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: peter vlar
For someone to dismiss basic biology and favor a story book written in the 6tu century BCE is not only ignorant but arrogant and stuffed to the gills with cognitive dissonance.
A RELIGIOUS “FAITH”? A PHILOSOPHY?
EVOLUTION “IS ALSO BEING QUESTIONED BY REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS”
‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.
The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.
They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”—October 1980.
[Box on page 21]
THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS
“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10.
“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky.
“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin.
“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington.
“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.
“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson.
“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 407, Newman.
JEANNE LOUISE CALMENT died on August 4, 1997, in her hometown in southeast France. She was 122 years old!
Myth or Reliable Record?
According to a document published by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany, researchers validated the age of Madame Calment, mentioned earlier, through the gathering of some “simple verifiable statements” made by her. These had to do with her or her relatives at the time when certain events took place. What she said was then compared with civic, notarial, and church records, as well as with newspaper articles and population censuses. Interestingly, although it was impossible to confirm each and every detail, the direct and indirect evidence available made it possible to confirm the duration of her life.
What about the accounts in the Bible? Have they proved to be trustworthy? Absolutely! Although not all details have been confirmed by available secular sources, evidence has shown again and again that what is stated in the Bible is reliable from historical, scientific, and chronological standpoints.* That should come as no surprise, for the Bible itself states: “God tells the truth, even if everyone else is a liar.” (Romans 3:4, Contemporary English Version) Yes, being a book “inspired of God,” the Bible allows no room for fiction.—2 Timothy 3:16.
Moses, who was guided by Jehovah God to write the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible, must be ranked as one of the most influential and respected men in human history. Jews consider him the greatest among all their teachers. Muslims regard him as one of their greatest prophets. As for Christians, Moses is a forerunner of Jesus Christ. Would it be reasonable to conclude that the writings of such an important historical figure are not to be trusted?
Archaeology also comes into the picture, for it agrees with Bible statements about long-lived individuals. About the patriarch Abraham, the Bible says that he was from the city of Ur, that he later resided in the city of Haran and then in the region of Canaan, and that he fought and defeated Chedorlaomer, king of Elam. (Genesis 11:31; 12:5; 14:13-17) Discoveries have confirmed the existence of these places and people. Archaeology has also shed some light on features of the lands and customs of the peoples mentioned in connection with Abraham. Since these Bible statements about Abraham are accurate, why should there be questions about his age of 175 years?—Genesis 25:7.
There is, therefore, no reason to be skeptical about the Bible’s statements regarding the extraordinarily long lives of some people in ancient times. But you may ask yourself, ‘Why should it matter to me whether those people lived so long or not?’
You Can Live Longer Than You Think!
The outstanding longevity of those men living prior to the Flood proves that the human body has a remarkable potential for life. Modern technology has enabled scientists to take a closer look at the human body and its marvelous design, including its amazing capacity for regenerating and healing itself. Their conclusion? It is capable of living indefinitely. “[Aging],” says Professor of Medicine Tom Kirkwood, “remains one of the great mysteries of medical science.”
To Jehovah God, though, aging is neither a mystery nor a problem without a solution. He created the first man, Adam, perfect and purposed that humans should live forever. Sadly, Adam decided to turn his back on God. As a result, he fell into sin and became imperfect. Herein lies the explanation scientists have been looking for: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” (Romans 5:12) It is because of sin and imperfection that we get sick, grow old, and die. [whereislogic: and develop genetic defects over subsequent generations and as a result of persistent* inbreeding; *: I think even for the Hapsburgs it took a while before the first problems showed up, and they already started with a corrupted genome filled with hidden defects that hadn't surfaced yet in the form of "congenital deformities and severe cognitive issues".]
However, the purpose of our loving Creator has never changed. As a remarkable proof of that, he provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ, which opened the door to perfection and everlasting life. The Bible states: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22) People before the Flood were closer to perfection than we are, and that is why they lived longer—much longer—than we do at present. But today we are closer to the time when God’s promise will be fulfilled. Soon all traces of sin and imperfection will be gone, and people will not have to degenerate and die.—Isaiah 33:24; Titus 1:2.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic
With that said, your arguments are made to appeal to skepticism and incredulity rather than measuring any form of deliberate footprint...
Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”(1)
(1) How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”(2) * [*: Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”]
What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland *, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”(6) [*: Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.]
It takes tremendous credulity to think that intelligence of this magnitude resides in blind, brainless chance. It is a faith comparable to that of the pagan religionists of the prophet Isaiah’s time: “But you men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck and those filling up mixed wine for the god of Destiny.” (Isaiah 65:11) Evolutionists look to millions of “lucky” chances to produce man from rock, but they haven’t got off the ground to reach the first rung of their evolutionary ladder. Their “god of Good Luck” is a bruised reed.
Alice, in the tale Through the Looking-Glass, incredulous at the strange logic of the White Queen, could only laugh. “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.” The queen responded: “I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Evolutionists are the White Queens of today. They have had infinite practice in believing impossible things.
Belief in Evolution—An Act of “Faith”
Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” * Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”30 [*: “Materialism,” in this sense, refers to a theory that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process.]
In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”31
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
Long live the Great 'we don't know yet, but Nature and Chance did it anyway, somehow "not yet fully understood"'-god of the agnostic gaps and arguments from feigned ignorance (because Creation isn't allowed, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards, so we'll just feign ignorance regarding the argument of induction)....
Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?
What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must
- Be observable
- Be reproducible by controlled experiments
- Make accurate predictions
In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.” [*: By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.]
monkeys teach us nothing about humanity.
originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: whereislogic
On the contrary, it teaches that apes and humans share more than 99% of their genomes, which automatically makes apes at least 99% interesting in what concerns studying humans. ...
While the word “species” is used frequently in this section, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis. There we find the term “kind,” which is much broader in meaning. Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.
originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: whereislogic
I see... But are you aware humans have created new species in the lab? ...
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22
Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
22. Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.
Take viruses, for instance; are they life forms?
viruses are dependent on life forms to propagate themselves