Science Disproves Evolution

Grey · Jun 20, 2013

Scientists see things as valid or invalid, very few would claim to have absolute truth.
Micro- Macro is a pointless distinction also because for example if you were to grow functioning eyes in the back of your head would that be a micro or macro change? Both or it depends on the individual scientists definition of macro, is it only things outwardly obvious? It only serve to over. Clutter things.

Pahu · Jun 20, 2013

Fossil Gaps 2

The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

“Surely the lack of gradualism—the lack of intermediates—is a major problem.” Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Grey · Jun 20, 2013

Once again quote mining

basebool · Jun 20, 2013

Shiloah said:

Not to be mean but yea.

Sure its been sai different ways, but the same message is trying to be put. Evolution is a done deal. Its been peer reviewed by evolutionists, scientists and others alike. Any attempts to disprove it have failed.

If you seriously think you can fisprove evolution when even the best arguemwnts against it has failed, then by all means present it and get your million dollars. If you could disprove evolution, are you that closed minded to think EVERY SINGLE CHURH wouldn't fund you for it? If they could dispove evolution their faith will be multiplied, even though it's illogical to think the opposite of evolution is genesis.

So i ask again, if you have actual scientific proof that evolution is false, get your million dollars. If its personal belief, it means nothing to the truth

Pahu · Jun 21, 2013

basebool said:

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT
EVOLUTION: 2

There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.

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.

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity...
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate...It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions...Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).

" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.

"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]

"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century...the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature...It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin...
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.

"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes."George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations...
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] 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. Nothing could be further from the truth.[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:]
"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to micro-evolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

Scientists Speak About Evolution - 2

basebool · Jun 21, 2013

Pahu said:

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT
EVOLUTION: 2

There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.

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.

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity...
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate...It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."—*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions...Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).

" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."—*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.

"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."—L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]

"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."—*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century...the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature...It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin...
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."—*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.

"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes."George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."—*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."—*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything—or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations...
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] 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. Nothing could be further from the truth.[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:]
"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to micro-evolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.

Scientists Speak About Evolution - 2

Can u stop posting bogus stuff?

Phillipy · Jun 21, 2013

Pahu said:

- Yep I'd just add the very minor qualifier that it's not ALL life, but all multicellular life, that is arranged into a tree, because of horizontal gene transfer at the base of the trunk of the phylogenetic 'tree'. The 'web' of life some call it now

"Creationism vigorously rejects this idea, because it contradicts a straightforward reading of Genesis, which reports that God created..."
- Just a very minor point again, that's not 'creationism' but a subset, 'Christian creationism'. There are Hindu creationists and others

"From these similarities, an evolutionist infers that all life is related through one original life form... Similarity is not meaningful evidence of common ancestry"
- But it should also be made clear to people that it's not just the appearance of similarities, but the distinct patterns in which similarities are shared and which aren't. When listing which similarities are present and which aren't for any bone, muscle or nerve, the species get arranged into a family tree all by themselves. The same for all observable characteristics of plants, that's how botanical field guides work. This amounts to thousands (potentially infinite if we put in more manpower) of independently mapped phylogenetic trees based on wildly different biological structures, all converging on the same results.

"Differences which cannot be explained by evolutionary mechanisms are powerful evidence against common ancestry."
- I'd tend to agree, but in practice it's impossible to confirm that something cannot be explained. We can only ever say with honesty that we haven't explained that thing yet. Anything else would be a fallacy, the argument from ignorance or from lack of imagination or from incredulity or something.

"The transition from non-self-reproducing chemicals to self-replicating cells: the process of self-replication requires an enormous number of components be present in the cell for it to function at all"
- Self-replication didn't start when the first cell formed, cells were a later development. Simple molecules can self-replicate, in fact in the lab we have seen such self-replicating RNA molecules form:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis#Prebiotic_RNA_synthesis :
" Such an RNA enzyme, capable of self replication in about an hour, has been identified. It was produced by molecular competition (in vitro evolution) of candidate enzyme mixtures.[48]
48.^ Lincoln, Tracey A.; Joyce, Gerald F. (January 8, 2009). "Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme". Science (New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science)"

"The transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction: male reproductive organs are incredibly complex, and serve no purpose unless female reproductive organs (which are equally, if not more, complex) already exist. Therefore the sexes could not have evolved in a step-wise fashion, because neither set of reproductive organs would serve any purpose unless the other set already existed. "
- Sexual reproduction evolved long before animal sex organs evolved. There are even families of single celled organisms that reproduce sexually. Some animals today reproduce without sex organs, like fish and coral, who let their eggs and sperm interact externally, free floating in the water. (This was an easy one, a pretty silly mistake)

"The evolutionary explanation is that living things share common features because the DNA that produces those features has a common ancestry. Creationists point out that in some cases, common features are caused by different genes, thus refuting that explanation."
- Creationists don't point that out, the scientists are well aware of exceptions like convergent evolution and how to identify it. The court of law certainly considers it possible to place huge confidence in the similarities of DNA between two individuals confirming common ancestry! Two redhead kids, both with that common red haired feature produced by DNA may not necessarily by itself mean they are related, agreed. But that's not all that geneticists are doing

"many retroviruses can infect both humans and apes. The most notable of these is HIV, which is widely believed to have originated as SIV in chimpanzees, but can also infect humans, apes, and monkeys.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][/SUP][SUP] It is entirely possible, therefore, that humans and apes were independently infected with the same virus. Second, some retroviruses have been shown to have highly targeted insertion points, meaning that the virus selects very specific segments of the genome for insertion."

-- It answers it's own objection here. Some retroviruses have highly targeted insertion points, therefore if HIV is one of those it's entirely conceivable that it originated independently. That's not the only evidence for evolution in ERV's, HIV

There are many that are understood to insert randomly, for example inserting themselves after any "gttag" in the host genome (of which there are an enormous amount). It's when these ones are shared between every member of two species that they present strong evidence for common ancestry.

[/SUP][SUP][/SUP]

Phillipy · Jun 21, 2013

Pahu said:

What bothers me about this is unless you are making a reductio ad absurdum, you are meant to believe all the premises of your argument, meant to consider them established as true.
You just said there was nothing before the universe existed, I.e. no God!

Laserbreath · Jun 21, 2013

takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation and God;

Did EVOLUTION directed the human eye???

EVIDENCE OF GOD:

the human eye:

The light reaching our eyes from nearby or distant objects arrives as billions of photons streaming from billions of data points from the light-giving object. We might say that each atom of those light-giving objects, complete with its vibrating electrons, is the source of a light data point. From each data point flows photons of electromagnetic light energy.

Therefore, we have the form of plentiful light generation and effective transmission of light energy through space. What remains is the function of light detection, that is, our sensory organs of light detection. Initially, light is transmitted through the layers and substances of our eye—the cornea, aqueous humor, lens, and vitreous humor. However, the most spectacular functional organ, or, if you will, body tissue, is the specialized retina with its millions of rods, cones, and other specialized cells.

These cells are triggered by photons to begin their work of sensing messages of light to the brain.the eye has over 130,000,000 light-sensitive rods and cones. They cause photo chemical reactions which transform the light into electrical impulses. Every second, one billion of these impulses are transmitted to the brain. These are also replaced ever 7 days. 70% of the sensory neurons in our body are located in the retina. The retinal tissue is just over 1000 square mm in area.

Roughly, this converts to the area of a teaspoon. In this small area there are well over 100 million rod cells and four million cone cells. This gives 150,000 cones per square millimeter in the central retina, the area providing clear, color vision of our central visual field. Cone cells function for humans in bright light. In the periphery of the human retina, there are many more rod cells which provide us with effective colorless vision even in extremely dark conditions.

It has been estimated that 10 billion calculations occur every second in the retina before the image even gets to the brain. It is sobering to compare this performance with the best output of the worlds most powerful computer: to simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations one hundred times and would take at least several minutes of processing on a super computer; and because there are about 10 million such cells interacting with each other in many complex ways, it would take something like one hundred years of computer time to crudely simulate what takes place in the eye, MANY TIMES EACH SECOND.

So out of "necessity" all these intricate parts were all placed into exact positions to enable it to work through process of time called evolution?.......ONLY IN THE MOVIES.

Perhaps this is why some scientists today are now referring to evolution as a myth.......

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Grey · Jun 21, 2013

I don't have time to write an essay about how the human eye argument is illogical. But an Owls eye is more complicated then ours.

Search Talk Origins - human eye

On google if you'd like to look into it more.

Laserbreath · Jun 21, 2013

ROM 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

According to the theory of evolution all energy and matter of the universe was once contained in a plasma ball of electrons, protons, and neutrons and other subatomic particles (how it got there, no one has the faintest notion). This huge cosmic egg then exploded (why, no one knows)--
here we are today, supposedly several billion years after the supposed big bang, human beings with a three-pound brain composed of twelve billion neurons each connected to about ten thousand other neurons (thus 120 trillion connections) in the most complicated arrangement of matter known to man.

The key brain cells *the neurons* do not actually touch one another. They are separated by synapses, tiny spaces less than one millionth of an inch across. These gaps are bridged by chemicals called neurotransmitters. These chemical signals are received at one end of the neuron by a maze of tiny filaments called dendrites. The signals are then transmitted at the other end of the neuron by a nerve fiber called an axon. In the neurons the signals are electrical, but across the gaps they are chemical.
Thus the transmission of nerve signals is electrochemical. Each impulse is of the same strength, but the intensity of the signal depends upon the frequency of the impulses, which may be as high as one thousands of a second.

The vast numbers of microscopic nerve fibers making the connections within the brain are often referred to as its "wiring". They are precisely placed within a maze of staggering complexity. But how they are placed in the exact spots is by design, not chance. The number of these connections is astronomical.

Each neuron has thousands of connections with other neurons. Not only are there connections between neurons, but there are also microcircuits that are set up directly between the dendrites themselves. These microcircuits add yet another dimension to the already complex design. They make up what is to be estimated an almost one quadrillion connections.

"Neurological and other specialized scientists have calculated that a space of 1.5 x 106 kilowatts of electrical power, 1x1021(power)--21zeros-- wires, 1x1021(power) --21zeros-- and 2x1018(power)--18zeros-- dollars in finances would be needed even crudely to simulate the human brain from the psychical viewpoint. The human brain consists of some twelve billion nerve cells. Each one of these ten billion nerve cells exudes between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibers which enable it to make contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Thus, the total number of connections in the human brain is close to one million billion or 10 to the15th power.

Even if only.... one hundredth..... of the connections in the brain were attempted to be organized by humans, it would represent a system containing a much greater number of specific connections than the entire communications network on earth. Because of the vast number of unique adaptive connections, to assemble an object remotely resembling the brain would take an eternity even applying the most sophisticated engineering techniques.

Yet we are told to believe we are what we are today NOT BECAUSE of supernatural design by an omnipotent God, but because of the random chance combination of molecules over billions of years???? only in the movies......

Perhaps this is why some scientists today are now referring to evolution as a myth.......

basebool · Jun 22, 2013

Laserbreath said:

Its no myth, unlike what you are stating.

If i could turn your own logic against you, there is an eternal super natural being who one day decided to make the universe and 6,000,000,000,000, probably more, other planets and made one of them special. Magic is faith based while evolution is not.

Our evolution is million of years, so yes its going to be complex because we've had so much time to evolve our species into what it is now. There doesn't need to be some higher being for this complexity, we just got lucky. Thats it, nothing more to it. No need to make it any more complicated.

You can state all the facts you want sbout how complex the brain is, but it doesn't add any credibility to a "designer". I can in fact point you to some objectively bad designs which i hooe it doesnt get to that point.

Instead of equating ignorance to god, we've investigated and tested that species change over time and after millions of years, we've had many changes to reach this state. It's proven to be purely naturalistic and your god is not required.

Now instead of trying to disprove a fact, why don't by proving your god not using the bible and any design arguements, that wont get us anywhere

Shiloah · Jun 22, 2013

Grey said:

Except it isn't a steady graduation of knowledge. It's an erase and rewrite, erase and rewrite. So what will be erased twenty years from now that you're professing to be truth today? Or in a hundred years? It the arrogance of man to draw conclusion when all the facts are not in yet, not by a long shot.

Shiloah · Jun 22, 2013

Grey said:

I would say you, for one, are claiming these theories to be truth when you're calling Christian's that go on faith foolish. You believe one thing, they believe another. You believe your belief has more basis in fact, but again, that's simply what you choose to believe. Christians, for other reasons we believe are perfectly valid, believe in a creator. Since you just admitted your belief can not be proven to be truth, why do you deem yourself more logical and sensible than they? Certainly tons of extremely intelligent people are Christians. Yet you act as if there's no sense behind their beliefs. That's where your logic is entirely inconsistent.

Shiloah · Jun 22, 2013

Grey said:

Scientists see things as valid or invalid, very few would claim to have absolute truth.
Micro- Macro is a pointless distinction also because for example if you were to grow functioning eyes in the back of your head would that be a micro or macro change? Both or it depends on the individual scientists definition of macro, is it only things outwardly obvious? It only serve to over. Clutter things.

Well hey, is it only those things that are outwardly obvious?

Shiloah · Jun 22, 2013

Shiloah said:

Oh, and I just have to say; the definition of macroevolution varies from scientist to scientist? Boy, now that's an absolute science. Who's definition should I accept as truth?

Laserbreath · Jun 22, 2013

Operational science is observable, testable, and falsifiable. It is the kind of science one practices when engineering buildings or bridges, or when designing computers or space shuttles. Operational science is what advances society technologically. And whether a person is a Christian or an atheist, that person can be a great scientist when using operational science.

Since “big-bang”-molecules-to-man evolution is not observable, testable, or falsifiable, it is very different from operational science. Instead, the evolutionary worldview falls under the umbrella of historical science (or origins science)—ideas about the origin of the universe. Biblical creation is also historical science, but the evidence that we have available to us in the present day and is gathered through operational science actually confirms the biblical creation-based worldview and does not confirm evolutionary beliefs.

Instead of telling me stories about a time in the past about which you have no knowledge show me one complex system ever formed by random processes.

teaching science is one thing, but evolution is NOT science. you fail to differentiate between evolution which is historical science (extremely affected by bias & preconceived ideals) and is not experimental science (which is science that can be proven). The idea that dead material (rocks) can generate life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

Creationists use operational science (e.g., the science of genetics/natural selection, sedimentation processes, etc.) to confirm (not prove) the interpretation of the evidence as it relates to the past. If the Bible’s account of history is true, it will make sense of the evidence we see today. Operational science should (and overwhelmingly does) support biblical history; it does NOT confirm the history that is based on molecules-to-man evolution.

When we look at a car or an airplane, it is only logical to suggest that it was designed with the features that it has. The human body is much more intricate and complex than the most complex machines we can design. it is amazing, illogical, and anti-intellectual that an atheist and evolutionist can deny a designed creation when everything they touch and use in their life has been designed.

the bible agrees with science..... BUT NOT... evolution.

talk about fairy tales......Scum turning into 75 trillion cell human beings. Frogs turning into a prince without the kiss. Dinosaurs turning into birds. Half-ape, half-men walking around grunting, whales with legs that walked around on earth before they decided to go back into the oceans.cant beat those stories.

in reference to 'species' as proof of evolution: New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition you mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new genetic information! To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of new information to be added...... and this 'ideal' or world view, is still on the shelf, where it belongs.

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Shiloah · Jun 22, 2013

basebool said:

Keep right on posting all this "bogus" stuff, Pahu. lol. It's wonderful information.

Shiloah · Jun 22, 2013

Phillipy said:

What bothers me about what you just said is that there's nothing like an evolutionist when it comes to claiming something is true that has not been established to be absolutely true, yet it is virtually forced upon those that question it or simply don't believe because they believe something else is true. The evolutionist believes that what can be tested in a laboratory under what conditions can be provided establishes truth. A creationist believes that faith is evidence of truth. Again and again, in the end it simply comes down to what one chooses to believe.

The truth is, if a person chooses to go with only that which can be tested within the realm of human comprehension and not seek a truth beyond that, that's a choice. So go with that if that's what you want. But for those that desire to seek that which is beyond the physical realm, why does that bother those that only seek that which is within the physical realm? So we disagree on where to go to find truth, that's all this really boils down to.

Lastly, the very laws you believe in say something does not come from nothing.

Shiloah · Jun 22, 2013

basebool said:

Not to be mean but yea.

Sure its been sai different ways, but the same message is trying to be put. Evolution is a done deal. Its been peer reviewed by evolutionists, scientists and others alike. Any attempts to disprove it have failed.

If you seriously think you can fisprove evolution when even the best arguemwnts against it has failed, then by all means present it and get your million dollars. If you could disprove evolution, are you that closed minded to think EVERY SINGLE CHURH wouldn't fund you for it? If they could dispove evolution their faith will be multiplied, even though it's illogical to think the opposite of evolution is genesis.

So i ask again, if you have actual scientific proof that evolution is false, get your million dollars. If its personal belief, it means nothing to the truth[/QUOTE

(Above is quote)

Basepool. Not to sound condescending at all, but you're 17 years old. Do a bit more research on your own and don't just believe what you hear and read. Your statement that it's been proven to be a fact (and I'm talking macro) shows your lack of understanding. Evidence is not proof. Because one factor may be true doesn't mean a theory based on that one factor is true. No, that doesn't mean it's false, but it doesn't make it a proven fact. Again, take college science courses and then listen to both sides of the spectrum before you arrive at such solid conclusions.

Science Disproves Evolution

Grey

Guest

Pahu

Senior Member

Grey

Guest

basebool

Banned

Pahu

Senior Member

basebool

Banned

Phillipy

Guest

Phillipy

Guest

Laserbreath

Guest

Grey

Guest

Laserbreath

Guest

basebool

Banned

Shiloah

Guest

Shiloah

Guest

Shiloah

Guest

Shiloah

Guest

Laserbreath

Guest

Shiloah

Guest

Shiloah

Guest

Shiloah

Guest