Science Disproves Evolution

[Shiloah]

Nothing is legitimized by many people following or agreeing with it. That is not evidence. I agree it would be hard to measure something supernatural in a lab situation but until we do it, as you said earlier we'll stick with the known accepted science.

And you'll continue coming up with solutions you can never be sure are accurate. The fact that your theories are in a constant state of flux is an excellent example of the problem this represents.

 

[Shiloah]

Gravity is theory, also a law, but theory nonetheless. Saying I believe in micro not macro is like saying I believe that a page of harry potter was written exits, but not the full book. There's no distinctions and if you wish to see examples of speciation merely look for them on an acredited
scientific website.

You obviously don't understand what I was saying. I'll try again. When a large number of people have an experience they cannot explain that makes them shout praises to the same God and worship His son, that's evidence. No, that's not proof, but that's evidence that they've shared a unique experience with the same supernatural entity. One line I've heard often said after people have this experience is "there is no one like you, God. No one to compare you with!" I voiced that myself when I felt His presence, and afterwards, I saw it in the bible said repeatedly by various prophets and followers of God in the Old Testament. I've heard many Christian songs sing those words, and again, many people praise God with those words. That's just one example. When you experience this then you'll understand what I'm saying. Again, even in a lab, you trust your senses to tell you what you see, hear, or touch. You trust your mind to interpret the results. Or in this case, you trust the scientist who sees, hears, touches, and interprets those results. It's all about belief, be it in science or in God.

You say there's no distinction between micro and macro? Then why the different types? Why the distinction if there is no distinction?

 

[Grey]

Prayer does marvels in the brain, I think there might be an MRI picture of it on the internet, that being said, that spiritual feeling of a connection to god isn't exclusive many Muslims, hindus, and likely followers of various greek and roman gods felt and feel the same way you do. This doesn't eliminate the idea of a god but its not evidence.

Micro/Macro is not a officially scientifically accredited distinction, there's species variation, and speciation.

 

[Pahu]

That's not what the legislation of Separation of Church and State was originally intended for.

Not only that, but... does anybody else find it a little ironic that so many flaunt that misnomer in the first place?

You are right. You may find this interesting:

[TABLE="class: mainTbl, width: 767, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="class: resources, width: 515"]
[TR]
[TD]In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.
The election of Jefferson – America's first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.
Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. [SUP][1][/SUP]
​

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion":

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. [SUP][2][/SUP]
​

In short, the inclusion of protection for the "free exercise of religion" in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone's religious practice caused him to "work ill to his neighbor."
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [SUP][3][/SUP]
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [SUP][4][/SUP]
[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [SUP][5][/SUP]
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [SUP][6][/SUP]
​

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. [SUP][7][/SUP]
​

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. [SUP][8][/SUP]
​

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. [SUP][9][/SUP]
​

Jefferson's reference to "natural rights" invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase "natural rights" communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.
By definition, "natural rights" included "that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain." [SUP][10][/SUP] That is, "natural rights" incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their "natural rights" they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.
So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [SUP][11][/SUP]
​

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.
Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.(emphasis added) [SUP][12][/SUP]
​

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [SUP][13][/SUP]
​

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor."
That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit andLindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.
Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were "subversive of good order" and were "overt acts against peace." However, the government wasnever to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel" – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.
Therefore, if Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.
For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States" (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.
One further note should be made about the now infamous "separation" dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.


WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Separation of Church and State[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Pahu]

I don't believe there is no god, I think its unlikely but Im uncertain.

Perhaps this will help:

Science Proves God
​

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown).

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]

 

[Pahu]

Evolution is a fact. It has nothing to do with attempting to erase god. The catholic church can accept evolution, why don't you put your big boy pants on and accept it?

If you have legitamite evidence that evolution is false, go get your nobel prize. They will seriously make you famous.

We did not come from monkeys, we are the common ancestor of monkeys.

I mean comon dudes, your fellow christians can accept it, are you calling them dumb? Evolution is an observed change with chemical and bioloical change over time that creates the macroevolutionary scale.

And atheists have a disbelief in the belief in god. That is not a belief, that is a decision based on the claim. The sooner you stop trying to dumb science and atheism down to your fairy tail level, we can actually have a somewhat good discussion

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT ANCIENT MAN

​

"Your ancestors are not apes," *Charles Darwin wrote in his book. Research scientists tell us that no evidence of a nonhuman ancestry of man has been found. Here are scientific facts. Evolutionary theory is a myth. Do not let evolutionists deny you your birthright. You were created by God; you did not come from a flock of monkeys. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Ancient Man

Introduction: Evolutionary theory just does not agree with the evidence Ancient Peoples not Primitive: Many of them were more intelligent than we are today
Lucy: This australopithecine was nothing more than an ape

​

This material is excerpted from the book, ANCIENT MAN. 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, Ancient Man.

INTRODUCTION

Evolutionary theory just does not agree with the evidence.

"One might ask why the new-Darwinian paradigm does not awaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information."—*C. Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution," Trends in Biochemical Sciences (1986), p. 280.

"To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

"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 evolution?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"Either evolutionary change or miraculous divine intervention lies at the back of human intelligence."—*S. Zucherman, Functional Activities of Man, Monkeys and Apes (1933), p. 155.

"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."—*Arther N. Field.

"The search of the proverbial `missing link' in man's evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more."—*Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11 (2), pp. 87-114.

ANCIENT PEOPLES NOT PRIMITIVE

Many of them were more intelligent than we are today.

"Many of the so-called `primitive' peoples of the world today, most of the participants agreed, may not be so primitive after all. They suggested that certain hunting tribes in Africa, central India, South America, and the western Pacific are not relics of the Stone Age, as had been previously thought, but highly developed societies forced through various circumstances to lead a much simpler, less developed life."—*Science Year, 1966, p. 256.

"Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication, Nature, suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D."—*"Neanderthals had Rickets," in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.

"The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Home sapiens was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," in Science, January 27, 1967, p. 410.

"Normal human brain size is 1450-1500 cc; Neanderthal's is 1600 cc. If his brow is low, his brain is larger than modern man's."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 87.

"Perhaps more than any other science, human prehistory is a highly personalized pursuit, the whole atmosphere reverberating with the repeated collisions of oversized egos. The reasons are not difficult to discover. For a start, the topic under scrutiny—human origins—is highly emotional, and there are repudiations to be made and public acclaim to be savored for people who unearth even older putative human ancestors. But the major problem has been the pitifully small number of hominoid fossils on which prehistorians exercise their imaginative talents."—*Roger Lewin, "A New Focus for African Prehistory," in New Scientist, September 29, 1977, p. 793.

"Careful examination of the Piltdown Man bone pieces [in 1953] revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably to achieve recognition. The skulls were collections of pieces, some human and some not. One skull had a human skull cap and ape lower jaw. The teeth had been filed and the front of the jaw broken off to obscure the simian [ape] origin. Some fragments used had been stained to hide the fact that the bones were not fossil, but fresh. In drilling into the bones, researchers obtained shavings rather than powder, as would be expected in truly fossilized bone."—Herold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1961), p. 221.

"Differences due to age are especially significant with reference to the structure of the skull in apes. Very pronounced changes occur during the transition from juvenile to adult in apes, but not in Man. The skull of a juvenile ape is somewhat different from that of Man. We may remember that the first specimen of Australopithecus that was discovered by Raymond Dart, the Tuang `child,' was that of a juvenile [ape]. This juvenile skull should never have been compared to those of adult apes and humans."—Duane Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 178.

"No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for any earlyHomo [habilis]."—*W. Mehlert, "The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, p. 25.

"The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkable closeness of fit, and in this respect and others it stands in strong contrast to modern man."—*J.S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (1973).

"Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparison on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not yet been applied to the most recent type of australopithecine, commonly known as `Lucy.' "—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 39.

LUCY

This australopithecine was nothing more than an ape.

"To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of [bones from] two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints."—*Peter Andrews, "The Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).

"The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The `evidence' for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing."—A.W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.

"Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man . . [It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change."—*Richard E. Leakey, "Skull 1470," National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.

"The latest reports of Richard Leakey are startling, and, if verified, will reduce to a shambles the presently held schemes of evolutionists concerning man's origins."—Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (1973), p. 105.

"Humans microcephaly are quite subnormal in intelligence, but they still show specifically human behavioral patterns."—Marvin Lubenow, "Evolutionary Reversals: the Latest Problem Facing Stratigraphy and Evolutionary Phylogeny," in Bible-Science Newsletter 14(11):1-4 (1976).

"By 1989, [Richard] Leakey sought to distance himself from his original theory, insisting any attempts at specific reconstructions of the human lineages were premature."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 218.

"Adult chimps and gorillas, for instance, have elongated faces, heavy brow ridges, powerful jaws, and small braincases in relation to overall skull and other characteristic proportions. Baby apes have flat faces, rounded braincases, light brow ridges, proportionately smaller jaws, and many other bodily features strikingly like human beings."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 325.

"Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the Western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95.


SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT ANCIENT MAN

 

[Pahu]

So there's a vast scientific conspiracy to cover up creationism?

Scientists are not trying to cover up creationism, but evolutionists are:


There exists widespread suppression of creation science and intelligent design, ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various theories of evolution.

Cases of suppression

Recognition affected

Individuals have been denied awards or qualifications, or attempts have been made to have them withdrawn.

David Bolhuis

David Bolhuis, a teacher from Hudsonville, Michigan was told that the Michigan Science Teachers' Association had unanimously selected him as the High School Teacher of the Year. However, the American Civil Liberties Union protested, as Bolhuis had been "teaching about" both creation and evolution. Subsequent media pressure resulted in the decision to not give Bolhuis the award.

Employment affected

In many cases, individuals have been fired, threatened with being fired, demoted, moved, or not employed. This is not even confined to creationists and intelligent design advocates, but even affects evolutionists who don't toe the line in refusing to even consider alternatives.

Lloyd Dale

Lloyd Dale was an award-winning and highly-qualified high school teacher in South Dakota who was fired in 1980 for teaching about both evolution and creation.

Forrest Mims

Forrest Mims III is a science writer who, by 1990, had seen more than 500 of his articles published in 62 newspapers and magazines.
Science magazine Scientific American invited him to submit some articles for their Amateur Scientist column, and the expectation was that these would lead on to a permanent job.
The articles were published in 1990, and the editor described Mims' work as "first rate", but when he discovered that Mims was a creationist, Mims was denied further work with the magazine.

Richard Sternberg

For a more detailed treatment, see Smithsonian-Sternberg affair.

Guillermo Gonzalez

Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure and promotion to associate professor by Iowa State University, despite apparently easily meeting their criteria. The university's stated criteria for promotion to associate professor says that "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals". Gonzalez exceeded this by 350%, with 68 such papers, including papers that had surprisingly high numbers of citations.
But Gonzales co-authored a book in 2004 which revealed his support for intelligent design, and two of his colleagues have admitted that his views on intelligent design were a factor in denying Gonzalez tenure.

Robert Gentry

Robert Gentry became the acknowledged expert on radiohalos, and published papers in a number of leading scientific journals, including Science, Nature, and Journal of Geophysical Research. However, when his creationist views became known, his contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratories was cancelled.

Roger Paull

Roger Paull was a substitute teacher in Arizona. One assignment saw him showing to his class a video left by the regular teacher. The video disparaged Christianity and glorified naturalism. After the third video, on evolution, he briefly mentioned intelligent design to the class. The next day he was suspended and has not been able to teach since, having been effectively "blackballed". He says that he was viewed "almost the same way a potential pedophile would be".

Michael Reiss

Rev. Professor Michael Reiss, an evolutionist, called for schools to teach students about creationism, and this resulted in him being forced to resign from his part time job as Director of Education at the Royal Society.

Accreditation affected

The ICR Graduate School

For a more detailed treatment, see ICR Graduate School.

The ICR Graduate School had for years been offering graduate degrees in California. Then in 1986 California abruptly changed its rules, and its new Superintendent of Public Instruction, William Honig, determined to stop ICR at any cost. ICR had to sue the State in federal court to get his decisions reversed.
In 2006 ICR decided to move to Texas but then encountered the same difficulties. In April 2008 the Academic Excellence and Research Committee of the Texas Higher-Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously to deny the ICR Graduate School's application for accreditation. The Texas Commissioner of Higher Education said only, "Religious beliefs are not science." ICR might appeal the process administratively, submit a new proposal, or sue the State of Texas for injunctive relief.

Court challenges to education

In 1925 the American Civil Liberties Union challenged a Tennessee law that forbade teaching that man had evolved (it didn't otherwise forbid teaching evolution), in what became known as the Scopes Trial. The ACLU lawyer, Clarence Darrow, argued that it was wrong to only teach one view of origins.
Yet now the ACLU and other supporters of evolution argue that only the evolutionary view of origins should be taught.

Dover County School Board

For a more detailed treatment, see Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District.

In 2004, the Dover County School Board in Pennsylvania, U.S.A., approved a curriculum which included that teachers should read to their class a statement pointing out that evolution is an explanation of observations, not a fact, that intelligent design is an alternative explanation, that the book Of Pandas and People is available if students want to know more about Intelligent design, and that the students are to keep an open mind.
But even this was too much for the committed evolutionists, and a court challenge, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, saw the requirement removed, on the grounds that the proponents of the requirement had religious motives.

Philip Bishop

Associate professor of physiology, Dr. Philip Bishop, was taken to court by his employer, the University of Alabama, to stop him briefly expressing his views favoring intelligent design, on the grounds that they were religious. Yet views opposing religion are routinely expressed in classes with no attempts made to stop them.

Cobb County School District

For a more detailed treatment, see Selman v. Cobb County School District.

Even pointing out that students should apply some critical thinking to evolution is unacceptable to the evolutionists.

In 2002 the Cobb County School District in Georgia, U.S.A., placed stickers in the front of biology textbooks which simply read:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Yet even this innocuous statement was challenged in court, with the ultimate result being that the stickers were removed from the textbooks.

Peer review publications

A frequent criticism of creationism and intelligent design is that they fail to pass peer review, and cannot therefore be considered scientific.

Creationists and intelligent design proponents counter that they fail to pass peer review on the grounds of ideology, not scientific merit.

One columnist wrote:

"Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."

Chemistry in Australia

The April 2007 issue of Chemistry in Australia included an article titled "creationist’s view of the intelligent design debate", written by John Ashton, chemist and Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), publishers of the journal.

The outcry against the article by evolutionists, which included effectively calling Ashton a liar, sweepings dismissals of creationism, but little if anything in the way of actual rebuttal, resulted in the RACI removing mention of the article from their web-site.

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

In August 2004 the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published a paper by Stephen Meyer which gave an overview of intelligent design arguments.
The ensuing outcry, including from people who had not even read the paper, resulted in the Biological Society of Washington undertaking to never again publish anything about intelligent design.
There were claims that the paper had bypassed the peer review process, but these were shown to be false. The refusal to ever publish on the topic again was not on the grounds of not passing peer review, but in line with the American Association for the Advancement of Science's position that intelligent design is not science.

Science letters to the editor

After failing to get a letter published in the journal Science, Russell Humphreys wrote to the letters editor asking if the journal had a policy of suppressing creationist letters. She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism". This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".

Public information

The Science Show, ABC Australia

In a March 2003 broadcast of The Science Show on Radio National, a radio station of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, presenter Robyn Williams and Eugenie Scott, executive director of the American National Center for Science Education, openly admitted, on the pretence that evolution is true, that creationists do not warrant equal time.

Robyn Williams: And the old question of science having two sides - and this is a journalistic thing where some of us still, especially if you go to television, are supposed to display conflict, you know, one side and the other side as if there is this continuing argument.

Eugenie Scott: Well Robyn, you put your finger exactly on the issue. When there is a controversy, responsible journalists will present both or all sides and give a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard. If you were doing a show on anthrax you would not feel compelled to put a Christian scientist[30] who denied the germ theory of disease on the show to balance the program, because the germ theory of disease in medicine is a done deal, we are not debating whether germs cause disease. Similarly, if you are discussing an issue like what topics should be taught in science education at the pre-college level, which is a continuing controversy in the United States, you don't debate whether to teach evolution, because evolution is state of the art science and it should be taught. You don't debate whether to teach evidence against evolution or some sort of creationism because scientists don't accept these arguments, there is no body of evidence against evolution. And this is what the theory of biological evolution is all about.

Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre

When creationists proposed that a new visitor's centre at the Giant's Causeway geological formation in Northern Ireland should include the creationist explanation of its formation alongside the secular view, anti-creationists objected, wanting only their view to be made available to visitors.

Attempts to prevent creationists being heard

On numerous occasions, anti-creationists have attempted to prevent creationists being able to promote their point of view by attempting to have their venue bookings cancelled or by heckling the speakers during their talks.

Werner Gitt

In October 2008, protesters attempted to prevent German creationary scientist Dr. Werner Gitt from giving a talk titled Why I as a scientist believe the Bible at Leibniz University. The protests followed unsuccessful attempts to pressure the university administration to cancel the talk. As the talk was about to start, the protesters unfurled banners, one with the German for "Creationists, go to hell!" and another with a foul expression, then started chanting and blowing whistles to prevent the talk from going ahead. Police were called by the organizers, but the two, then five, officers were ignored by the protesters, who were only removed after another 20 police officers arrived, allowing the talk to go ahead an hour late.

Suppression of alternatives to evolution - Conservapedia

 

[Grey]

And you'll continue coming up with solutions you can never be sure are accurate. The fact that your theories are in a constant state of flux is an excellent example of the problem this represents.

Id say its more like putting a magnifying glass in greater resolution.

 

[Grey]

The vast majority of scientists christian and non-Christian see evolution as valid, we talked about those ten or so points earlier and how most of them are assumptions, finally no ancient man wasn't primitive or stupid rather they just didnt as easily pass on knowledge as we do now, other than that society functioned surprisingly simmiliar to how it does now.

 

[Pahu]

Prayer does marvels in the brain, I think there might be an MRI picture of it on the internet, that being said, that spiritual feeling of a connection to god isn't exclusive many Muslims, hindus, and likely followers of various greek and roman gods felt and feel the same way you do. This doesn't eliminate the idea of a god but its not evidence.

Micro/Macro is not a officially scientifically accredited distinction, there's species variation, and speciation.

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 always characterized 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

 

[megaman125]

The vast majority of scientists christian and non-Christian see evolution as valid, we talked about those ten or so points earlier and how most of them are assumptions, finally no ancient man wasn't primitive or stupid rather they just didnt as easily pass on knowledge as we do now, other than that society functioned surprisingly simmiliar to how it does now.

Hey look, there it is again. The majority of scientists see evolution as valid, so we should believe it too. Don't question, don't explore, and don't dare look at alternative theories, just blindly follow what they tell you to follow. So much for the free thinking proponents.

 

[Grey]

Hey look, there it is again. The majority of scientists see evolution as valid, so we should believe it too. Don't question, don't explore, and don't dare look at alternative theories, just blindly follow what they tell you to follow. So much for the free thinking proponents.

Did I say that made it valid? I was replying to Panhu when he said that "not all scientists are covering up evolution but evolutionists are, ergo I pointed out that many scientists would be involved in said conspiracy because many if not most see evolution as valid. I was not as you say attempting to make the argument that because many do this it must be correct.

 

[basebool]

Perhaps this will help:

Science Proves God
​

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown).

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[ From “Reincarnation in the Bible?”]

1) Sure
2) Sure
3) Obviously but sure
4) That's not something you can say. We don't know what there was before the universe so you can't say there was nothing.
5) Again, not something we can conclude. It's possible this singularity existed eternally, but this is not "god"
6) Actually, it does all the time. I'm going to use the science definition of nothing as an empty vaccum devoid of matter or anti-matter with low energy. Although it's not yet a clear cut fact, Something comes from nothing all the time, we can't see what it is unless your at extreme microscopic level, but it happens. I'll try to give a simple defintion of it. The heisenberg uncertainty principle states that a particle and anti-particles exists at all possible times, in and out of existence. This means that not only can we get something from nothing, but we can put something to nothing back to something over and over again. Here's a link for a better description: scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/02/can-you-get-something-for-noth/

7) been proven false from my previous points. You can't turn to supernatural causes, even if you had no naturalistic explanation for it. That's a cop-out answer

8) surely

9) Nope, that's impossible. If you want to prove abiogenesis wrong at least have some links to back yourself up because certainly you can't. Even though empirically abiogensis isn't proven, there's good theoretical and logical evidence to back it up

10) Same as 9), your statement is wrong

11) This is the problem I have with proofs of god and that since there isn't any, people turn to logic statements that are fallacys in themself. If you want to prove your god, use some actual logic or talk to some actual theologians. I like discussing this kind of stuff with people, but I hear stuff like this over and over and it's just plain wrong.

You start with the presupposition that god exists and then backtrack to find stuff that might match. That's not how it works. We have to presuppose nothing unproven before starting.

Speaking of which, I have some questions I don't think you can answer:

1) why did god have to exist?
2) Did god have a beginning? If so when? If not, how could he be in an infinite regress?
3) If everything that exists must have a creator? Who created god?
4) If everything comes from life, when did the first life start?

These are questions that cannot be honestly answered and because of that you're stuck at finding physical and logical evidence. Even if god was 100% logical, we need physical evidence to prove it. Without that, you have zip

 

[basebool]

Hey look, there it is again. The majority of scientists see evolution as valid, so we should believe it too. Don't question, don't explore, and don't dare look at alternative theories, just blindly follow what they tell you to follow. So much for the free thinking proponents.

you can go look at the evidence yourself, they will present it. If you can disprove it, go get your million dollars.

Or if you wanna be arrogant, you can do that as well.

 

[basebool]

Evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a theory. Microevolution (adaptation) can be observed, yes. But Macro has never been observed in written history. It cannot be proven until that happens. Hence, it remains a theory. There's evidence, yes. But evidence is not proof.

Big boy pants? I have a brother that has a doctorate in biology, and he says it's clearly only a theory. My Biology teacher in college who has a doctorate told us not to let anyone tell us theories are facts. Believe you me, I've always remembered that. He, by the way, is an agnostic.

A theory is the highest point of a scientific explanation for a concept, evolution for example, so it is basically a fact based on every available evidence they have. Whether you like to skip over that is fine, but it is a fact and if you can disprove it, a million dollars is waiting for you or your brother.

And if you wanna play the "Just a theory" card, then I'm calling your god a failed hypothesis, because that's really all he is. If you don't wanna play that card and have an actual discussion of evolution, not bringing down the fact that it is a fact and I'm happy to explain any of your confusions, that's fine. Don't say "Just a theory" and move on, that's intellectually dishonest and your brother wouldn't like you do that.

And the thing I don't get is how you don't see microevolution adding up to macro? If you accept small changes happen over small periods of time, how can you not accept large changes over large periods of time? It really doesn't make sense to me and I don't see your thought process on this at all

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

Whether you like to skip over that is fine, but it is a fact and if you can disprove it, a million dollars is waiting for you or your brother.

Is that a fact or a theory?

 

[Logical]

Evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a theory. Microevolution (adaptation) can be observed, yes. But Macro has never been observed in written history. It cannot be proven until that happens. Hence, it remains a theory. There's evidence, yes. But evidence is not proof.

Big boy pants? I have a brother that has a doctorate in biology, and he says it's clearly only a theory. My Biology teacher in college who has a doctorate told us not to let anyone tell us theories are facts. Believe you me, I've always remembered that. He, by the way, is an agnostic.

This "only a theory" garbage really gets old. A scientific theory is the pinnacle of science. It's not just
some guess. Evolution is both a fact and a theory just like the theory of gravity and germ theory
of disease.

Challenge yourself to make a list of all the times per day you use, or take advantage of the benefits of, the scientific process in making your decisions, informing your choices, or seeking treatment for a medical condition. You are all scientists, and are all addicts to science - except you choose not to apply it within your religious comfort zone.

 

[Pahu]

6) Actually, it does all the time. I'm going to use the science definition of nothing as an empty vaccum devoid of matter or anti-matter with low energy. Although it's not yet a clear cut fact, Something comes from nothing all the time, we can't see what it is unless your at extreme microscopic level, but it happens. I'll try to give a simple defintion of it. The heisenberg uncertainty principle states that a particle and anti-particles exists at all possible times, in and out of existence. This means that not only can we get something from nothing, but we can put something to nothing back to something over and over again. Here's a link for a better description: scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/02/can-you-get-something-for-noth/

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

“… spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition…Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation…Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.”

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

“The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.”

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A FINAL THOUGHT

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

Who created God? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Speaking of which, I have some questions I don't think you can answer:

1) why did god have to exist?

Why do you believe He had to exist?

2) Did god have a beginning? If so when? If not, how could he be in an infinite regress?

God reveals in His Bible that He had no beginning.

3) If everything that exists must have a creator? Who created god?

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. He is called God.

4) If everything comes from life, when did the first life start?

When God created it.

These are questions that cannot be honestly answered and because of that you're stuck at finding physical and logical evidence. Even if god was 100% logical, we need physical evidence to prove it. Without that, you have zip

See above.

 

[Logical]

Yep someone called me a conspiracy theorist on the other thread and I think I know who said it. What a pity.

Didn't call you a conspiracy theorist, sorry you jump to conclusions and take things the wrong way.
It's just funny how you and megaman think that atheism and evolution are religions. It's totally
obvious you guys think that but all you make are assertions and provide no evidence for these
claims.

A religion usually requires a supernatural deity or force. No, evolutionists don't worship Darwin.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

Challenge yourself to make a list of all the times per day you use, or take advantage of the benefits of, the scientific process in making your decisions, informing your choices, or seeking treatment for a medical condition. You are all scientists, and are all addicts to science - except you choose not to apply it within your religious comfort zone.

The reverse argument could also be instated, but that's neither here nor there (nor substantial).