It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by begoodbees
The Evolution Story
by Rod Smith
© 2003-2012 Rodney A. Smith
All rights reserved.
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.
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.
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
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.
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