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

page: 23
14
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


Oh God and now you are reverting back to an argument that has been soundly defeated. That's it I am finished with you.

scientific theory = educated guess, nothing more nothing less.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
reply to post by paradox
 


Weather vs climate. That is completely irrelevant. You want to call weather or climate an external force. by that logic nothing is natural and everything is an external force. You said it is all nature. I agree, it is all nature and therefore all internal, not external.


You said weather, not I.

Climate (or more broadly, ENVIRONMENT) is external by the very fact that it effects biological organisms. Otherwise, as we discussed earlier, fish would not lose their eyes when they are not needed. Or chameleons would not develop camouflage to blend into their surroundings. Or seals would not have the layers of fat needed to survive in frigid waters. Organisms adapt to their environment, and this way they are able to thrive through the processes of natural selection and beneficial mutations, while simultaneously losing function (and ultimately in the long run, losing all together) things no longer beneficial or needed for survival (vestigial organs discussed earlier.) It is a fact, no matter how much you close your eyes, stomp your feet, and plug your ears. No matter how many religious websites you try to quote to refute evolution. You can not dismiss the facts. Science, and our species will continue advancing with or without you. Your attempts are futile.

And yes, something is always external to something else. The sun, for example, is external to our planet. It is required for our survival, just as adaptations to specific environments are required for a species' survival. The galactic center is external to the sun, and it affects the sun's orbit around it. You can keep going, but something ALWAYS relies on something else. The bacteria in your body relies on YOU, (something external to itself) to survive. There is nothing inherently internal, and therefore your notion of "spontaneous evolution" is nonsense. It can not be spontaneous, by the very nature of physical reality.



I don't want to waste my life explaining the obvious to you or anyone else. That's all. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when all you seem interested in is mocking and arguing just for the sake of argument.


snip editby]edit on 12-18-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-12-2012 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
reply to post by begoodbees
 


Oh God and now you are reverting back to an argument that has been soundly defeated. That's it I am finished with you.

scientific theory = educated guess, nothing more nothing less.


Educated....by facts.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
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, 18 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
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, 18 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
-- There's a common mutation that yields better lipoprotein profiles and reduces the risk of coronary artery disease. (Galston et al; Z Gastroenterol 1996 Jun;34 Suppl 3:56-8)
-- There's a common mutation that enhances immune cell function in humans. (Virchow et al; FEBS Lett 1998 Oct 2;436(2):155-8)
-- There's a common mutation the lowers the risk of myocardial infarction by reducing the presence of one of the factors in the blood coagulation cascade. (Iacoviello et al; N Engl J Med 1998 Jan 8;338(2):79-85)


I could not locate the articles you mention here, granted I did not spend alot of time trying. I do have a question though. How did these people come to the conclusion that these are mutations? Could this not be a normal variance? People are all different, maybe the above mentioned conditions are prevalent and have just not been observed. It seems to me that evolution is being assumed (as is the norm) and any findings are just being applied to fit the model.

As for your statement that just as many mutations are good as bad, I have read and posted statements to the contrary.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
The talk origins website seems to be the root source of the misinformation campaign (at least on the web). So here is the truth of the matter in regards to talk origins from someone more knowledgeable than myself.

Talk.Origins:
Deception by Omission

Jorge A. Fernandez
© 2002 by Jorge A. Fernandez. All Rights Reserved.
INTRODUCTION
he Talk.Origins (TO) website (www.Talk.Origins.org...) is promoted, among other things, as an educational site, a place for obtaining information on evolution and answers to the numerous criticisms to this theory. Although TO states that it is a “forum for discussion”—presumably unbiased—much evidence testifies to the contrary. I’ve been observing the TO site from the sidelines for quite some time and have until now restrained myself from responding to the materialistic worldview that this organization pushes on the unsuspecting. It is particularly distressing to me to read the feedback letters from young people and watching those impressionable minds being manipulated through TO indoctrination.

To be fair, and to emphasize that this is not a witch-hunt, I must say that some of the volunteers at TO undoubtedly have good intentions and are sincere in their efforts. However, in this particular arena good intentions and sincerity are not enough (I’ll return to this point at the end of the article). The full, unbiased disclosure of truth is what is essential here and TO doesn’t even come close to providing it. In any event, this article is my first, albeit brief, critique of the Talk.Origins site and I herein intend to expose some of what TO doesn’t tell its readers.

I should begin by saying that almost immediately after deciding to write these words I was overcome with a sense of awe at the magnitude of the task—let me explain:

Talk.Origins is very hard to target—a fact that may be so by design. For example, if a person disagrees with TO on the ‘fact of evolution’, these people will employ a definition of evolution [“Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time”] that makes it impossible to disagree and, if one does argue, then that person comes across as being uninformed or irrational or fanatical. This might be acceptable if only it remained right there.

But it doesn’t! That statement about evolution (which happens to be accurate, i.e., genetic characteristics of populations do vary over time) is subsequently modified / extended throughout TO’s many articles and feedback responses so that not only is the person to accept the (empirically corroborated) fact of change, but also that this change is the sole causing agent for the diversity and complexity within an organism (internal organs, cellular structures, etc.) as well as outside of the organism including Earth’s entire flora and fauna. The metaphysical extrapolation of the data that is required to accomplish this feat is somehow missed by TO—either by ignorance or by design. What’s more, if we are to remain exclusively within the natural (material) realm then the term ‘evolution’ must somehow be further extended to include life from non-life, i.e., the emergence of life itself must also be accounted for by the ever-stretching definition of evolution.

There’s more. The origin of the basic materials that make up all objects (living or not) must also somehow be accounted for so yet other forms of evolution enter the scene—chemical, stellar and planetary. In fact, the universe itself must also be accounted for by evolution. Thus, whether they hypothesize a Big Bang, a quantum fluctuation, aliens from another dimension or some other natural explanation, the universe began and has ‘evolved’ to what it is today.

Few would argue with the notion that ‘things change.’ But to take the step from ‘things change’ to ‘and therefore, that’s how it all got here’ is a leap of blind, irrational faith that would send even the most fanatical snake worshipper reeling.

The bottom line to all this is that the fundamental concept of evolution is clearly a manifestation of a metaphysical—not a scientific—worldview and, just as with any other religion, the facts must continually be interpreted and adjusted to fit with this belief.
Essentially then, TO is a propaganda machine for philosophical naturalism using the more acceptable and palatable cover of methodological naturalism. Evolution theory is nothing but the scientific operational model to support this metaphysical position.

TO attempts to cover this point by stating that in their group they also have Christian and other religious evolutionists—people that believe in God, believe in a creation by a deity, but also believe in evolution (i.e., middle-grounders). TO employs this strategy to give its visitors a sense of universal appeal, i.e. that anyone, regardless of their beliefs, may subscribe to evolution. But again, exactly what evolution are they referring to? The one that says “things change” (this is science), or the one that says “that’s how everything came to be” (this transcends science and is philosophical naturalism—a metaphysical position)? TO uses the two interchangeably.

Yet, anyone who knows the score realizes that middle-grounders are at best marginally tolerated by ‘pure-blood’ naturalists—as these say, “the hypothesis of God is unnecessary!” Why, then, do the pure-bloods tolerate these naturalistic ‘misfits’? There are probably many answers to this question but two are worth briefly mentioning: ‘divide and conquer’ and ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ Thus, naturalists welcome whatever sows dissension among creationists and, therefore, anyone disagreeing with the fundamentalist Christian position in any way while accepting any part of the evolutionary doctrine is embraced by them (at least for now).

The focus of this article is on those deceptions invoked by the TO writers, which are mostly achieved by omissions, as is demonstrated in the illustrations below. It is often what the people at TO do not say that makes TO a propaganda/indoctrination site as opposed to an educational site.

The Talk.Origins FAQ page (www.Talk.Origins.org...) gives readers a shortened version of TO’s position. On February 13, 2002 this site had 24 questions, with brief answers and links to “relevant files.” My responses (R) to selected entries (Qs & As) taken verbatim from the TO FAQ page, reveal how the TO writers have selectively omitted essential facts in their efforts in order to lend credibility to the TO perspective:

JUST A THEORY?Q: “I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?”
A: “Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution—genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc.—is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.”
R: Clearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely “a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.” There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what TO leads its readers to believe here. The controversy exists because evolution—the full-fledged manifestation of evolution (including Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution)—is for many a metaphysical belief that elevates the philosophy of materialistic naturalism (hailing purely natural laws and processes, including time and chance, as our “creators”), and dismissing God (a Creator with purpose) as an irrelevant product of superstition.

After all, why is it that so many people are offended by the theory of evolution to the point of fiercely opposing it? Why is it that emotions run so high and intellectual battles persist? Because of ignorance? Hardly! Although there will always be uninformed people on both sides of any dispute, a great many well-educated people in science, mathematics and other disciplines are among those who disagree adamantly with the precepts of evolution. Evolution is offensive because it is bad science and is as equally bad a metaphysic—in short, on close examination, evolution fails on all counts. There is a controversy precisely because of clashing metaphysics—the same type of conflict that exists when Christian theology comes face-to-face with Islam, Buddhism, or even atheism, to name just a few popular counter-Christian belief systems.

Despite all of this, TO promotes the view that the creation-evolution controversy is a war of ‘religion versus science’—‘emotion versus reason.’ This view is held mostly out of ignorance, but there are undoubtedly those within the TO organization that understand the matter well enough to know better. However, TO does very little to educate its audience on the philosophical foundation of its position. This is deception by omission.

WHO ACCEPTS EVOLUTION?Q: “Don’t you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?”
A: “No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity.”
R: Two points here. First, TO wants to assure its visitors that “Christian and other faiths” are compatible with evolution. I would again say that all beliefs are compatible with evolution as long as evolution is confined to speaking about (observed) biological change. But as we all know (or should know), this is not the way that it is.

Evolution, as a manifestation of methodological naturalism (the operational version of philosophical naturalism), makes countless assertions into metaphysical areas with cosmological and biological origins representing just a few of these. TO makes no attempt to make known this subtle yet all-important aspect of what ‘accepting evolution’ comprehensively means. TO lures ‘people of all faiths’ into their camp with assurances of compatibility. Deception by omission.

The second point concerns the latter half of their answer: “...evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity.” Such a statement suggests the necessity of concessions, compromises, and ‘special’ interpretations of the Bible in order to satisfy the (naturalistic) theory of evolution as the explanation for biodiversity. After all, not doing so entails opposing the formidable and authoritative pronouncements of the “scientific establishment”—and who wants to do that? [Besides, exactly how would the average person go about challenging this “scientific establishment”?]

I ask, whatever happened to the answer that, “Biodiversity is part of God’s creation”? Specifically, if a person believes in God as the Creator of everything then this ‘everything’ includes the biodiversity that we observe. Of course, maybe in this arena ‘everything’ does not mean everything? Nowhere does the Bible even hint that a gelatinous substance was formed and that from this goo there emerged ‘simple life’ that diversified—over eons—into zebras, humans, and the rest of the biological community.

Quite to the contrary, concerning man’s origin, the Bible very clearly states that ‘from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female’ (Genesis 1:27; Mark 10:6). It bears pointing out that this foundational event in the biblical record defies any kind of evolutionary ‘interpretation’ that doesn’t compromise either evolutionary dogma, the credibility of the biblical record, or both. The Bible contains numerous other assertions that cannot be reasonably answered under the paradigm of evolution unless the Bible receives ‘special’ interpretation—the kind that denigrates the historical validity of the biblical record in order to accommodate popular contemporary beliefs. This then is the bottom line: the Bible has to be distorted in order to accommodate the edicts of evolution. TO never mentions any of this, preferring instead to shamelessly assert that evolution and Christianity are somehow ‘compatible.’

Besides, “...evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity” is nothing more than a tautology in the sense that it is the “scientific community” that dictates what is admissible and what is not. Is it any surprise that this same community embraces philosophical/methodological naturalism and frowns heavily upon anything that even remotely suggests anything other than material causes?

I can think of no better illustration of this than the case of intelligent design theory (ID). Leaving out numerous details, ID is having a difficult time being accepted into the scientific establishment as a bona fide scientific theory simply because it has metaphysical—in fact theistic—implications. After all, if the logical conclusion is that specified and complex design is present, then a designer is the only available option and the big ‘G’ immediately enters the realm of possibilities. Naturalists were quick to pick up on this rather obvious and, to them, highly unpalatable conclusion and as a result ID is being treated by many as if it were advocating the practice of human sacrifices.

The fact of the matter is that ID is as robust a scientific theory as one should reasonably expect, having all of the components—foundation, logical/mathematical formulation, explanatory/predictive power, etc.—that other widely accepted scientific theories have. For more details on this I recommend two sources: The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, 1998 by William Dembski and Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, InterVarsity Press, 1999 also by William Dembski.

To summarize this point, ID is not being scorned because it is bad science or illogical, but because it crosses the line that separates one metaphysical worldview from another. The “people in charge”, i.e., the naturalistic scientific establishment, are unwilling to allow that to happen—naturalism must be protected at all costs, from their point of view. Why doesn’t TO mention or elaborate on any of this to its readers? Deception by omission.

AN UNFALSIFIABLE TAUTOLOGY?Q: “Isn’t evolution just an unfalsifiable tautology?”
A: “No. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided.”
R: Evolution is largely an operational manifestation of a philosophically naturalistic foundation—to deny this is to be either uninformed or deceiving. There simply cannot be an area of scientific inquiry without some philosophical foundation for the obvious fact that science is conducted exclusively by humans (no aliens, please!) and all humans—whether they acknowledge it or not—subscribe to some philosophy regarding their internal being (consciousness) and their external world (the universe). For TO to state that philosophical criticisms are misguided is an act of willful ignorance at best and unmitigated deceit at worst.

As far as the ability to ‘falsify’ evolution consider the following:
Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick promotes ‘directed panspermia’ (i.e., ‘DNA originated somewhere ‘out in space’ and somehow made its way to Earth’), apparently having recognized the odds against a natural earthly cause for DNA.[1]
Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton, New York, 1986) assumes the number (1020 by his accounting) of theoretically possible planets that may exist in the universe in order to provide sufficient opportunities for the highly improbable event of life to occur naturally (i.e., without intelligent direction).
Barrow and Tipler (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press, 1986) go far beyond Dawkins in that they invoke entire universes (theoretical, of course) as the potential arenas for (natural) life to emerge.
Kauffman (The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, Oxford, 1993) takes a different route than Dawkins, Barrow and Tipler. Kauffman brings into the panorama a hypothetical set of laws by which life may emerge here on Earth solely through (only) natural process.

Now, some may choose to argue that these distinguished gentlemen are simply doing ‘science’—proposing theories to explain observations, among other things. However...

The term to remember here was ‘falsifiable’—and, to take just one example, we might ask ourselves how one goes about falsifying an infinite number of universes.

Here’s the point to all of this:
If we are allowed to propose essentially anything (aliens, parallel universes, 1020 planets, extra dimensions, time travel, etc., etc.) in order to uphold our theory then how will it ever be possible for that theory to be truly falsifiable? As clever and imaginative as we humans are, wouldn’t we be able to—don’t we—contrive just about anything that would allow us to retain the position or theory that we cherish?

Well, not always. All human cleverness and imagination could not save the phlogiston theory, the notion of blood humors, the geocentric model, and many other now defunct ideas. There is, however, one major difference where evolution is concerned—a difference that makes evolution impervious to that which toppled these aforementioned and now extinct ideas. That difference is the intimate and critical connection between evolution and philosophical naturalism—a metaphysical (i.e., religious) connection.

As the universally recognized and accepted authority on what is admissible as ‘scientifically valid’, the scientific establishment (anchored in naturalism) has constructed the rules so that evolution is the de facto answer. This matter may be expanded in many directions so I’ll end on this note: eliminate evolution and what are the remaining options? Naturalists know well that to eliminate evolution is to eliminate the single possibility for a natural explanation of the origin of life and of biodiversity. Therefore, evolution must be sustained even if this requires hypothesizing the preposterous or the unfalsifiable. The only other alternative, the supernatural, is simply not admissible.

One further example of this, not listed above, of how the establishment is committed to defending its position at all costs is the case regarding transitional fossils. The transitional fossil evidence is highly suspect and a great deal of controversy exists within and outside of scientific circles—certainly not what the evolution advocates (particularly Darwin himself) ever expected.

So what do the evolution advocates do? Is the validity of the theory even questioned? Never! Instead, ingenious mechanisms such as Goldschmidt’s ‘hopeful monsters’, the ‘emication’ idea of the Swedish botanist and geneticist Nils Heribert-Nilsson and the more palatable ‘punctuated equilibria’ of Gould and Eldredge were proposed—whatever it takes to lend credibility to a theory weakened by the empirical data. There is a fine line between scientific ‘ingenious mechanisms’ and metaphysical ‘sorcerer concoctions’ and it is a historical fact that even reputable men of science have crossed this line many times in order to support a paradigm. So once again I must point out that if naturalists essentially have a carte blanche in what they may propose to uphold their pet theory, in this case evolution, then it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for someone to falsify their position. Why doesn’t TO expound on this fact? Deception by omission.

HOW DO YOU KNOW IT’S TRUE?Q: “No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know it’s true?”
A: “Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true.”
R: Need I repeat it? Yes, if evolution is confined to saying that, “biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time” then TO’s conclusion of “it is true” is an accurate statement. However, it’s what TO doesn’t say that makes their answer deceiving, and this continuous deception makes TO an indoctrination site for advancing philosophical naturalism—buyers beware!

For the record, every informed creationist that I know of accepts changes, mutations, adaptations and even speciation—there is no dispute here. The real dispute is in the naturalists’ extrapolation from (observable) genetic ‘change’ to (unobservable) Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution to (unobservable) ‘cause for being’. Such an extension is no longer science, it is a metaphysical transfiguration. TO does not inform its readers of this, since to do so weakens the case for their apparent true objective: Deception by omission.

NEW SPECIES—THE REAL ISSUEQ: “Then why has no one ever seen a new species occur?”
A: “Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature.”
R: This is absolutely true [speciation as science defines it has been observed] but, as I have stated already, there is no dispute here. However, TO does not get to the core of the matter and leads its readers to the notion that the origins controversy is one of science versus religion—that creationists deny the fact of speciation and are thus “ignorant”. Why don’t they mention the critical point, namely that creationists do accept speciation—but the dispute is about the causing agent of speciation, biodiversity and, ultimately, biological origins? Why do they make false accusations against creationists, instead of facing the empirical roadblock to the arbitrary extrapolation of Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution from the variations observed in speciation? Deception by omission.

2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS—THE REAL ISSUEQ: “Doesn’t evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.”
A: “Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc.”
R: TO is here propagating one of the most odious of all myths in the creation-evolution controversy, this being that the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics is either invalid or has been amply refuted. This is simply not true.

The essential information that TO is either ignorant of (or is concealing from its readers) is that when snowflakes form they do so according to thermodynamic principles that produce patterns (i.e., symmetric crystalline structures) that are far from the asymmetric, far more complex structures required for life. What’s more, symmetric structures occur naturally because thermodynamic equilibrium is a natural state. On the other hand, life—any life—is actually a departure from thermodynamic equilibrium; a significant departure that requires large amounts of directed energy to be sustained, according to requirements defined in advance by every organism’s genetic code.

Similarly, the example of “trees grow and embryos develop” is again an oversimplification based on either ignorance on the part of TO, or a willful concealing of the whole truth from their readers. The point is not that organisms grow but how they are able to grow. The typical, shortsighted response is that “they are receiving energy from the sun—it is an open system and this energy provides the fuel for growth”. Recently, Harvard’s own Ernst Mayr served up precisely this “open system” explanation in his latest book, What Evolution Is [Basic Books, 2001, page 8]. True, energy is being supplied but the main point is being missed (intentionally?).

Let’s take a blow torch to a tree or an embryo, thereby supplying it with plenty of energy, and then let’s stand back and watch them grow. Of course, what’ll happen is they will be incinerated! Energy is not the key; energy reception, utilization and storage is the key. In other words, there must be a highly sophisticated and fully functional energy management system—a system that enables input, conversion, storage and output—if a tree is to grow or an embryo is to develop. This is the crux of the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics and not some easily discarded strawman. Why doesn’t TO present the real issue and respond to it? Deception by omission.

THE NON-EXISTENT ‘PRIMITIVE’Q: “The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.”
A: “And irrelevant. Scientists don’t claim that cells came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from primitive precursors.”
R: Let’s just focus on the ending words of their answer, “...from primitive precursors”. Evolution advocates have always believed that it was possible for nature to begin with “simple, primitive life” and evolve over eons towards ever-increasing complexity. This is, after all, a major postulate of evolution. There’s just one problem with this hypothesis and it’s a whopper of a problem!

As science and technology advance, what we are finding is that the notion of “simple, primitive life” is receding at an ever-quickening pace. It is now clear that the idea of a ‘simple gelatinous goo’ actually necessitates a level of complexity that cannot be explained naturally even letting the imagination run rampant. Likewise, the ‘simple’ cell has been found to be anything but ‘simple’. In fact, the cell is now understood to be of a complexity that eludes all scientific attempts to quantify it and the more we study it the more complexities are being unveiled.

These are just a few of the reasons why those that want to uphold evolution while retaining naturalism (their metaphysical position) have come up with aliens or with hypothetical natural mechanisms of self-organization or with other contrivances—it’s the only way to explain these vast directed complexities while keeping the big ‘G’ out!

Thus, when TO uses the words “...from primitive precursors,” why don’t they mention to their readers the fact that the concept of a primitive organism is a philosophical ideal for which there is not a single shred of empirical scientific evidence? Why don’t they mention that current scientific evidence leads to but one reasonable conclusion, namely, that the simplest conceivable organism must be anything but simple or primitive if it is to be capable of carrying out any of life’s functions. Is TO ignorant of these facts? I don’t believe they are. Deception by omission.

SIGNIFICANCE & RESPONSIBILITY

At the beginning of this article I had stated that “the full, unbiased disclosure of truth is what is essential here and TO is not even close to providing this”. Aside from the obvious fact that complete, unbiased information is always better than partial or distorted information, it is infinitely more so in this arena than in any other. Why?

Well, it’s because of the stakes. Clearly the majority of TO supporters belong to the atheist/agnostic/naturalist camp. Hence, to them there is no afterlife (certainly not one in the Christian sense) nor is there a personal God; a judgment by Jesus Christ; accountability to a Creator; heaven or hell. This belief is their choice and no one is denying their right to this choice. However...

To those that visit the TO site in search of answers—people that may be undecided and seeking unbiased information—to these people TO owes the courtesy of behaving in an informative capacity and not as an indoctrination site.

But it goes far beyond being just courteous or professional. It is morally irresponsible to misguide people through omission into any position that has eternal consequences—yes, eternal consequences. That last statement may sound religiously biased but is actually a logical result since, regardless of who is right or wrong in this matter, the ultimate end is of eternal consequences (whether an eternity in the grave, or an eternity in heaven or hell).

This, then, is my strongest criticism of TO. If TO is going to educate, then educate they should! To educate means to present all sides in truth and completeness and accuracy. Education is the antithesis of indoctrination. In this article I have presented but a small sample of the many cases where TO is guilty of being nowhere near complete, accurate or truthful. In some cases this may have been through their ignorance, and in other cases through deliberate intent—I’ll not pretend to know which of the two is the case.

One thing is clear, if intellectual integrity and ethics mean anything to the TO staff, then after this article I would expect to see one of two things—ideally it would be both:
A clearly stated disclaimer at their website indicating that their goal is about promoting the theory of evolution—to the point of demanding ‘special’ interpretations of the Bible—and, more generally, about promoting a naturalistic, materialistic view of the universe (a la Carl Sagan).
A truthful, accurate and complete presentation of views other than evolution or naturalism (e.g., intelligent design theory) alongside their own preferred views. If they are unclear as to what these other views are, then they should conduct a serious, scholarly inquiry and not simply post some incomplete or distorted version of what they believe the other side has to say on the matter.

I cannot see how Talk.Origins will be able to acquire a status of objectivity and truthfulness without adding at least one of these attributes to their site. As it stands, Talk.Origins is an affront to the ideal of intellectual integrity, scholarly pursuit and moral responsibility.
Jorge Fernandez
March, 2002


Reference

[1] Crick, Francis, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981) 192 pp.

pp. 51-52:
“If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be?
“This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20200 and is approximately equal to 10260, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros.
“Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense. The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.” [emphasis added]

p. 88:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. ...The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth’s surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.” [emphasis added]

edit on 19-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
"After all, why is it that so many people are offended by the theory of evolution to the point of fiercely opposing it? Why is it that emotions run so high and intellectual battles persist? Because of ignorance? Hardly! Although there will always be uninformed people on both sides of any dispute, a great many well-educated people in science, mathematics and other disciplines are among those who disagree adamantly with the precepts of evolution. Evolution is offensive because it is bad science and is as equally bad a metaphysic—in short, on close examination, evolution fails on all counts. "

You did not give the cause why so many people would be offended by the theory of evolution. You just say that it is bad science.

And this, exactly this way of displaying texts is the cause why so many people still believe more in religion than science. Because they read the first words, than jumped over the next more complicated words, landed mid-passage and read something about bad this and bad that.

Leaving the reasons out of discussion. As there were no real reasons and are no real reasons. Just a person writing in the good old style of the Jesuits, always NOT telling attackable sentences, but always telling generalized topics, leaving reasoning out of their texts.

There is nothing worth to discuss in that text, sorry.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


That is a quote, did you read the whole thing and dismiss it all and just choose that one part for some reason? I don't follow your logic.

So you are saying it is good science. Leaping to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence is always bad science. If it cannot be reproduced in experiment it is bad science. That has always bee rule 1. For some reason not when it comes to ToE however.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by begoodbees
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


That is a quote, did you read the whole thing and dismiss it all and just choose that one part for some reason? I don't follow your logic.


Strange. Is that not the very thing you have done for pages now?

hehehehohoh
edit on 12-19-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Hey sorry man, I think I was just taking all this stuff to seriously and letting things get to me. In response to your question, no that is not at all what I have been doing. People just have a tendency to make assumptions and then believe them whole hearted. That is the basic point I have been trying to express. I just had no idea how bad the problem really was. You might find my new thread interesting if you are really interested in the subject matter.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


You may also find this interesting, it is loosely related to the subject at hand but related none the less.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by begoodbees
 


I agree with pretty much everything you are saying. People want to believe in evolution so much that they see things that aren't real. Evolution should more likely be referred to as the theory of imagination. It's just so darned easy to get those kids to imagine how evolution could have happened that when we substitute the word did and we call it science than we have hardwired this into their reality.

So when broken into logic you are correct all of the examples point quite logically to simple adaptation. Science can call it what it wants but it is most certainly not Macro Evolution.

It is a least as plausible based on current science "FACTS" that the world is 6000 years old and was created along with the rest of the universe at that time.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
There is no darkness, only an absence of light, there is no coldness, only an absence of warmth. As long as we are full of light and warmth we need not fear. Evolution or creation or whatever unknown possibilities.
edit on 20-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 


If you accept one aspect of evolution (adaptation) why do you question others? If one element of the theory has enough evidence to garner support, by what logic do you think the rest does not? The entire theory is dependent on evidence, data, and experimentation. Every aspect, like adaptation, has been discovered through the exact same techniques. Either the entire theory is wrong (which requires disproving the theory), or it is the best-supported theory we currently have. The theory of evolution is not religion, you cannot take the parts you like, and ignore the rest. You must either accept the entire thing (as it is currently understood), or none of it.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


Two different things man, adaptation is programmed into the so called junk DNA. Evolution into a new more complex species is fantasy as far as I can tell. Check out my new thread and read what has been posted. Killuminati2 does a much better job than I ever could of explaining why non living material could never accidentally create a living cell. Also if you read the material I have posted I believe the case is laid out pretty clear. The "I used to believe in evolution" testimony (for lack of a better term) lays out the basic flaws in the theory that I have found, just in a more coherent way than my limited vocabulary and knowledge is able to express.

Granted I am biased. That is why I never attempted to prove creation, I just attempt to reveal the fundamental flaws and misrepresentations that I have found in the accepted theory. I hope that you will read it and give me your thoughts, as I am not a creationist nazi (so to speak) just a man seeking a realistic version of reality.

I repasted it below in case you do want to read it. The author does get into religion and creation but if you can look past that at just examine the fundamental arguments put forth you will get a somewhat relative perspective of how myself and others view the matter.
edit on 20-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 01:16 AM
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.



signature:
"If you cant explain it simply you dont understand it well enough." Albert Einstein.

begoodbees
Master of the Lost Ancient Art of Critical Thinking
Member



Registered: 9-12-2012
Location:
Mood: Suspicious
Member is on ATS now.


P 262 F 24 S 236
W 2 K 15
member


posted on 18-12-2012 @ 10:37 PM this post

Originally posted by begoodbees
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, 20 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by DaesDaemar
 


If you accept one aspect of evolution (adaptation) why do you question others? If one element of the theory has enough evidence to garner support, by what logic do you think the rest does not? The entire theory is dependent on evidence, data, and experimentation. Every aspect, like adaptation, has been discovered through the exact same techniques. Either the entire theory is wrong (which requires disproving the theory), or it is the best-supported theory we currently have. The theory of evolution is not religion, you cannot take the parts you like, and ignore the rest. You must either accept the entire thing (as it is currently understood), or none of it.

~ Wandering Scribe


In science that is exactly what you do, you take the parts that work and can be proven and disregard what cannot be proven or is otherwise disproven.

Also this guy here does a pretty good job of questioning the precursor to the ToE which is another accepted scientific doctrine (for lack of a better word) the big bang.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't just question evolution, I question the whole story that we are being fed about everything. I believe there is mass conspiracy and mass cover up to keep us in the dark ages so to speak. I see now that the way I presented myself at times was confrontational although that was not my intent. I just want the truth to be known whatever that truth may be. As Red Green would say, "I'm pullin for ya, were all in this together"
edit on 20-12-2012 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


My apologies, I just noticed that you were not replying to me. I hope you will read my responses anyway.





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
14
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join