It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Grandest Conspiracy Ever Known. The New Age Religion of the Unproven Speculation (theory) of Evo

page: 19
14
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


oh the missing link has been unveiled? heck I must have missed it...

it's not another piltdown man is it? please direct me to the link, the suspense is killing me. Something I read on ATS has to be true... it'll help me with my social issues because I have problems with blind faith, unlike evolutionist.


Again, which transitional state are you seeking? which "link"?
I listed some transitional discoveries...
This isn't guessing, this is discoveries. Is the map complete? not fully yet, but enough to be quite certain, now its just filling in the rest of the details...unlike religion, science doesn't claim to start off with all the answers...thats sort of the point..question, discover, hypothesis, reveal, reevaluate, etc..until its refined to such a point where the picture becomes clearer over time.

But again, which specific transitional state are you discussing? going from monkey to man has many stages in between..no, a chimp didn't pop out justin beiber one day...it took hundreds of thousands of years for the slow altering of species with many steps from ape to adam




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Here is an interesting little tidbit that I found.

Fact - DNA proves we (homo sapiens) are NOT descendants of apes, homo erectus or any other species on record - we are a completely different species that inexplicably came out of nowhere. There is however, evidence that we somehow share DNA with Neanderthal. The reason for this is because, well, we do.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION



1. The Fossil Record


If creation science is true, we should see evidence that the rock layers were deposited rapidly.


We would expect distinct kinds of fossilised creatures with no intermediate forms. We would also expect to see fewer kinds living today than in the fossil record because of extinctions.


If evolution theory is true, we should see that rock layers would have been laid down slowly over millions of years. And we should see ongoing transition from fossil invertebrates changing into fish, then into amphibians and on to reptiles, to birds and beasts.


The Evolutionary Recipe2

(Click to Enlarge)



There should be an increase in the numbers of different kinds of animals with time, as Darwin's 'evolutionary tree' branched out.

2. Human Population

If evolution is true then human reproduced in one million years, then the present population of Earth would be 10 with 2,100 zeros after it people on in the present. Compare that to the amount of electrons that can fit in the universe which is 10 with 130 zeros after it.

3. The Law of Biogenesis - The Law of Biogenesis states that every living thing has come from some other living thing, but evolution states that a cell came from nothing and evolved.

4. Rapid sedimentation is observed in the field and can be demonstrated in laboratory flumes.

5. No fossil links between forms have been found.

6. Living kinds are just like their fossils - they haven't evolved. Paleontologists call this stasis.

7. Fossil kinds are more numerous, and usually larger than their living counterparts.

8. To make fossils, creatures must be buried rapidly to avoid rotting or being scavenged.

9. Second Law of Thermodynamics - This law says that all systems in the universe tend to decay and become less ordered. This is the opposite of what would be expected if evolution occurred.
10. Tissue and cells from dinosaurs - still soft and stretchy - Blood cells and soft fibrous tissue from a dinosaur have been found. How could this tissue have been prese



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
F for Fossils

A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.

I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It's like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!

Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!

Another reference explains: "If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
A for Assumption

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.

If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.

In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
L for Life

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.

You've probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?

To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.

Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
S for Symbiosis

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.

A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?

Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


No, I mean the proven facts here which support the theory entirely. Unless you can dismiss them, do not bother responding. I remember you, and you are about as illogical as they come.
edit on 12-17-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
E for Engineering

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.

One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?

Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn't even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator's great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
E for Engineering

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.

One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?

Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn't even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator's great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.



LMAO that was an argument for evolution without you even knowing it.


One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us.


EXACTLY. Except the "engineer" is NATURE.
edit on 12-17-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
The Evolution Story
by Rod Smith
© 2003-2012 Rodney A. Smith
All rights reserved.
Site Map

I don't believe in evolution any more. I used to. When I was at Iowa State University, I was thoroughly indoctrinated in evolution. My zoology professor explained step by step how evolution occurred. For example, he said that the neck of a clam evolved into tube worms, which developed segments and evolved into earthworms, which sprouted legs and evolved into centipedes, which grew shorter and evolved into trilobites. What he did not mention is that this is all purely conjecture because no one has ever found a fossil that shows one kind of body part changing into another. He also did not mention that all of the different orders of animals, even chordates, suddenly appear in the Cambrian rocks with no evidence of how they evolved.

After college, I started studying the evidence from other sources. I discovered that the scientific evidence for evolution has been greatly exagerated and the scientific evidence against evolution has been largely ignored or even suppressed. It is easy to arrange life forms from the simplest to the most complex, but that does not prove that they are even related. I have continued to study the evidence and new discoveries for the last 35 years. When I look at all the evidence, I am convinced that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in creation.

Evolution teaches that all life evolved as the result of random genetic changes which resulted in incredibly complex and interdependent ecosystems. Random changes almost always result in disorder and disintegration. There are rare instances where random events produce order, such as in crystal formation, but DNA is far more complex than crystals and the information stored by DNA is far more complex than DNA. Can you believe that the complexities of life are the result of random mutations, especially when at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful? Actually, 99.959% in humans according to a recent computer search by a top geneticist who discovered 186 "beneficial mutations" compared to 453,732 harmful mutations. (See Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution? by Barney Maddox, M.D.)

Evolution claims that natural selection is the "organizer" that keeps the beneficial mutations and eliminates the harmful. But, how would natural selection recognize a beneficial mutation when a series of mutations are required to produce a beneficial change? For example, evolution teaches that two bones from reptiles' jaws joined one bone in their ears to evolve into the three bones in mammals' middle ears. These bones magnify sound so natural selection would select mammalian ears when they were fully functional, but what about the generations while these bones were evolving? How would reptiles eat when their jawbones were dislocating and migrating toward the ear? How would early mammals hear before the bones in their middle ears were properly connected? Natural selection most likely would have eliminated the transitional forms long before they had developed enough to have a hearing advantage. Likewise, a reptile whose front legs were evolving into wings would be crippled and easy prey until the wings were fully functional. The Archaeopteryx is often given as an example of a transitional form between flying reptiles and birds but it isn’t. Even though it had teeth and a tail like a reptile, this bird had fully formed feathers which are much more complex than frayed scales. There are no known fossils of transitional forms showing how new limbs or organs evolved. (See Should We Expect To Find Transitional Forms In The Fossil Record? Stalling over Transitional Forms by Frank Sherwin, M.A) Evolutionists used to list several vestigial organs in humans including the appendix and hypothalamus, which were thought to be useless organs left over from earlier stages of human evolution. This list disappeared as important functions were discovered for each organ on the list. The fossil record and currently living animals do not provide any examples of evolving organs or half-formed limbs.

Another way that the fossil record contradicts evolution is the Cambrian Explosion. The Pre-Cambrian rocks contain fossils of only bacteria, sponges, jellyfish, worms and colonies of green algae. The Cambrian rocks contain fossils of almost all of the different types of animals, including chordates which were the last to appear according to evolution. Twenty to thirtyfive completely new body plans suddenly appear in the fossil record with no transitional intermediates. So many new forms appear in such a relatively short time that random mutations or even punctuated equilibrium cannot acccount for all of the changes.

Another way that the fossil record contradicts evolution is that there are many instances where fossils are out of order in the layers of rock. It is possible to explain the fossils being out of order by claiming that the layers were shifted or inverted but that explanation is highly questionable. In order to explain the fossils being out of order in Europe, geologists have suggested that a mass of rock thick enough to contain an entire mountain somehow moved onto Europe from northern Africa. The movement of such a large mass of rock would certainly cause a lot of rubble but there is no sign of anything like that at the boundary between the rock layers. They fit tightly together.

There is another explanation for the order of the fossils in the fossil record which fits the facts just as well, or even better than evolution. Notice that the oldest fossils are bottom dwelling, stationary animals such as sponges followed by slow moving bottom dwellers such as molusks, worms and trilobites. Next are swimmers such as jellyfish and fish. Next are animals who live on the margin between land and water, amphibians followed by reptiles. The last fossils to appear in the fossil record are fast moving land animals such as mammals and birds.

Notice that one of the oldest mammal fossils, found in the Jurrasic period, is a beaver-like mammal that lived on the margin between land and water. Likewise, the second oldest fossil of a bird, found in the Cretaceous Period, is a loon-like bird which also lived on the margin between land and water. They were buried before most of the mammals and birds because they lived near sea level. Click on each picture to read each article.

According to this explanation, the fossil record simply shows the order in which animals would be buried if there was rapid sedimentation on a massive scale. Rapid sedimentation at the beginning of the Cambrian layers would also explain why so many fossils are suddenly found in these layers when very few fossils were formed before. This rapid sedimentation would be the expected result of a universal flood which is referred to in the writings and legends of many cultures all over the Earth. (See Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.)

There is another explanation for why the fossils are found in this order. During a Flood, many drowned animals would float on the surface until they became waterlooged and sank. A preliminary experiment with a limited number of floating animal carcasses showed that amphibians are the first to sink, followed by reptiles, mammals and birds. This is the sequence that animals are found in the geological column. (Coffin, Harold, 1983. Origin by Design. Review and Herald Publishing Association. Washington D.C. p. 81.)

Some geologists say that there could not have been a universal flood because there is no universal disconformity, that is, a break in the sequence of rock layers. It is true that there is no universal disconformity, but none is required, since the areas under water at the beginning of the flood would be in conformity with the sediments produced by the flood. While not a universal disconformity, the Cambrian rocks are distinctly different from the Pre-Cambrian Rocks, because they contain many times the number and kinds of fossils found in the Pre-Cambrian Rocks. The Cambrian explosion is easily explained as the first deposits of a universal flood which produced rapid burial and a dramatic increase in the number of fossils.

There is a large formation called Red Sandstone found throughout the British Isles which contains millions of fossilized fish. The fish are twisted which indicates that they were alive and still struggling when they were buried. Rapid burial would require a flood and no local flood could produce such a widespread layer.

There is other evidence that most rock layers were formed rapidly. The purity of so-called "evaporite" rocks indicates that they were not produced slowly as a shallow sea dried up but rapidly by a chemical reaction in a slurry of dissolved chemicals. A flood would also explain why sometimes fossils are found out of order. The gaps in the geologic column of rocks can be explained by currents that eroded the fresh sediments while they were still soft. The eroded deposits were then re-deposited on top of earlier deposits.

The rapid accumulation of soft sediments would also explain why some rock layers are tilted and folded. I took a photograph of several rock layers that were folded into a U about 15 feet across. I cannot imagine any amount of pressure and time that would be able to fold these rocks so tightly without breaking them if they were already hard. But they could have folded quickly and with comparatively little pressure if the rock layers were still soft. This is one of fourteen natural phenomena given as Evidence for a Young World by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

So, when I look at the world, the rock layers and the complexities of life, I see that the evidence for evolution is not strong as is generally believed and that there are many contradictions to evolution.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Indoctrinated in evolution
I was thoroughly indoctrinated in evolution when I was in college. I used to sneer at the idea of creation and pitied anyone who believed in it. I believed that creation was religion and evolution was science and I firmly chose science.


But I was not taught the religious basis for the widespread belief in evolution. Julian Huxley, a leading British evolutionist and grandson of Thomas Huxley, who was called the Bulldog of Evolution, stated that at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful, and it would take a large number of successive beneficial mutations for evolution to occur, so the probability of evolution was incredibly small. But he believed that it did happen because he thought the idea of a creator was impossible. That isn't a scientific statement but an incredible leap of faith. Julian Huxley also stated that evolution was widely accepted not because of scientific evidence, but because it freed mankind of their accountability to a creator for their moral choices.

I also was not taught the scientific evidence that contradicted evolution and supported creation until I read a book called Scientific Creationism by Dr. Henry Morris, whose Ph.D. is in hydraulic engineering. He presented a scientific comparison of two theories of origin: Evolution and Creation. Since origins are one-time events, they are outside the realm of empirical science. Experiments may indicate the probability that something happened in a particular way but that does not prove that it actually happened that way.

Since the two theories can't be proven by empirical science, they have to be evaluated according to the principles of theoretical science. A theory makes predictions about the real world. If the world operates as predicted, then the theory is validated. If the world is otherwise, then the theory has to be rejected or modified.

The primary evidence for evolution is comparative anatomy which predated Charles Darwin. It is obvious that the skeletons of different mammals as well as all vertebrates have many common features. This is also true of many facets of plants and animals right down to cellular biology and genes. Evolution claims that the explanation for this is that similar plants and animals are descended from a common ancestor.

However, there is another explanation for this. I used to live in a house that was practically identical to the house next door, but no one ever suggested that they were descended from a common ancestor. It was assumed that they were built by the same builder. This was confirmed by historical evidence when I spoke with the builder's daughter. Likewise, animals and plants are similar because they were all created by the same Creator. Similar structures were used for similar purposes and different structures were used for different purposes. So comparative anatomy supports both theories.

Organisms do adapt to their environment but that is also consistent with both theories. A wise creator would include flexibility in his creations so they can adapt to changing environments. The peppered moth in England changed from predominantly light to predominantly dark as the trees were darkened with soot. In recent years, the peppered moth has reverted back to predominantly light now that the air is cleaner. But this is micro-evolution or adaptation. It is not an example of macro-evolution, or "molecules to man."

Natural selection is also consistent with both theories except that according to evolution, improvements are selected and according to creation, harmful changes are eliminated by natural selection.

Regarding mutations, evolution would predict that they are beneficial since they are what makes evolution possible. Creation would predict that they are harmful since the original creatures were perfect so any change is harmful. Evolutionists admit that at least 99.9% of mutations are harmful so this contradicts evolution and supports creation.

Regarding variation, evolution would predict that there would be gradual variations producing a continuum of individuals while creation would predict distinct kinds of animals with distinct gaps between the kinds. The fact that plants and animals are readily classified into different genera tends to support creation. However, modern creationists do not insist that God created each species, since Darwin pretty well demolished that idea. God apparently created dog-kind with enough built-in variation to produce wolves, coyotes, dingoes and dogs. Darwin jumped to the conclusion that variation would lead to the apperance of new kinds of animals. But dog breeding has shown that there are limits to variation since highly inbred dog breeds suffer from genetic weaknesses.

The fossil record can be made to support evolution if the geological column is organized according to the fossils in the rocks but this is circular reasoning. There are very few locations where the entire geological column is found in order. There are many places where fossils are found out of order. The explanations for how they got out of order are highly questionable as I explained earlier. A massive flood would create the same general order for the fossils and also explain the places when the fossils are out of order as well as the gaps in the geological column.

Regarding the age of the earth, evolution would require a very old earth to allow time for evolution while creation doesn't require old or young. Old age for the earth was calculated based on accumulated rock layers assuming that each layer represented one year but when Mt. St. Helens erupted, geologists discovered that over 600 distinct layers of ash accumulated in one afternoon during the eruption and as the eruption column collapsed. (See Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.)

Old age has also been suggested by radioactive dating of rocks. This is also highly questionable. A lava flow in Hawaii was dated historically at 200 years but potassium-argon dating indicated that it was 2,000 years old. According to potassium- argon dating, the oldest rock at the Grand Canyon is a lava flow which flowed across the rim, dribbled down the side and puddled at the bottom of the canyon. Obviously, the lava flow is actually younger than the canyon but potassium-argon dating gives the false indication of great age for the lava flow. (See Excessively Old "Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.)

Of course, there are some objections to a young earth. One example is that we can see stars that are millions of light years away. However, the "Pioneer Anomaly" indicates that the speed of light is faster outside of the solar system so it did not take millions of years for the light to arrive here. This explains why the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecrafts appeared to slow down when they travelled well past the orbit of Pluto. It also accounts for the red shift of light from distant stars, so they are not actually moving rapidly away from the earth as is commonly thought. For a full explanation, see Creation Cosmologies Solve Spacecraft Mystery by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

One evidence for a young earth is the accumulation of space dust. Before the first moon landing there was concern because NASA calculated that as much as 120 feet of space dust would have accumulated on the moon over a few billion years. But the astronauts found rocks on the surface. This contradicts an old age for the earth and moon.

Another indication of a young earth is the accumulation of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Recent measurements in the upper atmosphere indicate that C-14 is still accumulating faster than it is decaying so the process has been continuing for less than the 30,000 years it would take for C-14 production and radioactive decay to reach equilibrium.

When the predictions of the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Creation are compared to the real world, Creation's predictions are found to be much more accurate than Evolution's predictions. Evolutionists have found ways to explain these contradictions but support for the theory is weakened because so many explanations are required.

When taken as a whole, the real world gives evidence that belief in a Creator is a reasonable faith and that belief in evolution is not as scientific as it claims. And, once you accept the possibility that the creation had an all powerful and wise Creator, then the creation story is not preposterous at all. In fact, it is quite uplifting to realize that mankind was God's final and greatest creation, since God put some of his own creative ability into mankind.

The final prediction of evolution is that humankind will eventually become extinct after we are succeeded by a superior animal or we make the earth uninhabitable. On the other hand, the final prediction of the creation story is found in the last chapter of the Bible. There will be a new heaven and a new earth. People will dwell together in peace in the presence of the Creator.
Conclusion

Natural Selection and Comparative Anatomy support Evolution and Creation equally well. The Geologic Column and Fossil Record support Creation better than Evolution. The evidence for an old Earth is questionable while there is clear evidence for a young Earth. Therefore, I stopped believing in Macro-evolution when I discovered the scientific evidencaqe for Creation.



Much of the evidence I have used for this article comes from Scientific Creationism by Dr. Henry Morris. There are many scientific articles which discuss the scientific evidence concerning evolution and creation at the websites of The Institute for Creation Research and also at The Creation Research Society



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


let's start with the one between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens... no trace of modern man (homo sapiens) can be found dating before 80 to 100 thousand years ago... then presto! magic happens.

Science can only conclude until evidence says otherwise, that homo sapiens did not exist until at least 100k years ago which is a scientific "evolutionary" impossibility.

conflicting? I'd say so...


edit on 17-12-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


Abiogenesis is not the same as the theory of Evolution,

The Theory of Evolution and Old Earth has zero implications on Biblical Theology, nor does it negate God in any way, shape, or form,

The Biblical Interpretations of a 17th Century Anglican Bishop are not the wisest interpretations to develop a world view that is at odds with the entire scientific community from,

I'd recommend looking into BioLogos, Dr. Hugh Ross reasons to believe Ministry, and the doctrinal views of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


My current belief is that either Adam and Eve were the very first hominids created, circa ~ 2 million years before Christ, or they may be the first Homo Sapiens created, circa ~100 thousand years before Christ, or they may be the first civilized / Spiritual Humans created, circa sometime between 40 - 10k years ago..... although my instinct tells me the first two options are the most likely....

And of course, Cain and Abel are not the direct descendents of Adam and Eve, they are royal descendents, the Geneaologys given in Genesis are not generational, they are King lists, I believe Cain and Abel lived sometime around 10 - 9,000 B.C., and I believe Enoch was sometime around 5,000 B.C. and the Local Mesopotamian flood of Noah occurred between 5,000 - 3,500 B.C. when the Lake Chad region was experiencing a particularly wet climate



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Fact - DNA proves we (homo sapiens) are NOT descendants of apes, homo erectus or any other species on record - we are a completely different species that inexplicably came out of nowhere.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


I would rather be a cheerful evolutionist than a hateful creationist. Because undoubtedly, if Creation were to be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, I would still despise it. I would abhor the truth, accept it, and abhor it some more.

But we really can't say, can we? We don't know for certain. And I think it's unfair to push that process any faster than it's already going. I think it's unfair to push the process at all. As with all gems, you must polish it carefully and with dedication, otherwise you cannot be certain you hold the pure, unadulterated truth.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox
I remember you, and you are about as illogical as they come.
edit on 12-17-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)


please do not bother replying to my comments if you do not want a response to your insults... afterall that is what your response is really all about isn't it? nothing much about higher learning or thinking for that matter.

the context we are speaking of evolution here is of "Mankind" there is no DNA evidence to support Darwins theory and your religion, you believe it blindly.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The idea that new species emerge in a slow and stuttering fashion was favored by Charles Darwin. But many biologists now favor the idea of clean breaks, with the "pure" lines of emerging species being stronger and fitter than hybrids and thus thriving while the hybrids perish. In fact, about 10 percent of animal species are capable of interbreeding with related species, even though the number that do so in any population is very small.

But just as science proves the impossible in nature, it also proves the possible in laboratory settings. If the human species emerged as a "humanzee" hybrid--and the science now shows us how to replicate that process in a laboratory--it begs the question: Will we do so again? Enriquez says yes.

As Charles Darwin spins is his grave.

www.usnews.com...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join