanations, it is difficult to imagine time beginning, the sudden presence of matter and energy in a small universe, space expanding, and a brief period when all the laws of physics did not operate. The big bang theory says that space expanded for a fraction of a second from a mathematical point—trillions of billions of times faster than the speed of light today. The stretching explanation says that in that days after the creation of time and all matter, a much smaller universe than we have today was rapidly stretched out, along with the matter and light in that space. Although no scientific explanation can be given for either form of expansion, the stretching interpretation best fits the observable evidence.

We also can appreciate why at least eleven Bible passages, involving five different writers, mention the “stretched out heavens.” Another verse, Psalm 19:1, takes on a new depth of meaning: “The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.”

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Why Does the Universe Seem to Be Expanding?
 
G

Grey

Guest
Good point. One explanation is the evidence for the slowing down of light over the centuries. I am skeptical about that, but here is a link: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, So Isn’t the Universe Billions of Years Old?

Another explanation, which makes more sense to me, is God stretched out the universe, for which there is also evidence:

Universe Stretched

Was space, along with light emitted by stars, rapidly stretched out soon after creation began? If so, energy would have been added to the universe and starlight during that stretching. Pages 396401 show that the scientific evidence clearly favors this stretching explanation over the big bang theory, which also claims that space expanded rapidly. Yet, the big bang theory says all this expansion energy, plus all the matter in the universe, was, at the beginning of time, inside a volume much smaller than a pinhead.

At least eleven times, the Bible states that God “stretched out” or “stretches out” the heavens. [See Table 21.] For emphasis, important ideas are often repeated in the Bible. While we may have difficulty visualizing this stretching, we can be confident of its significance.

Table 21. Bible References to Stretching Out of the Heavens

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Job 9:8[/TD]
[TD]“[God] stretches out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ps 104:2[/TD]
[TD]“stretching out heaven like a tent curtain”[SUP]1[/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 40:22[/TD]
[TD]“He ... stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent”[SUP]1[/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 42:5[/TD]
[TD]“... God the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 44:24[/TD]
[TD]“I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 45:12[/TD]
[TD]“It is I who made the earth and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 48:13[/TD]
[TD]“Surely My hand founded the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens.”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 51:13[/TD]
[TD]“the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jer 10:12[/TD]
[TD]“He has stretched out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jer 51:15[/TD]
[TD]“He stretched out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Zech 12:1[/TD]
[TD]“the Lord who stretches out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]The context of each of the above verses deals with creation. Although past and present tenses (stretched and stretches) are expressed in these English translations, Hebrew verbs do not generally convey past, present, or future. Translators must rely on context and other clues to determine verb tense.

Even if we knew the intended Hebrew tense, is the stretching from God’s perspective or man’s? The creation was completed in six days (Exodus 20:11), suggesting that in God’s time the heavens were stretched out during the creation week, perhaps on Day 4. However, in our time, some redshifted light from extreme distances—a consequence of this past stretching—is reaching us now.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The Hebrew word for stretched is natah. It does not mean an explosion, a flinging out, or the type of stretching that encounters increasing resistance, as with a spring. Natah is more like the effortless reaching out of one’s hand.

Table 22. Comparison of Two Explanations for Expansion of the Universe

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Big Bang[/TD]
[TD]Stretching[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The universe was once much smaller. It began soon after time began and before all the laws of physics came into operation.[SUP]2[/SUP] Energy and matter appeared out of nothing.[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]When did the expansion occur?[/TD]
[TD]Expansion has been going on ever since the big bang, at the instant time began.[/TD]
[TD]Expansion occurred early in the creation week, but not at the instant of creation.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Why is distant light redshifted?[/TD]
[TD]The more distant the light source, the greater the expansion rate and redshift.[/TD]
[TD]The light we see today from very distant objects shows the amount of stretching the light experienced.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Expansion began at almost a mathematical point.[/TD]
[TD]Yes[SUP]3[/SUP][/TD]
[TD]No[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Expansion energy came from within the universe.[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[TD]No[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The initial temperature and density of matter was[/TD]
[TD]nearly infinite[/TD]
[TD]finite[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]All expansion energy was expended[/TD]
[TD]within a tiny fraction (10[SUP]-34[/SUP]) of a second[/TD]
[TD]as the expansion proceeded[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming[/TD]
[TD]after 500,000,000 years, in an expanded universe[/TD]
[TD]before the expansion[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The stretching explanation, proposed here, has similarities and differences with the big bang theory. Both the big bang and stretching explanations describe a very rapid expansion of the universe, soon after time began, but before all the laws of physics were in place. As one big bang authority stated:

In its standard form, the big bang theory maintains that the universe was born about 15 billion years ago from a cosmological singularity—a state in which the temperature and density are infinitely high. Of course, one cannot really speak in physical terms about these quantities as being infinite. One usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply [during the big bang’s rapid expansion]. ... One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.[SUP]1[/SUP]

The stretching explanation, in contrast to the standard big bang theory, does not begin with a singularity—an infinitesimal point.[SUP]3[/SUP] Nor does the energy expended in stretching out the heavens come from within the universe or during its first trillionth of a trillionth of a ten-billionth of a second (10[SUP]-34[/SUP] second) or less, as with the big bang theory. Energy flowed into the universe as stretching progressed. According to the big bang theory, stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming after 500,000,000 years. According to the stretching explanation, these bodies were formed (or began) near the beginning of time—early in the creation week. Because matter and starlight occupy space, they were also stretched. You can decide which explanation the following surprising evidence supports.

[continue]
Stretching implies it may snap back, the red-shifts indicate that its spreading out.
 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
He's going to say the speed of light has slowed down over time. This was a hypothesis proposed by Dr. Walt Brown but has
been rejected by actual scientists.

Debunked here:
Speed of Light

But the best evidence we have is the triangulation of SN 1987 and calculating rate of change for a potential speed of light. Supernova 1987a The world must be at least 167,000 years old (or about), or simple trigonometry is fundamentally wrong... which would mean that pretty much all math beyond algebra is wrong...

and also if the speed of light can change then this alters fundamental equations to mass energy equivalency, E=mc^2. If true, then thousands of years ago a gram of matter would have yielded orders of magnitude more energy. This would have radical ramifications to the size, mass and lifespan of stars. For instance, our solar system would not exist because the sun would have once been larger than it.
Even though sn1987a is showing a nova that apparently happened about 170,000 years ago, and even though we see light coming from stars much further away than that, it doesn't necessarily mean the universe is older than about 10,000 years. The reason is that when God created everything, He stretched out the heavens. [See above]
 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
Science has created and supports evolution, the title is just wrong.

And quite frankly you're just a plain idiot if you believe in micro evolution an not macro. They are literally the same thing, the onlydifference is time. Get that through
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.

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

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
You don't have the correct understanding of micro and macro.

I'm going to try to make it simple.

Evolution is change over time.

Microevolution and Macroevolution are the same thing but Macro is over a LONG period of time.

Think of it like a baby being born and then eventually becoming an old person. The baby doesn't
just wake up one day as an elderly person, does it? No, it's a gradual progression from baby - young
child - teenager - young adult - middle age - old age.

Perhaps it may do you good to actually read a book on evolution and get the facts straight. And no,
not one that's recommended on Answers In Genesis or another site like that. They will misrepresent
what evolution actually is. And yes, the facts and experiments are actually there to observe but it
you're getting all your info from a faith based anti-science website you are not getting the correct info.
Simple as that.
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 [theoretical system] 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 [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

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

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

"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

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
There's genetics which is able to confirm common ancestry through several processes, the one I'm familiar with is ERV codes. Just like a court of law can use genetics to prove that a father is the genetic parent of a child, scientists can make taxonomic classifications based on which retrovirus codes each population has inherited. The map of the family tree made with ERV codes is extremely detailed and matches all the other ways we've also mapped the family tree of life.
For example, if you were intimately familiar with the ERV code situations of birds and reptiles, you would have a demonstration that micro evolution changes eventually added up to macro evolution :)
Every time we do mapping of the family tree of life like this, we demonstrate that micro evolution adds up to macro. The only way we can understand common ancestry and know we are part of the simian branch of the tree of life is that we've got many, many sources of evidence that show it happened.
Try biologist DonExodus2's video 'why every scientist accepts evolution'
I'd like to say he was a Christian, he was back when he made this video but lost his faith a few years later.
Have Scientific Tools Detected Adam and Eve within Us?

Cells of every living thing (plants, animals, and humans) contain tiny strands of coded information called DNA.[SUP]1[/SUP] DNA directs the cell, telling it what to produce and when. Therefore, much of your appearance and personality is determined by the DNA you inherited from your parents.

In human cells, the nucleus contains 99.5% of the DNA. Half of it came from the individual’s mother and half from the father. Because both halves are shuffled together, it is difficult to identify which parent contributed any tiny segment, so half of this DNA changes with each generation. However, outside the nucleus of each cell are thousands of little energy-producing components called mitochondria, each containing a circular strand of DNA. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comes only from the mother. Where did she get hers? From her mother—and so on. Unless there is a rare mutation, mtDNA does not change from generation to generation.

DNA is written with an alphabet of four letters: A, G, T, and C. One copy of a person’s mtDNA is 16,559 letters long. Sometimes a mutation changes one of the mtDNA letters that a mother passes on to her child. These rare and somewhat random changes allow geneticists to identify families. For example, if your grandmother experienced an early mutation in her mtDNA, her children and any daughters’ children would carry the same changed mtDNA. It would differ, in general, from that in the rest of the world’s population.[SUP]2[/SUP]

In 1987, a team at the University of California at Berkeley published a ground-breaking study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the world’s geographic locations.[SUP]3[/SUP]The study concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor. She is now called “mitochondrial Eve.”

Where did mitochondrial Eve live? Initial research concluded she probably lived in Africa. Later, after much debate, researchers realized that Asia and Europe were also possible origins for mitochondrial Eve.[SUP]4[/SUP]

From a biblical perspective, do we know where Eve lived? Because the flood was so destructive, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was.[SUP]5[/SUP] However, Noah’s three daughters-in-law, who lived only a dozen or so generations after Eve, probably began raising their families near Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey—very near the common boundary of Asia, Africa, and Europe. (Each of us can claim one of Noah’s daughters-in-law as our ever-so-great grandmother.) So, it is not surprising that Asia, Africa, and Europe are candidate homes for mitochondrial Eve.

Figure 221: Language Divergence. Languages are related, as are genes. One of thousands of examples is the word for “from, of.” It exists in French (de), Italian (di), Spanish (de), Portuguese (de), and Romanian (de). So, these languages, now spoken generally in southwestern Europe, are twigs on a tree branch called the Romance languages.(Romance refers to Rome.) This branch joins a larger branch that includes all languages derived primarily from Latin. They merge with other large branches (such as the Germanic branch that includes English) into a family called theIndo-European languages. When these and other languages are traced back in time, they appear to converge near Mount Ararat, a likely landing site of Noah’s Ark. [See pages 4647.] Linguists admit that they do not understand the origin of languages, only how languages spread.[SUP]7[/SUP]

Also, when similar words, sounds, and grammar of the world’s most widely spoken languages are traced back in time, they also seem to originate near Ararat.[SUP]6[/SUP] Another convergence near eastern Turkey is found when one traces agriculture back in time.[SUP]8[/SUP]When did mitochondrial Eve live? To answer this, one must know how frequently mutations occur in mtDNA. Initial estimates were based on the following faultyreasoning: “Humans diverged from chimpanzees about 6 million years ago. Because the mtDNA in humans and chimpanzees differ in 1,000 places, one mutation occurs about every 12,000 years.” Another incorrect approach began by assuming Australia was first populated 40,000 years ago. The average number of mitochondrial mutations among Australian aborigines divided by 40,000 years gave another extremely slow mutation rate for mtDNA. These estimated rates, based on evolution, led to the mistaken belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago.[SUP]9[/SUP] This surprised evolutionists who believe that the first human female lived 6 million years ago.

A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times faster than had been estimated. Without assuming humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor 6 million years ago or that Australia was populated 40,000 years ago, mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.[SUP]10[/SUP]

Is there a “genetic Adam”? At conception, each man received from his father a segment of DNA which lies on the Y chromosome; this makes him a male. Where did your father receive his segment? From his father. If we all descended from one man, all males should have the same Y chromosome segment—except for rare mutations.A 1995 study of a worldwide sample of 38 men showed no changes in this segment of the Y chromosome that is always inherited from fathers.Had humans evolved and all men descended from one male who lived 500,000 years ago, each should carry about 19 mutations. Had he lived 150,000 years ago, 5.5 mutations would be expected.[SUP]11[/SUP] Because no changes were found, our common father probably lived only thousands of years ago. While Adam was father of all, our most recent common male ancestor was Noah.

In 2010, a comprehensive comparison was made between the DNA on the male Y chromosome of humans and chimpanzees. The differences were more than 30 percent! [SUP]12[/SUP]For completeness, we must consider another possibility. Even if we all descended from the same female, other women may have been living at the same time. Their chains of continuous female descendants may have ended; their mtDNA died out. This happens with family names. If Mary and John XYZ have no sons, their unusual last name dies out. Also, many other men may have lived at the same time as our “genetic Adam,” but had no continuous chain of male descendants down to today. How likely is it that other men lived a few thousand years ago but left no continuous male descendants, and other women lived 6,000 years ago but left no continuous female descendants, and we end up today with a world population of 7 billion people? Extremely remote![SUP]13[/SUP]

Yes, new discoveries show that we carry traces of Adam and Eve in our cells. Furthermore, our common “parents” are probably removed from us by only 200–300 generations. All humans have a common and recent bond—a family bond. We are all cousins.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ316.html#wp6501525

 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
Do you accept and understand the process of speciation?
Because we've seen lots of new species form, and understand how a broad variety of species develops. It's a strawman to demand a 'brand new' species, evolution only predicts that new species will be variations based on the template of what it used to be.
Moreover, our classification system is such that most labels are determined by family, by ancestry - not by morphology. We could breed dogs to be almost identical to mice, and they would still be a 'dog', because they would still be a part of the canine family.
"Contrary to one of creationism's favourite straw men, it is impossible to outgrow your ancestry"
(I'm not an atheist, just scientifically aware, so an evolutionist)
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT SPECIATION


Do cross-species changes actually occur? If not, there is no evolution. What do reputable scientists have to say about this? Here are their statements. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENT: Scientists Speak about Speciation

Introduction
: The knowing are disillusioned, the ignorant are gullible.
Species, the Great Mystery: Where did they come from? Why is each species different than the others?
Only Well-defined Species: If the theory were true, there would be no sharp distinctions, just a blur
Only the Species Exists: Phylum, class, order, family, and most genera are just paper classifications
The Species Barrier: There is always a limit, beyond which a species cannot be bred
A Crucial Principle: Man should possess a smaller gene pool than his animal ancestors
Conclusion: Only God could make the species

This material is excerpted from the book, SPECIES EVOLUTION
. 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,
Species Evolution.

INTRODUCTION


The knowing are disillusioned, the ignorant are gullible.

"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 tend to 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.

SPECIES, THE GREAT MYSTERY


Where did they come from? Why is each species different than the others?

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of the species in his Origin of theSpecies."—*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria (1985), p. 33.

"But in the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem. The British geneticist, William Bateson, was the first to focus attention on the question. In 1922 he wrote: `In dim outline, evolution is evident enough. But that particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious.' Sixty years later we are, if anything, worse off, research having only revealed complexity within complexity."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.

"More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is `a major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology.' "—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.

"Evolution is . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery—speciation itself."—*Keith S. Thomsen, "The Meanings of Evolution" in American Scientist, September / October 1982, p. 529.

ONLY WELL-DEFINED SPECIES


If the theory were true, there would be no sharp distinctions, just a blur.

"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary speciation and wrote: `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 instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139.

"We recognize the great powers of observation possessed by Darwin, but we are amazed that he did not observe the limits of variation. Variation, he should have recognized, can produce new varieties only within kinds already in existence—a situation which could never produce evolution. While tracing migration paths of plants and animals [from South America to the Galapagos], Darwin never grasped the fact that he was able to trace those routes because the migrants were still bona fide members of the same basic kinds to which their ancestors belong."—Frank L. Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (1976), p. [italics his].

"Species do not originate. All they do is remain in existence or become extinct."—*G.H. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolution," in Creation Research Society Quarterly 17(1):49-50.

"Why should we be able to classify plants and animals into types or species at all? In a fascinating editorial feature in Natural History, Stephen Gould writes that biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living world into distinct and discrete species. Furthermore, our modern scientific classifications often agree in minute detail with the `folk classifications' of so-called primitive peoples, and the same criteria apply as well to fossils. In other words, says Gould, there is a recognizable reality and distinct boundaries between types at all times and all places . ." `But,' says Gould, `how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?' For an evolutionist, why should there by species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries."—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 121-122.

"If a line of organisms can steadily modify its structure in various directions, why are there any lines stable enough and distinct enough to be called species at all? Why is the world not full of intermediate forms of every conceivable kind?"—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.

"Despite this, many species and even whole families remain inexplicably constant. The shark of today, for instance, is hardly distinguishable from the shark of 150 million years ago. And this constancy is seen at higher levels too: Birds vary widely in size, shape, coloring, song, and habits, but are still substantially similar to the birds of the early Tertiary."According to Professor W.H. Thorpe, Director of the Sub-department of Animal Behavior at Cambridge and a world authority, this is the problem in evolution. He said in 1968: `What is it that holds so many groups of animals to an astonishingly constant form over millions of years? This seems to me theproblem [in evolution] now—the problem of constancy rather than that of change.' "—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 141-142.

ONLY THE SPECIES EXISTS


Phylum, class, order, family, and most genera are just paper classifications. (Some creatures classed by men as genera or subspecies are really species.)

"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."—*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

"According to the author's view, which I think nearly all biologists must share, the species is the only taxonomic category that has, at least in more favorable examples, a completely objective existence. Higher categories are all more or less a matter of opinion."—*G.W. Richards, "A Guide to the Practice of Modern Taxonomy," in Science, March 13, 1970, p. 1477 [comment made during review of *Mayr's authoritative Principles of Systematic Zoology].

"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind . . And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind."—Genesis 1:11, 12 (cf. verses 21 and 24).

"Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other groups."—*Ernst Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (1969)."There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."—*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics (1946), pp. 222-223.

THE SPECIES BARRIER


There is always a limit beyond which a species cannot be bred.

"Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted that through gradual continuous change, species could (in Wallace's phrase) ` . . depart indefinitely from the original type.' Around 1900 came the first direct test of that proposition: the `pure line research' of Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would happen, Johannsen wondered, if the largest members of a population were always bred with the largest, and the smallest with the smallest? How big or how small would they continue to get after a few generations? Would they `depart indefinitely' from the original type or are there built-in limits and constraints?"Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen selected and bred the extremes in sizes over several generations. But instead of a steady, continuous growth or shrinkage as Darwin's theory seemed to predict, he produced two stabilized populations (or `pure lines') of large and small beans. After a few generations, they had reached a specific size and remained there, unable to vary further in either direction. Continued selection had no effect."Johannsen's work stimulated many others to conduct similar experiments. One of the earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world authority on the behavior of microscopic organisms. He selected for body size in Paramecium and found that after a few generations selection had no effect. One simply cannot breed a paramecium the size of a baseball. Even after hundreds of generations, his pure lines remained constrained within fixed limits, `as unyielding as iron.'"Another pioneer in pure line research was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens at the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took up the problem . . [to] evolve a hen that lays eggs all day long."He found you could breed some super layers, but an absolute limit was soon reached . . In fact, Pearl produced some evidence indicating that production might actually be increased by relaxing selection—by breeding from `lower than maximum' producers."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 376.

"Darwin's gradualism was bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection was useless."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 46.

"It must be strongly emphasized, also, that in all cases these specialized breeds possess reduced viability; that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened. Domesticated plants and animals do not compete with the original, or wild type . . They survive only because they are maintained in an environment which is free from their natural enemies, food supplies are abundant, and other conditions are carefully regulated."—Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 34.

"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of fitness."—*D.S. Falconer, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), p. 186.

"[The original species came into existence] with rich potential for genetic variation into races, breeds, hybrids, etc. But so far from developing into new kinds, or even improving existing kinds, such variations are alwayscharacterized by intrinsic genetic weakness of individuals, in accordance with the outworking of the second law of thermodynamics through gene depletion and the accumulation of harmful mutations. Thus, the changes that occur in living things through [the passage of] time are always within strict boundary lines."—John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 94.

A CRUCIAL PRINCIPLE


If evolutionary theory were true, then man should possess a smaller gene pool than his animal ancestors.

"A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals, `. . the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man [should possess] a smaller gene potential than his animal ancestors! [!] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!"—*D.S. Falconer, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), pp. 129-130 [italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), pp. 56, 57].

CONCLUSION


Only God could make the species.

"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron,—and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident—such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible."To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others,—is to create questions more profound than are answered."—David Raphael Klein, "Is There a Substitute for God?" in Reader's Digest, March 1970, p. 55.

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT SPECIATION
 
Jun 14, 2013
53
0
0
Even though sn1987a is showing a nova that apparently happened about 170,000 years ago, and even though we see light coming from stars much further away than that, it doesn't necessarily mean the universe is older than about 10,000 years. The reason is that when God created everything, He stretched out the heavens. [See above]
Since when does science say "God did it."
 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
Once again "Macro-evolution" and "Micro", are not scientific constructs, there is literally no difference, unless by "Macro", you're referring to speciation. Try looking up observed instances of speciation, in particular the fruit fly.

Science is not some sort of faith based way of arguing, if a theory is widely accepted, it is observable and provable. No faith or belief involved.
Fruit Flies

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.[SUP]a[/SUP]

a . “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.”Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

u
“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’]ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory ...” Nilsson, p. 1186.


u “In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new]species in nature.” Goldschmidt, p. 94.


u “It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.”Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.


u “Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Hitching, p. 61.


u “The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.” Grassé, p. 130.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 7.�� Fruit Flies
 
G

Grey

Guest

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.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html
No, thats subspeciation.
 
G

Grey

Guest
Fruit Flies

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.[SUP]a[/SUP]

a . “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.”Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

u
“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’]ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory ...” Nilsson, p. 1186.


u “In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new]species in nature.” Goldschmidt, p. 94.


u “It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.”Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.


u “Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Hitching, p. 61.


u “The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.” Grassé, p. 130.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 7.�� Fruit Flies
Your evidence is out of date.
 
Jun 14, 2013
53
0
0
Realistically, if I were to take this info and study it, familiarize myself with all this "science" and
go take an actual college exam how well do you think I would do? Seriously, could you pass a test
in biology, cosmology, or geology with this information or would you fail?

If I wanted to be a geologist but said on my term paper that the world is 6,000 years old how
well do you think that would hold up? Would it ruin or increase my chances of graduating and
actually getting to compete for a good job?
 
G

Grey

Guest
Realistically, if I were to take this info and study it, familiarize myself with all this "science" and
go take an actual college exam how well do you think I would do? Seriously, could you pass a test
in biology, cosmology, or geology with this information or would you fail?

If I wanted to be a geologist but said on my term paper that the world is 6,000 years old how
well do you think that would hold up? Would it ruin or increase my chances of graduating and
actually getting to compete for a good job?
I agree, but thats an argument from authority.
 
S

Shiloah

Guest
Do you accept and understand the process of speciation?
Because we've seen lots of new species form, and understand how a broad variety of species develops. It's a strawman to demand a 'brand new' species, evolution only predicts that new species will be variations based on the template of what it used to be.
Moreover, our classification system is such that most labels are determined by family, by ancestry - not by morphology. We could breed dogs to be almost identical to mice, and they would still be a 'dog', because they would still be a part of the canine family.
"Contrary to one of creationism's favourite straw men, it is impossible to outgrow your ancestry"
(I'm not an atheist, just scientifically aware, so an evolutionist)
I certainly don't claim that aspects of science are not true. I just don't believe we can put together a complete package that proves anything for sure when it comes to "everything descended from a common ancestor". I always use this analogy because it makes the most sense to me. If you have an enormous formula that eventually comes up with a result, if you're missing one teensy weensy piece of that formula, your result will be wrong. In my opinion, variation is about adaptation. Regardless, if I come to find God created every last creature on earth out of one initial genesis cell, so be it. I actually figured that was the case when I was younger, but as I've grown older, for some reason it stopped sitting well with me. It's not that I think it's unbiblical. It's that there's too many loose ends. I'm no scientist, but I have taken college anthropology, biology, ecology, and geology from a secular college, and all of those courses did nothing to convince me that life on earth is billions of years old. I can buy the idea that what makes up the earth may be that old, maybe.... After all, the world was said in the Bible to be "without form" when God decided to do something with it. Who knows what that might mean? There was obviously something floating around He started putting together.
 
S

Shiloah

Guest
Realistically, if I were to take this info and study it, familiarize myself with all this "science" and
go take an actual college exam how well do you think I would do? Seriously, could you pass a test
in biology, cosmology, or geology with this information or would you fail?

If I wanted to be a geologist but said on my term paper that the world is 6,000 years old how
well do you think that would hold up? Would it ruin or increase my chances of graduating and
actually getting to compete for a good job?
Well I hardly think that's a valid argument when it comes to truth. Besides, I went to college with people that said that and did just fine in science classes. Professors are suppose to be tolerant and understanding even of beliefs they think are bogus. The student would just say, "this is what scientist believe because etc. etc." You don't have to adopt a belief to study it.
 
S

Shiloah

Guest
Pahu,

Thanks for all your super educational posts. I really enjoy reading through them. They're very thought provoking.
 
S

Shiloah

Guest
No, thats subspeciation.
No, actually, that's microevolution. Or the same thing. I also took anthropology. I'm not understanding how sitting here and throwing in one liners, like some kid sticking out his foot to keep tripping up an extremely involved study, proves or disproves anything. It sure doesn't help anything. How many science courses have you taken, Grey? Can't you just read a study and take from it what you can use? I learned a lot in my college science classes. That didn't mean I fully embraced some of what was taught, but I didn't sit there throwing pot shot one liners at the teacher as he was teaching. That wouldn't have gone over well plus the fact that it's rude. One liners also only address one tiny portion of something, if that. Again, is your only purpose to continually derail a train of thought?
 
S

Shiloah

Guest
Your evidence is out of date.
Out of date? Provide evidence that it's out of date. Oh, and by the way, if such evidence continually changes, how valid is it? Hence, is the scientific evidence we study today going to be out-of-date tomorrow? If so, what makes it valid?
 

Pahu

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2011
684
6
0
Since when does science say "God did it."
Creation science is the systematic study of nature by scientists holding to the creationist worldview, which asserts that the cosmos and life on Earth are the result of a supernatural or intelligent causation. The term (also known as Scientific creationism) is most often used in connection with religious concepts of creation -- specifically, the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic understanding of creation, based on the accounts of Genesis and the Qur'an. It is also frequently applied to describe the defense of creationism on scientific grounds.

Creation science is primarily concerned with two issues:


  • Understanding the discoveries of science within the interpretive framework of creationism;
  • Documenting and demonstrating how the findings of science are consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolutionary theory;

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

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

Premises

Main Page: Philosophy of science

Creation science is premised on several ideas:


  • Science is by definition a human effort to understand the universe.
  • There is nothing "unscientific" about believing that life was deliberately created. Just as it is scientific to study the Pyramids and Parthenon as having been created at a particular time by a particular creator, it is scientific to study life as having been designed at a particular time by a particular creator.
  • The historical book of Genesis provides a verifiable, falsifiable record of events which can be evidenced and understood scientifically. In particular, the Great Flood had an extraordinary effect on the Earth's geology which can be evidenced and studied.

Much of the creation vs. evolution conflict revolves around determining which ideas are "facts" and which are "interpretations" of fact. For the most part, the same actual facts, observations, and repeatable phenomena are common to scientists of all philosophies. The divergence comes in the approach to them, and in the interpretation of them. Creation scientists use the same scientific method, but simply operate under the presupposition that God designed and assembled our world when forming theories. The number of scientists populating the creation paradigm has risen sharply in recent decades, and hence the issues in scientific creationism have abounded.

Beliefs

Biblical creationism derives its information primarily from the book of Genesis in the Bible, while some also reference apocryphal literature such as the Book of Jubilees and Book of Enoch. Islamic creationists use the Islamic Qur'an. All of the above books contain nearly parallel accounts of a six-day creation, Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and Noah's flood.

Young earth creationism has three basic beliefs drawn from a literal interpretation of the Bible:


  • All living things were created by God
  • This creation was relatively recent
  • A Great Deluge occurred some time after the initial creation

Secular scientists find the first statement unscientific in the sense that it is based on observations that cannot be reproduced, and thus exclude it a priori. Creationists usually respond that this argument relies on an inadequate definition of science, because it excludes as unscientific a possibility that could still be historically true, and because it admits abiogenesis as scientific, even though it also cannot be reproduced. The second and third claims are vigilantly attacked on the basis of uniformitarianism, or the idea that the geology of the Earth is the result of slow processes, rather than the catastrophism of creation science.

Disciplines

Creation science is limited in scope, focusing on issues relevant to the origin of things. As such, it does not differ from mainstream science on many issues that are observable today, such as the function of gravity or the composition of the sun.
Principal subjects of research in scientific creationism are:



Considerations

A few notes are in order regarding this topic due to its controversial nature.

  1. It is patently impossible to adequately discuss creation science without referencing creationist journals. It is practically impossible for a scientists to publish a creationist paper in a secular journal, and it is claimed that journals have even pulled support for papers post-approval when it was discovered that one or both of the authors had creationist leanings. Therefore, be advised that, while many of the papers under discussion are peer-reviewed, they are peer-reviewed by scientists who are themselves generally creationists, possibly removing one bias for another.
  2. When used here the term theory refers to a model which describes evidence, and hopefully, makes predictions. It is therefore not meant in the informal sense of conjecture, but neither is it meant to implied that has gained currency in the mainstream. hypothesis could easily be used instead.
  3. This site describes the principal work of creationists, which typically revolve around showing difficulties with the superstructure of modern science. In general, creation sciences do not attempt to prove creation directly anymore than secular scientists attempt to proveuniformitarianism or abiogenesis. The research of creation scientists falls into two general areas
    1. Showing that their beliefs are not incompatible with known observations
    2. Showing that modern day observables challenge some basic tenets of modern science (e.g. an old earth, evolution, abiogenesis)


Both of these basic areas of research are treated here, but it must be understood that creationists typically rely on a type of argument from silence. They suggest that if the universe is young, abiogenesis is untenable, or the modern-day diversity of life cannot be explained via evolution, then their general axioms are more reasonable than any other way of explaining our modern earth. This argument by silence is, of course, not air-tight, but neither is it the case that, for example, a young earth theory of evolution exists.

Creation science - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
 
Last edited:
G

Grey

Guest
No, actually, that's microevolution. Or the same thing. I also took anthropology. I'm not understanding how sitting here and throwing in one liners, like some kid sticking out his foot to keep tripping up an extremely involved study, proves or disproves anything. It sure doesn't help anything. How many science courses have you taken, Grey? Can't you just read a study and take from it what you can use? I learned a lot in my college science classes. That didn't mean I fully embraced some of what was taught, but I didn't sit there throwing pot shot one liners at the teacher as he was teaching. That wouldn't have gone over well plus the fact that it's rude. One liners also only address one tiny portion of something, if that. Again, is your only purpose to continually derail a train of thought?
Very likely you have taken more classes than me, I wont win who's authority is greater contest. But micro/macro are not valid concepts there's no difference between them except time. There's only in species variation and speciation.