Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu · Jun 26, 2013

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

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.

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?"]

Siberian_Khatru · Jun 26, 2013

basebool said:

Prove it.

Grey · Jun 26, 2013

Pahu said:

Haven't heard that one before.

Laserbreath · Jun 26, 2013

Grey said:

mutations are nothing more than birth defects.

The processes of natural selection, gene flow & genetic drift all work AGAINST the overwhelmingly debilitating (or simply neutral) effects of genetic mutations. There are plenty of cases of speciation being observed, but never due to the creation of new, additional, functional genetic material.

Pahu · Jun 26, 2013

Grey said:

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS: 1

Reputable scientists tell us that, contrary to what the evolutionists say, mutations cannot produce trans-species changes. Therefore, mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.

CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about Mutations: 1

Introduction: Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes
Mutations Are Extremely Rare: They almost never occur
Mutations Are Nearly Always Harmful: Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found
One Mutation Would Cause Great Damage: It would cripple or weaken the entire system
An Organism Is Useless until It Has All Its Parts: So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing

This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS (see BOOKSTPRE). An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books thisEncyclopedia 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, Mutations.

INTRODUCTION

Evolutionists tell us that natural selection and mutations are the only possible means of cross-species changes.

"The process of mutations is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."—*T. Dobzhansky, in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.

"The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—*Colin Patterson [senior paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, London], The Listener.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

MUTATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE

They almost never occur.

"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more. Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.

"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations, in higher organisms, between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*Francisco J. Ayala,
"Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.

"Although mutations is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event."—F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.

MUTATIONS ARE NEARLY ALWAYS HARMFUL

Some assume that beneficial ones may occur, but they have never been found.

"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, as far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.

"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.

"One would expect that any interference, with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 37.

"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.

"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations to the viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the Species (1955), p. 73.

ONE MUTATION WOULD CAUSE GREAT DAMAGE

It would cripple or weaken the entire system.

"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky [a geneticist], Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.

"We could still be sure, on theoretical grounds, that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.

"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual.
"This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.

"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidently introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11 (1955), p. 331.

AN ORGANISM IS USELESS UNTIL IT HAS ALL ITS PARTS

So an occasional mutational disruption could accomplish nothing.

"In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of `survival of the fittest' would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 [quoting *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer" (1972)].

"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant. But this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as major ones, and occur more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.

"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biochemistry," Chapter 2, in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.

"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.

"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axes. To get a better watch, all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977) [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS - 1

Grey · Jun 26, 2013

Laserbreath said:

Then you don't know a thing about mutations, particularly if you think they're "birth defects". Mutations can occur at any time in a organisms life. And most mutations are NEUTRAL. Beneficial mutations are observable particularly amongst fast reproducing micro bacteria. New genetic material derives from replication mutations in existing genes that leave the original intact.

Grey · Jun 26, 2013

Pahu never ceases to use outdated sources and quote mines actively you've also left out that horizontal gene transfer also occurs.

Pahu · Jun 26, 2013

Grey said:

Transitional fossils are lacking
(Talk.Origins)

Response Article

This article (Transitional fossils are lacking (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CC200:

There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.

Source:

[*=left]Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
[*=left]Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.

CreationWiki response:

Note: Nowhere in Scientific Creationism does Morris say there are no transitional fossils. He recognized the existence of fossils that evolutionists call transitional but disagrees with the designation.

There are two main problems with the refutation of this claim. First, Talk.Origins quibbles about the meaning of the term "transitional" and thereby obscures the real issue. Second, it commits the error of assuming that transitional fossils between closely-related species are inconsistent with the creation model.

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

The problem here is the use of the word "transitional", the adjectival form of "transition"

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #ffffff"]

transition: Passage from one form, state, style, or place to another.

[*=left]Transitional fossil definition on the free online dictionary

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The use of the word "transitional" implies an ancestor / descendant relationship. If evolutionists do not mean it that way, then it is they that are redefining "transitional". Certainly when the average person hears the term "transitional form" they think ancestor / descendant, not simply a mosaic of different types. It also implies individual body parts in transition from one to the other. It seems that evolutionists are playing word games that make evolution theory seem stronger than it really is.

When the non-scientific layman hears that fossil B is "transitional between" A and C, he thinks it means A-B-C, but evolutionists may mean:
this:

this:

or any number of other possible combinations. Usually when a Creationist says there are no transitional fossils they are talking to layman in layman terms, not evolutionist technical terms.
While a field of study is free to define its internal terms as its practitioners see fit, when they use a common term in different way, they are obligated to distinguish between the technical and common uses of the term, but in this case it is seldom done.

The use of the word "transitional" is also loaded with evolutionary presupposition. A more appropriate term would be a "mosaic fossil".

If one assumes the common ancestor postulated evolution, then these mosaic fossils would show how different types are related even if they are out of sequence and/or not mosaic in other ways. However, when looked at from a more skeptical view point, they often do not show any clear evidence of an actual transition. Sometimes the data is complete enough to make a good case that the animals are indeed related, but at other times it is not.

However, evolution requires that one type of living thing evolved into another type, via intermediates that would be transitional (in the normal meaning of the word) between the two types, and we should expect to find evidence of these amongst the fossil record. By claiming that there are "transitional" forms, but that these are not "transitional" in the normal understanding of the word, Talk.Origins has tacitly admitted that there are no such fossils, just as creationists claim!

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years.

However these gaps tend to show up in patterns predicted by a creation model.

Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera,

Transitions between species and genera are to be expected, since the Biblical kind is most closely equivalent to family and even sometimes goes beyond it. In some cases these so-called transitional fossils are simply hybrids from interbreeding populations.

[continue]

Pahu · Jun 26, 2013

Transitional fossils are lacking [continued]

Transitional fossils are lacking

[continued]

and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

Since the Biblical kind sometimes goes beyond family, these are to be expected. The higher ones are filled out largely by fragments such as teeth. In some cases, mosaic fossils are placed in a gap, but there are usually good reasons to question the assumed relationships.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera: a. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

This statement is somewhat deceptive. First, the use of the term "human ancestors" shows how much evolution affects their views of these fossils. While it is hard to draw lines between the varieties of humans, there is a clear line between genus Homo (human) and genus Australopithecus. Evolutionists have blurred the line between the two by classifying as Homo some fossils that should belong to Australopithecus.

Most of the fossils used by evolutionists to make this claim are fragments or at best only reassembled skulls, both of which allow room for evolutionary presuppositions to influence the reconstructions. The only real area where the line between man and ape seems to be blurred is in brain size. This occurs because the extreme low end of human brain size overlaps there extreme upper end of ape brain size.

Furthermore, a 1994 study [1] of the Australopithian inner ear drew a clear line between its facultative bipedalism, knuckle-walking, and arboreal climbing; and the obligatory bipedalism of the humans called Homo erectus.

b The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior

Evolutionists do not have a clear reason for this trend but creation science does. If, instead of covering the 25 million years claimed by evolutionists, these animals lived shortly after the Flood, covering perhaps a few centuries at best, the change in morphology can be explained as a reaction to the availability of food. It is not unusual for an animal's appearance to be affected by the amount of available food. In the case of titanotheres, malnutrition could have stunted the growth of the animals and the production of their horn. As food became more available, the existing genetic potential to grow large and produce a large horn took over.

c. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus andOrbulina universa. O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species.

All this really shows is that Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa are varieties of the same kind of organism. The origin of spherical test is not a problem, even if it is truly a new feature. The spherical test is a less complex structure than the Globigerinoides shell and probably could have come from a degenerative duplicate copy of that gene. The other possibility is that the genetic information for the spherical test was present in earlier Globigerinoides but not switched on due to environment. In that case, the genes got past toOrbulina but may not have been passed to modern Globigerinoides. The intermediates would have resulted from a gradual environmental change.

d. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops. e. Planktonic forminifera. This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change. f. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event. g. Lake Turkana mollusc species. h. Cenozoic marine ostracodes). i. The Eocene primate genus Cantius. j. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change . k. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic.

None of these are the types of transitions that the original claim is referring to. From a creation science perspective these are just varieties within the same created kind.

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes: a. Human ancestry.Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking.

The Australopithian inner ear[2] was consistent with that of facultative bipedalism, knuckle-walking, and arboreal climbing of apes, and the bony ridge on the forearm is consistent with that. Rather than being in any way transitional, Australopithecus seems to still have walked like an ape. It was probably able to walk upright longer than most apes, but still seems to have been primarily a knuckle-walker.

b. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

They do not exist in objective reality. Yes, there are several bird / dinosaur mosaics, but there is no objective order.

c. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors. Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis.

Genesis 3:14 implies that snakes did originally have legs, and this is just evidence of that.

d. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards.

One hole in this is the fact the "oldest" mososaurs are "dated" to about 95 million years, while snakes are known to be older than that. Besides, only an evolutionist would see this as intermediate between snakes and lizards. Mososaurs were large marine reptiles that, while having jaws similar to those of a snake, also had a tail like a fish and teeth like a shark and crocodile. They are even described as looking like "a mixture of lizard, fish, and alligator", making it a classic mosaic. So one could just as well claim mososaurs are transitional between fish and lizards as a snake and a lizard. It all depends on what traits one decides to use.

Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

These are basically nonexistent, and none of them are truly transitional.

f. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

They only qualify as transitional if one assumes evolution to start with.

[*=left]Reference (Talk.Origins) There are gaps between fish-amphibian
[*=left]Reference (Talk.Origins) Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians

g. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees.

See: (Talk.Origins) Sirenians

In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced.

Even a casual comparison between Pezosiren portelli's skeleton and that of a manatee or sea cow shows the claim that Pezosiren portelli was a sirenian to be bogus. The skulls of both the sea cow and manatee have a similar morphology with a clear downward curve in the snout, while Pezosiren portelli has a strait snout. There are also significant differences in the shoulder blades. While there are similarities in the rib cage, there are difference as well. Furthermore, there are no transitional forms between Pezosiren portelli and true sirenian. As such, while Pezosiren portelliwas clearly a land animal the only connection with sirenian is in the imaginations of evolutionists.

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla: a. The Cambrian fossils Halkieraand Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia

These types of similarities don't even qualify as mosaics. Such similarities only constitute evidence of a relationship if one assumes evolution to start with. In creation science such similarities are evidence of a common designer.

Cambrian and Precambrain (sic) fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

Both Anomalocaris and Opabinia were arthropods that had a single lobopod trait. Such mosaic traits do occur even in organisms that are not considered by evolutionists to have a common ancestor with those traits.

An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes

This is quite vague. Most likely this echinoderm simply has traits in common with other deuterostomes, but without details there is no basis for an analysis.

[HR][/HR]

Evolutionists do claim these fossil are transitional based on their presupposition of Evolution, but their best examples simply have mosaic traits. These traits are not part one type and part the other, but fully one or the other. What evolutionists need is to have major actual traits objectively in transition, such as between:

[*=left]Fin and leg.
[*=left]Scale and Feather.
[*=left]Scale and Hair.

Or new parts in development such as fins, eyes, nervous systems, and skeletons These types of have not been found.

Since Evolutionists do claim to have transitional fossils, this claim should be updated to read "There are no real transitional fossils.

Transitional fossils are lacking (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Siberian_Khatru · Jun 26, 2013

Grey said:

Ya know, I think you may have mentioned that - a few times, actually.

Grey · Jun 26, 2013

Siberian_Khatru said:

Clearly he doesn't care about obscuring the truth.

Grey · Jun 26, 2013

When you say evolutionists are "redefining" transitional models, they do this tentatively, thats the what the letter you quoted was about in the first place.

Notice that skulls are hard to come by after thousands of years of decomposition, however we do have a significant amount of near intact skulls that back up the proto-humans that we know now.

The ear example is laughable because (you would know it you knew a few things on anatomy) the ear plays a MASSIVE role in balance in humans, so seeing the differences in ear types would certainly indicate if a species were able to balance on two legs or require hands on the ground for support.

There are dinosaur bird transitions, but your pseudo-scientific creation wiki simply declares them invalid with no counter evidence.

your genesis quote on legs, claiming that the talk origins example backed it up is false, considered that the example was a Marine snake.

Mosaic appears to be a new creationist redhearing, to defer attention away from a lack of counter evidence.

Many of the claims are just dismissals.

Your sources also use the word 'evolutionists' when they should use the vast majority of scientists.

basebool · Jun 26, 2013

Siberian_Khatru said:

Easy, its rejected by the scientific community

basebool · Jun 26, 2013

Pahu said:

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

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.

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?"]

Wow i thought i already went over why your arguement was wrong.

Now you admited there must have been an uncaused cause. Ok, we can just label that as the singularity as described in the big bang. Boom, god still isn't required.

Life can come from non-life an you can research it because abiogenesis had been proven.

Something coming from nothing can also be shown, so that blows your arguement.

Basically, you really don't have much other then a flawed arguement.

Siberian_Khatru · Jun 27, 2013

basebool said:

There is no community in science. It's every man for himself!

Shiloah · Jun 27, 2013

Grey said:

You know, Pahu makes incredible points, plus I couldn't care less what he might have copy/pasted. All I care about is if it makes good sense. Is that your only defense? Lasorbreath has also made some phenomenal points. I think it's super interesting that the main contesters on this thread haven't even taken any college science courses yet. I'm no scientist nor do I have a major in science, let alone any letters after my name, but I've taken college biology, anthropology, geology, and human physiology and anatomy, and as Lasorbreath pointed out, I've never heard a scientist yet say that evolution in the fullest sense of the word, as in both micro and macro is a fact. They used all those words Laserbreath used, all the probable, potential, theoretical, evidence (which does not mean proof), etc. But you totally disregard or apparently don't even read through what these people have to say. All you can do is say, "well that scientist isn't credible!" In who's opinion? Yours? Scientists always disagree with one another. There's scientists on all sides of the spectrum. You only consider credible those you agree with, and even then, you represent their theories as fact. The best you can do is say someone copy/pasted their post? Are we searching for truth or just striving to win our argument? The answer here is obvious.

Shiloah · Jun 27, 2013

Grey said:

Cough up the evidence that these are outdated sources in the sense that they are no longer true. Now, I don't mean to produce a quote from one or two scientists that disagree, because that means nothing. There's always scientists that disagree. Again, I'm talking proof that these things are no longer true. But again I say, if science changes so fast that within 25 to fifty years it's no longer applicable, obviously what's being said today will be outdated and hence, obsolete in 25 to 50 years. That kind of makes it not worth paying much attention to.

Grey · Jun 27, 2013

Shiloah said:

Remember the time I criticized someone for appealing the authority of the "scientific community"?
Is that my only defense? Have you read anything I've said? About the complexity of ears, mimicry, snakes with legs, anything? Scientific theories don't claim to be absolute certainty, and I've been bashing that point through the entire time. Perhaps you mistook me for basebool? Credibility is the last thing on my list take a look at my previous post, likely the first time you've looked at it considering you think all my points are, 'he isn't credible'.

"The ear example is laughable because (you would know it you knew a few things on anatomy) the ear plays a MASSIVE role in balance in humans, so seeing the differences in ear types would certainly indicate if a species were able to balance on two legs or require hands on the ground for support".

You keep using those words again micro-macro.

Grey · Jun 27, 2013

Shiloah said:

then why are you here

He's used quotes from the thirties on how theres no evidence for relation between species,
we have now gene mapped many species and see that there is relation, they didn't have the technology back then. If you want more read for yourself.

Shiloah · Jun 27, 2013

Grey said:

I've read absolutely everything you've said my dear. Because you say there is no difference between micro and macro means nothing to me. What my biology instructor who has a doctorate in biology taught me is what matters to me. I'm going to learn to skip posts of people I've come to the conclusion are not logical but purely agenda based.

Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu

Senior Member

Siberian_Khatru

Guest

Grey

Guest

Laserbreath

Guest

Pahu

Senior Member

Grey

Guest

Grey

Guest

Pahu

Senior Member

Pahu

Senior Member

Siberian_Khatru

Guest

Grey

Guest

Grey

Guest

basebool

Banned

basebool

Banned

Siberian_Khatru

Guest

Shiloah

Guest

Shiloah

Guest

Grey

Guest

Grey

Guest

Shiloah

Guest