Let's lay it out on the table--Creationism vs. Evolution. Two stories to describe one event that we have never witnessed nor will ever prove conclusively. Which story sounds better? Why? and/or why waste your time discussing it?
Silvia Brown!
by Vender Doov
Silvia Brown has produced more evidence for her bogus claims of being a psychic, than evolutionsts have produced for their bogus claims of evolution.
First it was Kent with Tax Fraud, and now it is Silvia being exposed as a fraud with her bogus visions, all over CNN. Maybe if they get together and have a kid, their family will add up to 6 legs!
You speak of 'claims'. Yet evolution doesn't 'claim' anything.
Evolution is a scientific explanation that best describes the data we presently have from geology, palaeontology, stratigraphy, genetics, taxonomy and biochemistry (to name just a few scientific disciplines).
Perhaps you could name a few scientific disciplines that Sylvia Brown bases her 'evidence' on?
You're living in a dream world. The only place where "populations and taxa" is happenig is with the government where they tax the population. If you think it is myth, then don't file your taxes for 2006 and pretend that it is all myth.
I can refuse to file my taxes for 2006 and I will get into trouble because it is fact and real. I can however, refuse to believe in evolution and nothing will happen because it is rooted in myth!
"I can however, refuse to believe in evolution and nothing will happen because it is rooted in myth!"
You can refuse to believe in anything you want, but that doesn't mean it's not valid. The theory of evolution is valid, evolution is a fact and whether a willfully ignorant bumpkin like you believes in it or not doesn't change a thing.
Um...so.....you believe that 'Taxa' refers to taxation, and that there is no such thing as a biological definition for 'population'?
TAXA:
"Plural of Taxon"
TAXON:
"A group or category, at any level, in a system for classifying plants or animals. Animal or plant group having natural relations.Pertaining to the groupings used in the classification of organisms. Taxonomy is the science devoted to the categorisation of organisms."
POPULATION:
"1. (Science: genetics) a stable group of randomly interbreeding individuals.
2. (Science: statistics) The set of objects or individuals from which a random sample is drawn.
3. Is a group of individuals of the same species living in the same area at the same time. Incidentily, it is the smallest biological unit that can evolve.
Origin: L. Populatio, from populus = people a group of organisms of the same species populating a given area; they hired hunters to keep down the deer population.The total number of organisms in a species or any other measurement of numbers considering biological taxon."
This is what I meant in my preceeding post Vender - that you need to rise above your knee-jerk, irrational hatred of science and actually LEARN about the topic you try to critique.
This does not mean being 'converted' to science or even evolution.
All it means is that you would be better able to cope with discussing the topic and not bring your religion into ridicule.
Now if you were trying to be 'sarcastic' or humorous then I'm afraid your attempt fell flat and leaves a negative impression on a reader of both yourself personally and of your religion.
I appeal to you Vender, to try to do more to educate yourself on this topic - or if you like you can email me and I would gladly help you?
With evolution being the "truth" with you self-proclaimed "truth/knowledge seekers" maybe evolution can do better! Maybe monkeys tails will begin to evolve into a 3rd hand! With only 3 more hands to go, you will get that 6 number you love to talk about so much!
Face it Demon38, I have now been telling you this for how many years? 2 now? That evolution is not real.
You're still spouting nonsense, you still don't know what evolutin is or how it works. Go back to fantasyland and leave the real world to the honest people.
VENDER:
"Maybe monkeys tails will begin to evolve into a 3rd hand!"
Some monkeys actually have what is called a "prehensile" tail.
This means, in effect, that the monkey can indeed use the tail like a "third hand" to grasp branches etc.
VENDER:
"With only 3 more hands to go, you will get that 6 number you love to talk about so much!"
Does this mean you still believe that there are no animals with 6 legs Vender?
For my fellow Christians - May you and yours have a blessed, happy and safe Christmas and a bountiful New Year.
For my Atheist bretheren - May you and yours have the same happy and safe holiday and New Year. May your love and understanding for each other grow with the passage of time.
For my other theist friends - May you spend the following month happily with your loved ones in peace and blessedness and grow closer to each other and your Deity.
To those I have engaged in bitter arguments with during the year: Vender Doov, Double Shalom, Mitten, Jonathan Zimmerman et al - I sincerely apologise for anything I have said which may have caused you offense. There is no excuse for such behaviour and I regret it.
I hope you and I can commence 2007 with a better understanding of each other and our differences.
Creationists like to find something that is unexplained, or our understanding is incomplete. One can of course find this in any field of study. In medicine many diseases are still unexplained as to their cause.
Abiogenesis is one of those that creationists like to mention. Although scientists who study the origin of life are not concluding there must be a god, they note that many pieces of the puzzle have been explained. There are working ideas on the origins of life. Some cell pathways probably existed as a form of metabolism and later became incorporated into cells. Cell membranes probably existed as "bubbles" initially without anything inside them. Momomers can form into polymers, which then can self-replicate themselves. Momomers could have come from outerspace as we know things like asteroids and comets have momomers in their structures.
The creationists strategy is simple. Find something that is not completely explained and then say "God did it".
But is this a good explanation? To say some intelligence "created" it through some unknown processes?
It really does not explain anything. It would be like "explaining" Alzheimers Disease by saying it was created somehow or "explaining" how the sun works by saying there is a "sun god".
Such an approach is counter-productive to the scientific processes. Imagine if 100 years ago scientists just explained everything as "creation". If it were not for the idea of investigation of things we did not understand through methodological naturalism we would have never discovered genes, medicines, electronics, etc.. Scientists simply were not satisfied that the sun is a "sun god" and started investigating it logically.
Such an approach is also not positive evidence of a creator. It is only evidence that something is still left unexplained, or at least partially explained. One would have to prove a god exists before we could even consider the possibility that this unexplained phenomenon is the result of creation.
Ever since man has first questioned his environment, he has tried to use supernatural explainations, Apollo rides his sun chariot across the sky, Thor causes thunder and lightning, God caused a world wide flood, demons cause sickness, and these supernatural explainations have never been right, not one. Creationism is one more example of primitive myths failing to explain the universe we live in.
Historically supernatural explanations have always been replaced by natural explanations. No longer is there a "lightning god" a "sun god" and now we know about the germ theory of disease.
With the tract record of methodoligical naturalism being successful no wonder scientists insist on using it!
Creationists simply dont understand science. If everything was explained and there were no more unknowns, science would have no need to further investigation. There would be no need for biomedical research if Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimers, Cancer had a cure and we knew exactly what caused it for example.
The only thing left would be teaching.
Since creationists cant even prove a god exists, the only option they have is to find something unexplained and then ask scientists to explain it.
When creationists ask "Dont you think the origin of life without a creator is impossible? Afterall they have been trying for over 50 years?". It reminds me of what Thomas Edison once said when asked before he had invented the light bulb. After about 2000 tries he was asked "dont you think you have proven a light bulb is impossible?"
No. He replied. I have shown 2000 ways how not to invent a light bulb.
The creationists strategy would be like concluding light is some supernatural phenomenon and is impossible for there to be a light bulb :)
And then what's worse is that we are still left with the question: what exactly is light? A Light God at least for me is not a very satisfying answer :)
Is creationism vs. evolution really even a fair comparison?
First off I'm assuming (and correct me if I'm wrong) Evolution speaks only of life on earth. It does not attempt to explain formation of the universe. Not so with the creationist, they see creation of life on earth being an extension of God's creation of the entire universe.
So when creationists talk creation it isn't just about lifeforms on earth, but the entire enchilada. Thus there have been scientists who have noted a few things that I would like the skeptic of creation to answer:
We have the right kind of sun. Do you know the odds of probability of this happening by chance? More than half the stars in our galaxy are double even triple stars and if the earth circled such a sun, moving closer and farther, temperatures would change drastically, making life impossible. If the Sun were much more massive it would burn its fuel more quickly and burn itself out so rapidly that simple life forms would have insufficient time to develop. What was the chance?
Most substances contract when cooled and so does water until it reaches 4 degrees C. But as water continues to cool to 0 C, it begins to expand as a result of extensive hydrogen bonding. Consequently, the colder water is less dense and rises to the top so that when it freezes ice forms at the surface and not at the bottom. The ice forms a protective layer at the top and enables the acquatic life to survive, which would be virtually impossible if a body of water froze from bottom up. If ice fromed from bottom up as the air temperature rose the thin layer of water that remained on the surface would evaporate! Repetition of this process over a long period of time would result in the entire evaporation and water would disappear. Why water?
The night sky is dark despite the presence of billions of stars has always been a source of amazement to astronomers such as Kepler and Halley. The theory is that the sky is dark only bc our expanding universe is still young and light from its most distant stars has not yet reached us. If it did (which would have happened if our universe was much older) we would have received so much radiation in addition to the visible light that life would not be possible. Obvious...how old is the universe?
The equality of proton and electron charges which make clear that if the charges were not equal an electromagnetic force rather than gravity would determine the structure of our universe. The electromagnetic force is much stronger than gravity and if the positive and negative charges were not equal strong discharges known as lightnining result. The universe as we know it, the stars, planets, galaxies, and the life that we know would not exist. Without gravity our universe might be an expanding shell of unformed matter of energy. How this exact equality?
Furthermore the idea that everything has to be "peer-reviewed" is simply saying that secular scientists must be willing to seriously consider an argument by IDT proponents. One scientist/mathemetician put it this way: "So long as methodological naturalism sets the ground rules for how the game of science is to be played, IDT has no chance in Hades"
Lovely. Now, please tell me what IDT is. What does it state, what predictions does it make, what is there that can be reviewed? Let me help you out. There is no theory of intelligent design. It doesn't exist. Some claim it's about information, some claim it's about irreducible complexity. I can't fine anyplace that it's been written down and formalized. What it basically comes down to is, "I want my god recognized and I want it to be scientific so I'll call my god a theory but I don't wish to submit to peer-review because I know I'd fail."
Peer-review is a useful tool of science. It prevents people from positioning half-assed work or belief as fact. If your results can't be duplicated you don't have science. That's what supernaturalism relies upon... that whatever miracle you're talking about won't be repeated unless a deity has a whim to do it twice. That's not able to be studied by science. Could be that's a limitation. Could be there's nothing to study.
Now, if you can show a way that non-methodological supernaturalism can be studied, I'd be willing to give it a go. If your god were to interact with this universe it would be dripping in physics. Energy just doesn't appear, it has to come from someplace. Pop all those fishes into existence and they have to have come from someplace. Their molecules had to come from someplace. The energy that constitutes their molecules had to come from someplace. The energy to move the air molecules out of the way when they coallesced had to come from someplace. Energy can't be added to the universe without leaving footprints as it would violate the basic laws of the universe.
You can wonder about those laws all you wish but you seem pretty silly questioning them when in the same breath you allow that they can be violated on a whim with no evidence that such a thing ever happened.
it just happened by accident. No goal, no purpose. That is an extremely unintelligent argument considering the intrinsic order of every organism. And with no goal, purpose just happened as a byproduct?
Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Let's put this in terms of reality...You are not arguing against intelligent design Phred, your arguing against any design. And that is actually what the big bang theorist says...no design the right set of circumstances came together and created the most complex order of life.
The argument of symmetry is my argument, not yours. The fact that everything is so ordered points to design not chance. If it was left to chance, then protons and electorns may have not had that balance!
Your argument basically says, because everything is here the way it is there was no chance involved, and we are proof of that!
Does not everything that has perfect order and laws have some type of design? Please point to me one thing in the man-made world that has order, laws, and purpose that was not designed. That is the proof of the theory. Anything man has ever done has been by design, and chaos has designed nothing with order, laws and purpose.
that's exactly right. No goal, no purpose. And I'm not arguing against design. Natural selection is the designer. It's a very controlled, orderly, specific process. My argument says that there is no need of a complex, complicated designer. You don't get complex things first squeak, they come about from simpler things.
And your view of the universe is ... semiblind. The universe is not a nice place for human beings. We die in moments in space, radiation from the sun would kill us almost as quickly. We'd die on a mountain top or under the ocean (which is 75% of the earth's surface). We'd die at both poles and at the equator if we stand under the sun without shelter. Our skin burns under the sun that we can't live without. If you're going to design a planet for humans, a much better version could have been put in place. The man-made world isn't applicable. Please, show me one thing that has "perfect order". Lotsa luck.
Examples: Clouds, mountainops, and lightening bolts....
Is this your example from chaos? Seems to me that it is circular reasoning saying that nature begets nature. I would say it is nature following specific designs. Tell me what hurricanes create a city? What bang have you witnessed that designed something? What chaos caused these things? Bc the example you have given just takes us back to the original argument. Circular reasoning, I want something outside the box, something verifiable.
Perfect order- maybe perfect shouldn't be the adjective since perfect is in the eyes of the beholder. However all the things you listed as uninhabitable or undesirable about earth also has a purpose in providing support for lifeforms! So while you might not be able to live on the south or north poles, could they be done away with? How well would the the rest of the planet function without any of those things? Isn't that what the global warmers keep telling us? Can't live on 'em, can't live without 'em!
Dying a moment in space doesn't apply unless you address design. Because of this little prevention called gravity that keeps life glued to its livable areas, man wouldn't even know of its inhabital areas without design. Man had to design specific vehicles to take him to every area you describe as unfit for life, and then they also had to design a way to go there and be able to survive the journey...even mountain tops. So you can't even talk about those places unless you include DESIGN!
So man cannot even talk intelligently about the universe without the designs that they have made to explore it. Yet, those same men want to exclaim that design has nothing to do with any of it. I'd like them to try to explain the origins without acknowledging design....it is simply impossible.
And while you may not be able to point to perfect order, you certainly can point to reliable order. Order that functions with purpose and functions perfectly so often that it causes chaos when it does not function. In that I would point to any number of creations: Tesla's radio and alternating currents, Bell's telephone system, and the internet. None of these happened from total chance and chaos. Even Bell's design only lacked one component, and was not a total accident from utter chaos.
These are just a few of man's best designs, they are highly ordered and they have a purpose, but more importantly they didn't happen without a designer. Man didn't give purpose for the universe, the universe is purposeful because it supports man (and all life). Man didn't have the ability to give it that purpose.
You can't prove a damned thing about your so-called god. It's what you believe... that's fine, but stop trying to pretend it's something that it's not. Do I deny your god exists. Yes, I do. Do I think your Bible is anything other than a collection of myths, yes. That's exactly what I think it is. Am I against your religion... yes, I'm against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with being ignorant.
Upset now, Pepper? Grow up and get over yourself! You aren't the superior intellectual that you desperately want everyone to think you are, and you can't stand it that it is proven to you time and time again. Just like with Migel.
Of course life didn't form by accident, it formed because of the chemical reactions. And please explain this "intrinsic order of every organism", sounds like nothing more than superstitious hooey.
Richard Dawkins also said:"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that."
Science and biology give us an explaination of why living things give the appearance of purposeful design but really aren't (at least, not a by an intelligent designer).
Unintelligent design is a much better explaination for what we see in the natural world and it's the only explaination that has any evidence. Intelligent design is a fairytale.
Evolution doesn't work by chance, that's a crucial failing on your part, you don't understand how the theory of evolution works. And I still haven't seen any evidence of this supposed divine order you claim exists. It's been pointed out time and time again, if God designed the life we see on earth, he's a moron.
"Does not everything that has perfect order and laws have some type of design?"
No. And what is "perfect order"?
"Please point to me one thing in the man-made world that has order, laws, and purpose that was not designed."
Stupid question, everything that is man made is designed. We're talking about the natural world, there is nothing to suggest that it was designed since we can observe the unintelligent forces that have formed it. Absolutely no evidence for God and absolutely no need for god.
"Anything man has ever done has been by design, and chaos has designed nothing with order, laws and purpose. "
Again, it's obvious that everything man has made has been designed, in other words, everything man made is man made, cirular creationist reasoning at it's very finest! As for chaos, quantum fluctuations happen, order from nothing, you are proven wrong.
Be honest with yourself - are you really saying that if you hadn't been introduced to a creationist/literalist form of religion based on a "revealed text", you would have formed the same opinions as you've written here, on a "designed" universe, that is simply by analysing these data?
Come on, who are you kidding?
You are starting from a particular religious stand point - which simply requires faith - and then you gather whatever "evidence" you can to support that faith-based opinion. If what you were engaged in was in any way scientific, you would be asking "what are the mechanisms by which the world is as it is?" - or even "what are the mechanisms by which God made and makes the world is as it is? - "not just stating "...err well God did it!"
Science tries to understand the mechanisms, the processes of the world. To do that you have to have an open mind - to the possibility that whatever you come up with MIGHT BE WRONG.
As soon as you put your faith in a revealed text and claim it as the unassailable truth - you are lost.
I would refer you to "The Blind watchmaker" by Professor Richard Dawkins.
NAtural Selection is part of the natural mechanism that can "create" "design". No need for a designer.
Besides have you ever been to a doctor? Ever hear of things like cancer, diabetes, genetic defects, arthritis? The human body is far from intelligently designed. Too many defects. Just spend a weekend in a childrens cancer ward at a hospital, and if that does not change your mind that things are so well designed, then nothing will.
The anthropoic principle contains another flaw, and that is since life evolved in this environment we would expect it to be well adapted to it. Your argument is like saying that since we have snowflakes in Antartica there must have been a designer who "created" an environment specifically to keep them around. You know raise the temperature above 32 Degrees F and snowflakes all melt away :)
Perhaps if we changed those constants around ever so slightly we wind up with life that is silicon based, rather then carbon based. Then we would all be arguing that the environment was "designed" ever so perfectly for us silicon based organisms therefore there must be a designer :)
Come check out this new website devoted to men who are dealing with the frustrations of separation and divorce.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/536072/
Share your story, offer advice, bitch and complain.
Archaeopteryx and other evidence for Dinosaur to Bird evolution
by Miguel
Archaeopteryx is the most well known transitional fossil between major clades - in this case between reptiles & birds.
It has a whole suite of both reptilian and avian morphological features - exactly what Darwin and Huxley predicted would be found in a (then) hypothetical link between reptiles & birds.
However for nearly 150 years Archaeopteryx has been the ONLY such link between these two major clades and has been attacked on numerous occassions. It is regularly attacked by creationists who claim it is only a bird (because it has feathers) and in total denial of the reptilian and dinosaurian morphologies present in the fossils. In addition, Archaeopteryx was also dubbed a fraud by two physicists in the 1980s - Fred Hoyle st al. Of course their ultimate failure to prove their thesis rested mainly upon their ignorance of basic comparative anatomy and palaeontology - to whit, they got it wrong because they didn't have the requisite knowledge.
However Archaeopteryx no longer needs to carry the burden of evidence alone. Since the 1980's dozens of fossils of feathered dinosaurs and allied species have come to light - mostly from China - and have now turned the majority of the palaeontological world to accepting the evolutionary link between birds and theropod dinosaurs.
I am wondering if any creationists out there can give detailed SCIENTIFIC arguments as to why they believe otherwise?
You can use theological arguments if you wish - but that won't help you prove your case.
Well you have to understand what a theory is in the first place.
In science a hypothesis graduates to a theory when the idea has been tested and verified. Other examples include the Germ THEORY of Disease, the THEORY that matter is composed of atoms, and the THEORY of gravity.
Also, Im surprised as a Rev. that you still question evolution. Many religious denominations long ago accepted evolution. Even the Pope John Paul II once said "the evidence is in favor of evolution".
Im an atheist but it seems to me that if God is all powerful then he can do anything. Surely, it is not impossible for god to have created a universe where he knew evolution would happen. Are you saying this is impossible for god?
If I were a Rev. I would look at science as a way of investigating Gods Work. Not as a threat or as an attack on religion.
I also think that as a Rev. you have a responsibility. People in your congregation look up to you!!
By teaching them to fear evolution, rather then looking at it as part of Gods Work, you set up a situation that can only lead to animosity.
We could have long ago ALL accepted evolution, and we would not have this animosity. You could then spend your time concentrating on more important matters, such as your personal relationship with God.
Nobody cares anymore that the earth is not flat. It is no longer an issue, and yet it was at one time. People believed the Bible teaches the earth is flat, and if it is round then this is an attack on religion and the Bible.
I know Im wasting my time. But if the Pope can accept evolution, surely this at least shows there are religious people who see no problem with evolution.
You create an area of conflict that is sadly not even necessary.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, a contemplation or speculation
and no 1: a coherent group of general PROPOSITIONS used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
scientific -a theory in technical use is a more Or LESS verified or established EXPLANATION accounting for known facts or Phenomena
so it may be their explanation of what they believe to be true, but by no means does it mean it is true, just their best EXPLANTION
It is also interesting to note that even evolutionists such as Francis Hitching have been forced to admit that the so-called "theory of evolution" has failed three crucial areas where it can be tested, and they are:
1. The fossil record, which Hitching states reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change.
2. Genes - Hitching also pointed out that genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving.
3. Mutations - Hitching also stated that mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.
Hitching further observed that evolution fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all, such as how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things. As a result, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith! (The Neck of The Giraffe)
With all due respect Rev., Francis Hitching is a TV script writer. He has no formal scientific training. On page 12 of his book (p 4 in paperback) he even stated "evolution of life over long periods of time is a fact". He questions the mechanism of gradual Darwinian change. His book (Neck of the Giraffe) was also published back in the early 1980's, when scientists were questioning whether evolution is always slow and gradual, but now it is generally accepted that the rates of evolution can vary.
Hitching has made claims that he is endorsed by Richard Dawkins and the late Stephan J Gould from Harvard, but neither is true. He also claimed in his book to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute and this is also false.
Evolution has NOT been tested and verified. It is presented as an established fact to the gullible, but it is by no means a fact. God created life via special creation, not by means of the false teaching of evolution. The fossil record itself shows the SUDDEN appearance of complex life forms, and evolutionists, knowing that this fact of the fossil record is a death blow to evolution have attempted to explain it away to no avail
MACK:
"Evolution has NOT been tested and verified."
Well actually it HAS, though I don't expect you will take my word for it.
Not only has evolution been tested and observed first hand in the laboratory in insects and bacteria, but it has also been observed and recorded in the wild amongst (to name just a few) reptiles, mammals, insects, birds, and amphibians.
MACK:
"It is presented as an established fact to the gullible, but it is by no means a fact."
So by your statement I guess the guillible to you includes scientific and medical researchers in a whole suite of sciences like genetics, medicine, taxonomy, biology, zoology, botany, geology, palaeontology and petrology?
MACK:
"God created life via special creation, not by means of the false teaching of evolution."
Well here you confuse a scientific theory with a theological dogma - a dogma by the way, that is by no means accepted by even the majority of christians.
In fact you limit God by stating that He could not have created organisms via evolution.
Just as God can create using other natural processes running the gamut from stellar evolution, planetary accretion, gravity, geology, plate tectonics, sedimentation, erosion etc. so too can He create using the natural and observed process of evolution.
MACK:
"The fossil record itself shows the SUDDEN appearance of complex life forms..."
Sudden how?
Give an example of organisms and explain how 'suddenly' (i.e. - what space of time) they appeared.
MACK:
"...and evolutionists, knowing that this fact of the fossil record is a death blow to evolution have attempted to explain it away to no avail."
Hehehe - death blow?
LOL
Sorry Mack, but evolution continues to be the principle UNIFYING scientific paradigm not only in biology but medicine, geology and molecular genetics.
I guess you're calling an evolutionist who made the statement a liar, then! And it has NOT been observed as you falsely claim. what you claim as observations of evolution have actually been mutations, and as everyone knows, mutations are seldom beneficial. Sorry to disappoint you on that. And yes, only the gullible would buy into evolution, but since the alternative is God and special creation, I understand why enemies of God would do everything they can to deny His existence and fabricate a philosophy of life evolving from non-life then mysteriously transforming from one life form into another. I have to admit, your system takes a heck of a lot more faith to belive in that it does to believe God created! It is interesting to note that evolutionist Loren Eiseley made this comment: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past" (The Immense Journey, p. 199) His statement still holds true today, for evolution is a myth - philosophy and far from being established fact! Another evolutionist by the name of Edmund Samuel, in his book Order: In Life, p. 120, made this conclusion: "The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life. No final analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution."
Creation -- Not Evolution
The theory of evolution is that all forms of life derived by gradual modification from earlier and simpler forms or from one rudimentary form. It teaches a process in which something complex is developed by itself from a simple beginning. It accepts the existence of the cause or causes of the first substance and the force or forces working successive transformations from lower to higher forms of matter and life.
The theory of cosmic evolution claims that from lower units of matter (atoms and molecules) the vast material suns, moons, stars, planets, and universes were formed by themselves. That of organic evolution teaches that the vegetable and animal kingdoms evolved from lower forms of life to what they are today.
The Foolishness of Evolution:
Evolutionists do not deny the first cause. Their theory begins with matter or substance already in existence. They believe in primitive nebulosity and powers possessed by molecules. They do not try to account for how these came to exist, how molecules got their inherent powers, or how there came to be definite laws governing them so that they could produce, without failure, all things as we now have them. Their theory does not show why there is such bitter hatred against the God of the Bible as being the First Cause. It does not consider proven facts, but has absolute faith in a mere supposition which no fact has ever proven. Its teachers seemingly deny God, the Bible, and known facts and continue to rob thousands of simple faith in God and the Bible without a sting of conscience. They do multiplied drawings of different kinds of human beings rising from a molecule through a monkey to the present man, and add guess upon guess of how life was in each stage of evolution, refusing to accept the Biblical truth of the origin of all things. They glibly deny God and His work in creation and at the same time pose as having the only truth on the subject.
Huxley said that "the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation .... Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe in the Bible." Darwin taught that the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Spencer said that evolution was purely mechanical and anti-supernatural. Earnest Haeckel said evolution "entirely excludes the supernatural process, every pre-arranged and conscious act of a personal character. Nothing will make the full meaning of the theory of descent clearer than calling it the non-miraculous theory of creation."
Thus, the evolution-theory leaders are clear that no true evolutionist can believe the Bible. There is no place for God in evolution, hence, no need for a belief in sin or a Savior, heaven or hell. Those in the church who try to harmonize evolution with the Bible rule God out in spite of themselves. Not one branch of organic evolution has been proven, much less the main theory. It is a bankrupt, speculative philosophy -- not a scientific fact.
True Science Rejects:
1. The theory that hair is but elongated scales of prehistoric animals
2. That the legs of all animals developed from warts on aboriginal amphibians
3. That eyes are but an accidental development of freckles on blind amphibians that responded to the sun
4. That ears came about by the air waves calling to spots on early reptiles
5. The theory of natural selection
6. The notion that man came from monkeys
7. That the vast universes came from a few molecules
8. That nothing working on nothing by nothing, through nothing, for nothing begat everything
Twelve Fallacies of Evolution:
1. It accepts pagan philosophers in preference to God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, and Christians. Hindu and Greek philosophers invented such a theory. Aristotle taught an internal spontaneity, which is what modern evolutionists call resident forces or impersonal eternal energy.
2. It nullifies the Biblical truth of creation by God. Blind force is substituted for the creative power of the personal and living God (Gen. 1:1,20-28; 2:7-22; 5:1-2; 9:6; Jn. 1:1-4; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:1-3).
3. It degrades man from being created in the image of God to having monkeys for ancestors. See Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7; 5:1-2.
4. It degrades God's image to a mere beast. See Gen. 1:26-28; 9:6; Jas. 3:9.
5. It makes Christ, the second and last Adam, nothing more than a mere beast. See Gen. 1:26-28; 1Cor. 15:45.
6. It does away with the fall of man, for how can a mere beast who has evolved steadily from a molecule to an intelligent being go backward and have a fall? See Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12-21.
7. It does away with Biblical miracles and the supernatural in all its forms. The only miracle of evolution is the inherent force of molecules. See Heb. 2:1-4.
8. It does away with the virgin birth, making it impossible and unnecessary, and makes Christ a product of evolution in the same sense that it does all other human beings. See Isa. 7:14; 9:6-7; Mt. 1:18-25.
9. It denies the physical resurrection of Christ which is contrary to the evolutionary process of resident forces making progress.
10. It denies the atonement, because, according to evolution there was no fall of man and therefore no sin requiring atonement. Regeneration by outside power is the direct opposite of the resident powers, the only power accepted by evolution.
11. It denies the second coming of Christ and the final restoration and preservation of all things by the personal acts of God.
12. It does away with the authority of the Bible as a real revelation from a personal and living God, making it a lie -- not only regarding creation but every other doctrine as well. See 2Tim. 3:16.
To argue that the Christian can accept evolution on the grounds that the Bible is not to be taken literally, is a surrender to the foes of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, and all Christian teachings. The theory therefore is anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Bible, anti-Christian, and anti-intelligence.
A Christian Must Believe:
1. That The Bible IS the Word of God, not that it merely CONTAINS the Word of God (2Tim. 3:16; Heb. 4:12; 2Pet. 1:16-21).
2. That God created all material and spiritual substance out of which He personally formed the worlds and each creature therein (Gen. 1:1; 2:7, 19; Ps. 8:1-9; 102:25; Jn. 1:3-4; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 4:11).
3. That God created man in His own image and likeness in one day, fully mature and highly intelligent -- not that he descended from molecules through the lower forms of life to monkey and man (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7,19; 9:6; Acts 17:26; 1Cor. 11:7-9; Jas. 3:9).
4. That all angels and spirit beings were created by God fully mature and intelligent (Ps. 104:4; Ezek. 28:15; Col. 1:15-18; Rev. 4:11).
5. That God created man, animals, fish, fowl, and plants to reproduce themselves after their own kind (Gen. 1:20-31; 2:5-7,19-25).
6. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God in a sense that no other man is -- the only begotten of the Father -- not a Son of God in the sense that all human beings are (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 7:14; 9:6-7; Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:34-35; Jn. 1:18; 3:16; Php. 2:5-11; 1Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:1-3,8; Rev. 1:8-11).
7. That the Holy Spirit is a person, separate and distinct from both the Father and the Son. All three persons have their own personal body, soul, and spirit and make the Divine Trinity (1Jn. 5:7; see The Trinity.
8. That the birth of Christ was supernatural, not natural as that of all other men. He was born of a virgin and by the Holy Spirit, without a human father (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 7:14; 9:6-7; Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:34-35; Jn. 1:1-14; 3:16-18; 1Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:1-3).
9. That the death of Christ was expiatory, not exemplary. He died for all human beings. His blood is the only atonement for sin and by His stripes we are healed (Isa. 53; Mt. 1:21; 8:17; 26:28; Jn. 3:16; Acts 4:12; Rom. 8:3; 1Cor. 1:18-24; 5:7; Heb. 1:3; 2:9-18; 9:11-28; 10:5-29; 1Pet. 2:24; 1Jn. 2:1-2; Rev. 1:5; 5:8-10).
10. That Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, not spiritually. He is alive forevermore in His earthly, resurrected flesh-and-bone body and represents people before God as their High Priest and Savior (Lk. 24:39; Jn. 10:17-18; Acts 1:3,11; 2:22-34; 4:10-12; Rom. 1:4; 8:11; 1Cor. 15; 1Th. 4:13-16; Php. 3:20-21; Rev. 1:18; Zech. 13:6).
11. That Jesus Christ ascended into glory bodily and will come again in like manner to rule the world eternally, putting down all rebellion and restoring man's dominion and God's kingdom as before the fall (Lk. 24:50-52; Acts 1:11; 1Cor. 15:24-28; 2Th. 1:7-10; Jude 1:14; Rev. 19:11-21; Zech. 14).
12. That man is not an unfortunate victim of his environment, but a sinner fallen from original righteousness -- a high, intelligent and responsible place as head of the present creation. Apart from God's redemption grace is lost (Gen. 3; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 3:23-25; 5:12-21; Heb. 1:1-3; 7:25; 9:22; 1Jn. 1:9; 2:1-2; Rev. 1:5; 5:8-10; 20:11-15).
13. That man is justified by faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, resulting in a supernatural regeneration from above (Mt. 1:21; 18:3; Jn. 3:1-8,16; Rom. 5:1; 2Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:8-9; Col. 1:14,20; Tit. 3:5; 1Pet. 1:18-23). He is not justified by works or self-effort and the natural development from within.
14. That man, animals, and plant-life have degenerated and are under a curse. Man chooses to continue in sin, sickness, and the sufferings of the earth. Only through redemption in Christ will the whole creation be restored to original perfection and goodness (Gen. 3; 6:5-22; Rom. 5:12-21; 8:17-24; 1Cor. 15:24- 28; 2Pet. 3:7-13; Rev. 21:1 -- Rev. 22:5). No single species has evolved from a lower to a higher plane of life.
15. That all people who accept Christ and conform to God's plan for man will be saved and resurrected from the dead to immortality to help God administer the affairs of the universe forever (Jn. 3:16; Jn. 5:28-29; Rom. 8:17-24; 1Cor. 6:2; 15:1-54; 2Tim. 2:12; Rev. 1:6; 2:26-27; 5:10; 11:15; 22:4-5).
16. That all people who reject Christ and do not conform to God's plan will pay the eternal death penalty for sin, being resurrected to immortality and punished eternally in the lake of fire (Mk. 16:15-16; Jn. 3:16-20; 5:28-29; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:11-15; 21:8; 22:15). See Hell in Where Are the Dead?
Any denial of God or His plan for man in Scripture makes Him a liar, and damns the soul. If some through ignorance of the Bible think they can believe in evolution and the Bible at the same time, they are highly deceived by Satan, the deceiver of the world (2Cor. 4:3-4; 11:14-15; Rev. 12:9). One cannot know the statements of both the Bible and evolutionists and believe both, nor can he be neutral. He must take a stand either for God and the Bible or for evolution and guesses.
Fifteen Facts Disproving Evolution:
1. The Bible in its entirety condemns the theories of both cosmic and organic evolution. It declares in no uncertain terms that God created all material and moral creations, animate and inanimate things, and that He is the first and last cause of all existing universes and the things therein. The Bible states that God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 8:1-9; 19:1-7; 102:25-27; Isa. 45:18). He created great whales and every living creature (Gen. 1:21), and made man in His own image (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7,19-25; 5:1-2; 9:6). "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (Jn. 1:3). God created all things by Jesus Christ (Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:15-18) who upholds "all things by the word of His power" (Heb. 1:3). God created all things for His pleasure (Rev. 4:11).
2. It is a law of nature that nothing reproduces anything greater than itself. If this is true of all species today, of which we have millions of examples, then it was true originally. The vast creations of matter and life had to come into existence by a superior power, not an inferior force. Intelligence couldn't have come from any number of unintelligent molecules. The most that has ever been done is the demonstration of the law of improvement of a species through breeding and cultivation. No new species has been or can be produced by such a law. Left alone, plants and animals degenerate rather than improve, as seen in point 8 below. Therefore we must conclude that no amount of unintelligent matter could produce intelligent beings, or anything higher than itself. Innumerable, intelligent, self-producing creatures -- each with its own consistent traits and infinite combinations of chemicals -- could never be the product of unintelligent matter. Each one of the millions of creatures that reproduce their own kind, fixed and eternal laws must be the work of an all-powerful and all-wise Creator.
3. The Bible declares (ten times in Gen. 1) that everything created by God was given power to reproduce its own kind. Nothing could break this law and produce any other kind (Gen. 1:20-28). This law remained unbroken 1656 years later when Noah gathered creatures into the ark (Gen. 7:14). Now, after more than 6,000 years the law of reproduction is still unbroken. The sponge is still a sponge and hasn't become an oyster, octopus, turtle, frog, fish, or crab. None of these have ever reproduced anything except their own kind. No lowly earthworm has ever turned into a spider, scorpion, lizard, tortoise, snake, or crocodile. No bug, bird, or animal has ever changed from its own kind or reproduced another kind which was fertile. The crossing of an ass and a mare, for instance, will produce a mule which cannot reproduce itself. No monkey has ever produced a man; the missing link is still missing and always will be.
All this is quite remarkable in view of the fact that there are over 2,000,000 different species of plant and animal life. Each species proves the law of reproduction established by God -- after his own kind. There are more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Species of beetles number 250,000; butterflies and moths number 110,000; shellfish number 80,000; snails number 80,000; arachnids number 60,000; flies number 40,000; barnacles, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp number 25,000; fish numer 20,000; bees number 10,000; wasps number 10,000; worms number 9,000; ants number 5,000; birds number 1,200; and cockroaches number 1,000. There are also many species of larger animals, and over 180,000 species of plants. Species of fungi number 100,000; algae number 20,000; mosses number 20,000; corals number 5,000; and sponges number 3,000, besides many other species of living things.
All species exist in great variety, and the so-called proofs of evolutionists are merely variations or minor changes within the same species. Out of billions of fossils and living organisms, there isn't the slightest evidence of evolution, only of development and normal growth. Improvement of a species and new varieties within the species are not evolution. The theory of evolution teaches transmutation, a change in nature, substance, form, and alteration of essence by a slow and gradual mutation from one species to another, and from the lower to the higher. This has never been done, nor can it be done. In nature we find endless variety within each species, but no change from one species to another. Without a change of species there can be no evolution. God has made life so that it interbreeds in closely related variations; when interbreeding is attempted between different kinds of species there is a gulf which cannot be crossed.
Life multiplies abundantly. One bacterium in twenty-four hours can produce 281,500,000,000,000 descendants. A fly can lay 500 eggs in a season, each of which can develop into a fly capable of laying 500 eggs of its own. If all eggs hatched and survived the original fly would have enough descendants in six months to cover the earth with flies, to a depth of about 50 feet. A common potato bug is capable of producing 60,000 offspring in a season; a single sunfish lays 30,000,000 eggs a season; an oyster produces 100,000,000 eggs; a codfish produces 10,000,000 eggs; a toad produces 20,000 eggs; spiders have 2,000 babies in one cocoon; a loggerhead turtle lays 1,000 eggs at a time; and a pair of meadow mice could produce 1,000,000 offspring in a year. An elm tree produces 1,584,000,000 seeds and a barley seed 18,000 grains. But out of the billions of yearly reproductions of nature, not one monkey's tail has been produced by anything except a monkey. There is no proof of man in various stages from a molecule to a monkey, or from a monkey to a man!
4. There can be no evolution without the power of reproduction in living things. Since reproduction is a prior condition for evolution, it cannot be a product of it. Hence, we face the logical necessity for the creation of life and its power of continued reproduction. The power of reproduction is not in the embryo, but only in the mature parent. An egg cannot produce an egg. Neither can an egg improve by itself. Improvement can come only in and through the mature form. Therefore, the parent-form of life must have been created in the beginning to have produced an egg from which offspring alone can come.
5. Science has proven that dead matter cannot generate life; life can only come from pre-existing life. When test tubes were filled with organic matter and hermetically sealed with all germs destroyed, not one vestige of life appeared. The attempt to get the living out of the dead completely failed. The theory of spontaneous generation has been given up. Life can only come from life. All life is dependent upon other life -- the lower upon the higher; the simple upon the complex; the powerless upon the powerful; the impersonal upon the personal; the unintelligent upon the intelligent; the nonexisting upon the existing; the natural upon the spiritual; the temporary upon the eternal. Nothing can come from nothing or be produced by nothing.
6. The argument of evolution from embryology -- that embryos of different forms of life are somewhat alike so they must have come from a common ancestor -- has utterly failed, as have the theories of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. The similarity of embryos and their fast development to full growth are contrary to the principles of the evolutionary hypothesis. The chief foundation of evolution is that of a slow and tedious process over millions of years -- a time frame required because no example of evolution from one species to another can be cited. Both human and other embryos pass through various stages of growth very rapidly. In some cases growth is miraculously rapid. Thus, evolutionists are forced to believe in miracles (which they deny in other fields but sustain in their own) in the effort to prove their claims. There are also radical differences between the embryos of vertebrates (backboned animals) and invertebrates (animals without backbones) which wouldn't exist if all things had a common ancestry.
If a botanist were asked the difference between an oak, a palm tree, and a lichen, he would declare that they are separated by the broadest line of classification. But if the germs of these plants were placed before him to choose one from the other, he could not do it. Under the most powerful microscope they would yield no clue. If analyzed by the chemist they would still keep their secret. The same is true of the germ of various animals and man. No one can tell which is which. What makes the little speck grow in the millions of different creatures? What is there which the eye can't see that determines which of the many creatures it shall be? Only a personal, infinite and intelligent Being could make such unfailing laws of reproduction -- each after his kind.
7. It is further argued that man and monkey are so similar that both must have a common ancestor. This is neither sound logic nor sound science. Resemblance proves nothing but resemblance. Resemblance runs throughout nature in things that have no connection with each other. Similarity on some points is to be expected, and only magnifies the fact of an intelligent operator. This is true whether it is the Creator or a manufacturer in a factory. Wagons and cars both have wheels, but such similarity doesn't prove that the wagon evolved into an automobile.
Animals and human beings all have the same kind of faculties to breathe, eat food, and perform other bodily functions, but such similarity doesn't prove close relationship. God created them so that they could all breathe the same air and live on similar foods. The dissimilarities between man and lower animals -- not only in body, but also in brain, spirit and soul faculties -- prove they are not vitally related. The differences between man and monkey are so great that any single physical part is sufficient in itself as to whether it came from a man or a monkey. Evolutionists themselves confirm this fact by their promptness in deciding whether a bone is from a monkey or a man. There are hundreds of differences between the bodies of human beings and apes, and thousands of mental, moral, spiritual, and habitual differences between them which make evolution from ape to man impossible.
8. The similarities between man and lower animals could be used to prove a process of degeneration from man more than a process of evolution to man. The Bible teaches that God made man before land animals -- on day six. Therefore, man came first and then the monkey (Gen. 2:7,19-25). Darwin's argument that plants and animals have tendencies within themselves to vary of their own accord in all directions to an unlimited degree has been disproven many times. Mendel's experiments prove conclusively that plants and animals, even under man's selective skill in breeding, do not tend to vary in all directions to an unlimited degree. On the contrary, the variations are within strict limits and work according to fixed laws producing unvarying results. The theory of natural selection and the inheritance of acquired characters has failed proof. The forms of vegetables, plants, and animals that man succeeds in improving by human selection and cultivation revert rapidly to type as soon as man's directing skill is removed. In all man's selection and cultivation he can work only within the limits of the species. No change into new species has been produced either by natural or artificial selection. The iron law of sterility stands guard at the far frontiers of the species and everything continues to reproduce after its kind.
There is a certain potency of development implanted in all things, but such potential powers are led out into actual development or improvement only through outside intervention and intelligent help -- not through resident forces, as evolution teaches. Man can develop the wild rose into the American Beauty or the wild pony into the Kentucky thoroughbred by selection, better environment, breeding, etc., but it is most significant that these improvements do not continue to increase or even persist when these are left to themselves. The rose reverts to a wild rose if left alone, and the horse begins to degenerate once man's skill is omitted.
If a flock of highly developed pigeons, with their variety of colors and markings, are turned loose, all will eventually revert to common colors and markings. Improvements brought about by care and selection in breeding will be gone, proving that the law of evolution a failure.
The same thing will happen to man. If he neglects himself, he will revert to a lower type of man -- like those who have been discovered on desert islands or in jungles. If the mind is neglected it will degenerate into imbecility and ignorance. Solitary confinement has the power to unmake men's minds and leave them idiots. Likewise, if the conscience is neglected it will run off into lawlessness and sin. The neglected soul will go into ruin and depravity.
Only three possibilities are before us: balance, improvement (but only to a certain degree), or degeneration. These possibilities face every person. Though having a desire to better himself, man gravitates constantly to sin, and the law of death works in his very being. The same is true in nature. Plants and animals are kept alive by a temporary endowment which gives power over the elements that cause death. Withdraw the elements of life and the true nature will be revealed. Life is merely the suspension of these destructive powers -- the sum total of the functions that resist death. Spiritual life is the same -- the sum total of the functions that resist sin. If we neglect the use of these powers death will result. A man falling 500 feet is as good as dead the first foot of the fall. So it is with the man who does not properly use the powers to live. One who continues to neglect life is dead. If we neglect, degeneration sets in. If we use the powers of life to resist sin, we live. The Biblical question is valid: How shall we escape, if we neglect ... ?" (Heb. 2:3).
To use the argument that savages are more like monkeys than civilized men is not proof of evolution but of degeneration. Man fell from original sinlessness and the highest degree of intelligence to the present status. Adam intelligence the day he was created was so vast that he could actually name all things (Gen. 2:19).
Degeneration explains the presently uncivilized parts of the world, and the so-called cave men -- the Peking man, the Heidelberg man, the Neanderthal man, the Cro-Magnon man, and others. All the problems between true science and the Bible can be resolved by the facts of degeneration, or with the Biblical truth of a pre-Adamite world. Belief in the pre-Adamite system allows for the earth to be millions of years old. Prehistoric animals would have been a part of that system, as well as any different type of man, if such were ever excluded from Adam's race by established proof. See The Pre-Adamite World.
9. Fossil remains have been given as one of the strongest proofs of evolution. Evolutionists themselves, however, acknowledge that this proof is extremely fragmentary and limited because of so few fossil remains, forcing them to guess without proof. The missing links between man and monkey have never been found. The manufactured bones of prehistoric men are fakes. The Piltdown man, for example, wasn't a man at all. In a gravel pit in Sussex, England, near Piltdown Common, two or three bits of a skull bone, a piece of jawbone, and a tooth were found by different persons in different places in different years. From these few scrapes scientists constructed the Piltdown man and named it the Dawn-man of the dateless past. From the same bones a later type was made by another team of scientists. Finally it was acknowledged that the jawbone and tooth did not belong to the skull, but were those of a chimpanzee. The Java man was built in Java from a skull bone, leg bone, two molars, and plaster-of-Paris. The Heidelberg man was built in Germany from a jawbone which was unquestionably human. The Peking man of China was made from human skull fragments found in a cave in 1929. The Swanscombe man of England was made from the back and one side of a woman's skull. The Fontechevade man of France was made from a part of a skull. The first Neanderthal man was made from a skull cap in Germany, which one great German pathologist declared to be the cranium of an idiot. The Australopithecus Africanus man of Africa was made from an ape skull found with a number of other ape skulls and bones in Africa. And the Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii, the Nebraska man, was made from a single pig tooth said to be one million years old. Pictures of these man-made specimens have been the so-called proof shown in school textbooks. Such hoaxes are being passed upon innocent children by some educators in the name of science!
10. The geological scheme to prove evolution has also been repudiated. Instead of older rocks being found at the bottom and younger rocks at the top (as would be the case if evolution were true), it is often the opposite. This kills the evolutionary theory of the natural building up of the strata.
11. The fact of two universal floods (one in Lucifer's day and one in Noah's day) and a later division of the earth can easily explain the fossil remains being where they are. In Lucifer's flood God turned the earth upside down by earthquakes (Gen. 1:2, notes). This accounts for fossil remains being found deep in the earth underneath many layers of solid rock. Such things would never have been there without the earthquakes and judgment of God.
It is evident that many fossils came from a great catastrophe, being entombed in the strata instead of being slowly buried by sedimentation over millions of years. Whole schools of fish covering large fields have been found with every indication of a violent and sudden death. They were not in a relaxed position but often with their head twisted around to their tails and every fin extended -- the position a fish dies in when overtaken by an enemy or some catastrophe. Science indicates that the earth has undergone a great and indescribable catastrophe. This happened either at Lucifer's flood or when the earth was divided into continents. That the earth was divided in the days of Peleg is clear from Gen. 10:25. Such a shaking of the entire earth, as well as the flood of Lucifer's time, could have caused fossils to become deeply submerged.
The Arctic regions give clear evidence of a sudden calamity. In their extensive fields of fossilized and frozen mammoths, where multitudes of giant creatures have been found, some were discovered with their stomachs full of undigested food, and some with their mouths full as well. This proves they were feeding quietly when the crisis came and were suddenly destroyed. That the Arctic regions had tropical climate when these beasts were destroyed seems true, for they had tropical food in their mouths. Evidently they were frozen immediately when God withheld the sun from shining during Lucifer's flood (Gen. 1:2; Isa. 14:12-14; Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:11-17; Ps. 104:6-9; 2Pet. 3:5-7).
12. Regarding Noah's flood, God commanded the male and female of every species to be kept alive in the ark to replenish the earth when the flood was over (Gen. 6:18-22; 7:2-16). Had the evolutionists been right, this would have been unnecessary. Noah could merely have saved a couple of molecules, turned them loose after the flood, and eventually we could have innumerable living things again in all their varieties.
13. If evolution is responsible for all the vast creations in space and the endless varieties of life on the innumerable planets, why then is the law not working today? And why do we not have actual and unquestionable examples of the various stages of evolution from the lowest to the highest forms of life? If evolution ever worked, it should be working today so that every form or stage of development could be seen as proof that the lower forms of life will eventually be the higher in the ages to come. Is it not strange that the process has been at a standstill for the period man has been on earth to observe evolution at work? Is it not strange that man has not produced one example of change from one species to another, not even to the losing of the monkey tail and hair?
14. There is evidence now that the whole world is degenerating, moving toward some climax of judgment and re-creation, instead of evolving upward into higher and better forms. In chemistry, which is closest to the deeper forces of inanimate matter and life, there is no evidence of a surge upward. Not only are the laws of chemical affinity static and unchangeable as to their operations, but there is a disintegrating tendency downward instead of upward that seems to characterize all matter. The tendency for atoms of high atomic weight to break up into other atoms of lower weight seems to be the universal tendency of all matter. Scientists declare that this is also true in the vegetable and animal kingdoms.
15. The theory of evolution is absurd and its so-called proofs are so contradictory that they cause increasing doubt. Tyndal says that the world began in a fire-mist that contracted as it became cold; but Spencer says it was a cold-cloud that became heated and contracted. The age of man is estimated anywhere from 550 million to 6 million years. The age of the earth is estimated anywhere from 10 billion to 10 million years. This proves nothing but the unreliability of the data which is used in the effort to prove diverse conclusions.
You have said a lot but it is interesting to note as Ive said before even the Pope had endorsed evolution. Many of your concerns centers around your interpretation of the Bible. But all one has to do is see the different denominations within Christianity alone to get an idea that not everybody agrees on how to interpret the Bible.
With regards to scientific claims written in the notes you referenced, much was also said there as well. And none of it is true, or at best misleading. The frozen mammoths have been greatly exagerated. Cadavers of these frozen mammoths have been disected and the claim there is tropical food inside their stomachs is false. All plants inside their stomachs were arctic not tropical.
Mammoths could easily have been frozen in a localized flood caused by a river for example.
The claim Nebraska Man and the Piltdown Man are used as evidence for human evolution is also false. Furthermore, these frauds were exposed by evolutionists themselves.
The claim the Australopithecines are apes is an old claim, but is simply not true. We know they walked in a bipedal upright manner (unlike apes) based in their pelvic. hip, and knee anatomy. We also can tell this by the position of the foramum magnum (the hole where the spinal cord enters the skull) which is consistent with bipedal locomotion. So they essentially had apelike features but also walked upright. Something we would expect if evolution is true.
I could go on. But in each claim in these notes you are using, they are either false and/or misleading.
See for example "Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe" University of Chicago Press 1990 and "Common Creationists Attacks on Geology" Gregory Webber Creation/Evolution Journal 1980, and "The Encylocepedia of Human Evolution" Oxford University Press 1990.
I would like to present an idea. Perhaps Special Creation is spiritual?
In other words it is the idea that God created man a soul thru supernatural means.
If this idea is correct then it really does not matter how our physical bodies came to be, nor what shape they are. God could have given man a soul somewhere along the line of evolution, seperating us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Making us unique and made in the image of God.
Does it really matter if someone has all four limbs or had his legs amputated? Does it matter if one has blue eyes or brown or if they are blind? What DOES matter from a religious standpoint is that we have a soul. Our soul goes to heaven not our physical bodies.
One could view evolution as explaining only how our physical bodies got here. We could then all go home and concentrate our activities on other things. You could still have daily devotions with prayer. Belief that man is special and made in the image of God, etc..
"We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for he used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."
--- Duane Gish: "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!", (1985), p. 42.
Also known as Creation Ex Nihilo (out of nothing).
People just don't know anything about evolution...
by Ken
Mr. Howell, I'm sorry but I must correct you on some points here. The fossil record does, in fact, NOT show a spontanious abundance of life, which is called the Cambrian explosion. Now, this "explosion" is not a 'formed all at once' kind of thing as is taught in the creation MYTH in genesis, but on a time scale of millions of years, which on the geologic time scale, that is a very quick emergence of life.
Plus your argument really falls apart after I tell you that life forms have been found BEFORE the cambrian event, though the life forms were soft bodied creatures and would not fossilize as easily, but a few have been found. Plus the fact that no mammals or reptiles are burried within the rock layers of the cabrian explosion, which rules out the silly idea of a god creating all life at once.
MACK:
"that why it is called the THEORY of evolution.
You ppl act as if it is a proven fact.
LOL! So educated you don't even understand that simple contradiction."
Well within the context of the Sciences the word "theory" doesn't imply uncertainty or lack of proof.
In essence scientific theories provide a coherent set of propositions which are used as guiding principles to explain a class of physical phenomena.
Evolution addresses the following natural phenomenon which are all substantiated facts:
- Life on this planet appeared more than 2 billion years ago.
- Organisms have changed and diversified into many different forms over geological time .
- All species of organisms are related to each other via a line of common descent from one or more common ancestors.
- The morphological changes in species are affected by 5 mechanisms - Genetic Drift, Mutations, Recombination, Gene Flow, and most significantly by Natural Selection.
So the word theory in science can and does mean a proven fact - proven that is as much as anything can be proven in science.
All scientific knowledge is open to modification or even replacement by the acquisition of new data.
To date the ToE continues to be refined and expanded on rather than replaced.
You obviously don't understand science or biology! From the American society for Microbiolgy:
"Knowledge of the microbial world is essential to understanding the evolution of life on Earth. The characteristics of microorganisms—small size, rapid reproduction, mobility, and facility in exchanging genetic information—allow them to adapt rapidly to environmental influences. In microbiology, the validity of evolutionary principles is supported by [1] readily demonstrated mutation, recombination and selection, which are the fundamental mechanisms of evolution; [2] comparisons based on genomic data that support a common ancestry of life; and [3] observable rates of genetic change and the extent of genomic diversity which indicate that divergence has occurred over a very long scale of geologic time, and testify to the great antiquity of life on Earth. Thus, microorganisms illustrate evolution in action, and microbiologists have been able to make use of the microbes’ evolutionary capacity in the development of life-improving and life-saving innovations in medicine, agriculture, and for the environment. By contrast, proposed alternatives to evolution, such as intelligent design and other forms of creationism, are not scientific, in part because they fail to provide a framework for useful, testable predictions. The use of the supposed "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum as an argument to endow nonscientific concepts with what appears to be legitimacy, is spurious and not based on fact. Evolution is not mere conjecture, but a conclusive discovery supported by a coherent body of integrated evidence."
Evolution is testable, verified and used constructively. There is no doubt in the scientific community, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it. The only contradiction is your failure to accept it.
Re: Archaeopteryx and other evidence for Dinosaur to Bird evolution
by Jonathan Zimmerman
I heard that when archaeopteryx was first discovered, they had found some individuals that did not have their feathers fossilized, and that they were initially classified as dinosaurs.
It was not until some with their feathers fossilized were discovered, that they were later re-classified. I mean how much more intermediate does something have to be? :)
Yet Creationists continue to argue that there are no intermediates :)
Re: Archaeopteryx and other evidence for Dinosaur to Bird evolution
by gallo
Jonathan: I heard that when archaeopteryx was first discovered, they had found some individuals that did not have their feathers fossilized, and that they were initially classified as dinosaurs. It was not until some with their feathers fossilized were discovered, that they were later re-classified. I mean how much more intermediate does something have to be?
gallo: The first discovery was a single primary flight feather in 1860. It is actually quite ordinary except that it was found in 150 million year old limestone. Next came the London Specimen (1861) BMNH 37001, the type specimen for both the genus and the species. It is a bit dis-articulated and the head is crushed. A small fragment of jaw with four teeth was not recognized to be a part of this fossil until the discovery of the Berlin specimen. The Berlin Specimen (1877) HMN 1880 is beautiful. It is similar to a Compsognathus, a small theropod discovered in the same limestone formations, except that it has feathers. But it does have teeth. The Maxberg Specimen (1955) S5 is privately owned and its whereabouts are unknown. The Teyler Specimen (1970) TM 6428 was the type specimen for the Pterodactylus crassipes until John Ostrom of Yale University, while conducting a comprehensive survey of pterodactyl fossils recognized it for what it is. The Eichstätt Specimen (1973) JM 2257 had been discovered in 1951 and classified as a Compsognathus. The Solnhofen Specimen (1988) S6 was also classified as a Compsognathus until it was cleaned and the feather impressions became clear. The Solnhofen Aktien-Verein Specimen (1992) BSP 1999 is the type specimen for a second species, A. baverica. The Bürgermeister-Müller Specimens are both fragmentary, one discovered in 1997 and the second in 2004. The Thermopolis Specimen had long been in private hands but was described in 2005 upon its donation to the Wyoming Dinosaur Center. Its feet are well preserved and show that the hallux was not reversed, as would be normal for a bird, and that it had a hyperextendable 2nd toe. These are, of course, characteristics of cursorial dinosaurs.
Jonathan: Yet Creationists continue to argue that there are no intermediates :)
gallo: Indeed. And they also incorrectly state that anyone ever claimed that these birds were ancestral to all birds. It is either a claim based on stupidity or dishonesty. There is no such claim. These are transitional fossils that show, along with the many fossils that have recently been found in China, that there were many lineages derived from theropod dinosaurs. Birds descended from one such lineage.
Re: Archaeopteryx and other evidence for Dinosaur to Bird evolution
by Vender Doov
Lets look at Archaeopteryx. Macro-evolutionists both atheistic and theistic AGREE that this "ancient wing" is said to have 21 specialized characteristics in common with particulars kinds of reptillac dinosaurs. However, REAL SCIENCE based on evidence demonstrates that in FACT every one of these characteristics are GENUINELY BIRDLIKE, so again as I previously stated Pepper, your science is PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL CONJECTURE not based on REAL SCIENTIFIC evidence.
The Archaeopteryx found in a fine-grained German limstone formation, was said have come into existence some 190 million years ago and lasted 54 million years so it is NOT LIKELY a candidate as some missing link ESPECIALLY SINCE "BIRDS and their alleged ancestoral reptillic dinosaurs" thrived at the SAME TIME. Are you getting the picture here Miguel?
The above comes from a book by Duane T Gish....Creationist, Biochemist, Ph.D. in Biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley (1953), B.S. in chemistry from U.C.L.A. (1949). Research Associate, Research Division, The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan (1960-1971), Assistant Research Associate in Biochemistry, University of California (Berkeley), Virus Laboratory (1956-1960), Assistant Professor of Biochemistry, Cornell University Medical College (NYC) (1955-1956), Lilly Postdoctoral Fellow, Cornell University Medical College (1953-1955), former President of the Institute for Creation Research, Lecturer and most well-known debater on Creation-Evolution.
The book is called, "Evolution: The fossils still say no" (1995)
So again I say Miguel, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, it's only conjecture.
Re: Archaeopteryx and other evidence for Dinosaur to Bird evolution
by Jonathan Zimmerman
Nobody said archaeopteryx is the first common ancestor of birds and dinosaurs, so its really no big deal they co-existed with dinosaurs.
Look at it this way. You are ancestral to your father, and to your grandfather. But it is common in families that they all co-existed during a period of time.
Archaeopteryx is an intermediate.
You simply do not understand what an intermediate is, nor what evolution says.
We have sequenced large portions of Neanderthal DNA and are on the verge of having a complete Neanderthal genome. What this is showing us is that Neanderthals were NOT modern humans, as some creatioinists claim. It is also shedding light on human evolution, as stated here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15732243/
"Humans and their close Neanderthal relatives began diverging from a common ancestor about 700,000 years ago, and the two groups split permanently some 300,000 years later, according to two of the most detailed analyses of Neanderthal DNA to date."
It's amazing how the evidence for evolution keeps getting more and more conclusive...
.....evidence like that won't convince people like Vender.
But that's the point really.
Vender wouldn't cahnge his views regardless of the evidence which means therefore that Vender's view does not depend on logic per se - look at his 4-legged, non-animal insect theory for example.
VENDER:
"How can rational people be convinced of evidence that is not there?"
So now Vender's argument is that evidence for evolution isn't there.
The reality though is that Vender doesn't EXAMINE the evidence - bu avoiding the evidence Vender can continue to convince himself that his 'opinions' are correct.
Effective self-deception as that may be it can't be called an argument.
You have not established that your evidence is evidence at all, by using evidence. Unless you provide some evidence, there is nothing to reject, other than invisible evidence filled with empty words.
In Miguel's world, anytime it gets pointes out to him that he has not produced evidence for his claim, he quickly throws out the Rhetoric fallacy.
Here we have, the almighty Dr. Evolution, unable to support his theory with evidence and his only option is to use the Rhetoric fallacy and he cannot even support that with evidence, let alone his evolution fantasy.
Explain why this ISN'T evidence for evolution, demonstrate you at least understand hat you're talking about. Show us why the experts are wrong.
If you can't do that, if you can't refute this evidence, all you're doing is ranting.
Continue to live in your little dream world, Demon38, just like Miguel continues to live in his magical world, thinking that he is a Christian, while denying Gods creation.
You people are so screwed up with your evolution theories, desperate to paint anything you can as evidence for your theory, that we could make it a movie. Instead of Austin Powers, Goldmember, you guys would be: "Evolutionpowers, misremember"
Dr. Evil would be played by Migel, but in this movie, he would be called Dr. Evolution.
Scott Evil would be played by Demon38.
Dr. Evolution's assistant, Number Two would be played by Pepper.
Fast Bastard would be played by Greeb.
And finally, 'Mini me' would be played by Jonathan Zimmerman!
AAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! LoL
And the secret weapon, called "Preparation H" would instead, be called "Preparation EW"
Meaning "Preparation Empty Words" That's the big secret weapon! AHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA!
That you hide your humanism from others by going behind closed door?
Even such a suggestion shows how dishonest you are preferring "the form" of godliness but inside worms and black bugs.
All you want is image Vender Doov -- Like pretty girls in advertising with painted faces.
You are just a typical creationist believer that dives for dirt when the pressure is put on you and you cover your head in the sand not able to give a reasonable response. Then when you think the coast is clear, you start your garbage of a baby killing loving god all over again as if by some magic the truth of a god is in the numbers of dead humans that you personally justify.
Well you are a mentally sick person, insane and diluted beyond anything imaginable other than any such god that would create a tape worm to eat the guts out of small kids that all they wanted was to be held and a good meal--- the only sin they committed.
You have NO understanding of this earthly environment. I call you worse than a stupid idiot for you have NO care about any one but only to save your soul by sucking on the hind tit a myth god that tell you thinking and the act of discovery is sinful...AS SUCH you should only believe.
Your scripture means nothing, has no value and not even relevant. If it came down to your myth god or the life of Migel you would say good by to Migel. I do not worship what I do not see, and rocks do not talk but I do deeply care for human life and the very best that it can be for humans first that includes Migel and your self. All you do is to quote a filthy book that is not fit for a child to read and think you said something of value. Well you have not so dress your self in your stupidity, making mindless conflicting claims and think you are impressive.
So you might as well go back to your little cult and lie to each other on how much you care as you wish each other dead as soon as possible so you can get to heaven. Leave the living to those that care about this life, that want to stay here and help out their fellow man.
QUOTE: "Like pretty girls in advertising with painted faces."
Look at your painted face! Where you headed out tonight? The gay bar? You want homo's to taste your pepper sause? Or do you just like it when they shake your pepper shaker?
Your response is meaningless Vender Doov and of no value. All you do is show the extent of fear that you posses. You show your weakness of thought and character. You show how fearful you are and how deep seated your personal fears direct your understanding and place limits on your self that diminishes your mind. You show a fearful spirit and expect others to share your limitations. Be careful Vender Doov about running in the night--- you might smack a tree head on in your blindness proclaiming you can see, and that tree will be the rule of the law.
You have a god phobia Vender Doov - one that limits and does not liberate, you create a fear that drags your self down as you try desperately to contain your mind in a box. You might get some counseling for it is NO doubt that you are in pain with such fearful limitations. Your fears stop you from good reasoning, logical conversations, and shows how desperate you are.
First you create a fear then offer a solution to that fear---it is an old trick Vender Doov. As you watch TV and read advertising--- look for that ploy.
Advertisers create a fear of your shirt not being white enough -- so buy this special soap and make all your fears go away.
Your image of not being a success is fearful---so buy this new car and make your fears go away.
Only an idiot would use that logic. So what are you selling out of fear? You are trying to use human emotions as motivation and I see your lousy sales pitch.
You want church membership so you try to use human fears to induce loyalty--- what a scam and a rip off. You are so transparent Vender Doov and your fraudulent behavior is exposed.
You have a lousy sales pitch Vender Doov---You are selling a bill of goods about a god with no goods to back it up. You run in fear and fear will be your reward. You attempt to create a problem where none exist and then offer a solution that only increases the assumed problem. Both your problem and solution is rejected as human stupidity.
You can mangle your words all you want to---redefine what exist, degrade human rational thinking to no end, pervert history, pervert science and its definition, go on your fear mongering campaign of a human created hell, proclaim a book that is loaded with errors but all you do is lie lie and lie some more. You lie on what is positive and beneficial to humanity by proclaiming all kinds of negativity, fears of the future and fears of being wrong.
You have been exposed Vender Doov as the degenerate creature that you are by your own words and you have little to none concern for others. You do not strengthen the human mind but seek to destroy it. You do not build caricature in bravery and honor but rather seeks to disassemble such thoughts as contradictory to your church donations.
So watch your step Vender Doov. You have freedom of religion but not the right to abuse others and so humans that do not buy into your religious garbage crap will be keeping an eye on you. Our society is well trained at watching for religious fanatics and how they abuse others and exploit ignorance of others to their own gain to the hurt of others---so watch your step in your self justification and religious mumbo jumbo.
That is all I have to say to you for now Vender Doov -- you made my point very well that you can not stand to a direct challenge, you folded into your self and exposed your self as a religious fraud and a fanatic. You did it by your own words. So now you are seen as a fear monger with nothing but stupid claims.
In the absence of true knowledge, the truth of the origin of man...
by Vijai Singh
..can only be ascertained after the thorough understanding of natural laws.
http://www.geocities.com/vijaisingh/nature.html
"But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognized scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilization, when laws of nature are little known and but little understood, when mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed."
VIJAI:
"But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognized scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilization, when laws of nature are little known and but little understood, when mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed."
Interesting comment Vijai.
So are you saying that the present day is an example of a "ruder stage of civilization"?
"But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognized scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilization, when laws of nature are little known and but little understood, when mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed."
Interesting comment Vijai.
Vj ~ Thank you Migel!
So are you saying that the present day is an example of a "ruder stage of civilization"?Cheers
Vj ~ If it is not, how come the (immutable) laws of nature are little known or understood and the strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed?
Regards,
VIJAI:
"If it is not, how come the (immutable) laws of nature are little known or understood...."
What do you mean by "immutable laws of nature"?
Scientific principles are discovered and interpreted by humans.
This is limited by the data we have to work with at any one point in time - and as such scientific knowledge continues to be added to all the time.
This has led to the modification or replacement of many seemingly "immutable" laws of nature.
For example the geocentric model for the solar system was long held to be an "immutable" law until it was replaced by heliocentrism which in turn became modified when it was proved that the sun was a star and that most stars had solar systems of their own.
Likewise the Newtonian theory of gravitics was itself modified by the Einsteinian model.
Science is never "immutable" - as I said it is dependant on the data we have to work with.
This is why science is always considered provisional.
It is in turn significant when theories like gravitation and evolution remain essentially correct today except for modifications and expansions.
VIJAI:
"...and the strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed?"
I agree that correct reasoning is sometimes not observed in science.
However the self-correcting nature of science and scientific discovery is that mistakes, hoaxes, poor reasoning, and poor science are ALWAYS discovered in the long run.
In fact in the modern world, such is the dissemination and cross-pollination of scientific research among different branches of science that this self-correctional function has only improved and quickened as the pool of criticism and discussion becomes wider and more astute in observation and correction.
Scientific principles are discovered and interpreted by humans. This is limited by the data we have to work with at any one point in time - and as such scientific knowledge continues to be added to all the time. This has led to the modification or replacement of many seemingly "immutable" laws of nature.
I don't get it, how can you continue to speak of of the "modications or replacement of many seemingly immutable laws of nature" when you are yet to know and understand what they are?
______________________
I agree that correct reasoning is sometimes not observed in science.
Vj ~ Why confine it only to science?
"Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind." Einstein.
Why not take some time to peruse my dialolgue on the science of evolution, it will atleast give you an idea of where I stand in the matter.
VIJAI:
"I don't get it, how can you continue to speak of of the "modications or replacement of many seemingly immutable laws of nature" when you are yet to know and understand what they are?
As I said science is a process of discovery.
This process of discovery is mitigated by the amount and quality of data we acquire and are able to interpret.
A "law of nature" is very much dependant on both the data we have accumulated to support our CURRENT understanding of a phenomenon.
For example the supposed "law of nature" that the sun will rise in the east every morning is also contingent on a number of things.
Our medieval ancestors knew that the sun would rise in the East and set in the west every day through observation.
But they didn't know the WHY. We know gravity and the interactions of the planets in our solar system on each other contribute to this phenomenon.
We ALSO now know that there are factors which CAN occur to affect this supposed "Law of Nature" - extraterrestrial impacts, geological instability, Solar death etc.
The point is that we can only speak about nature (i.e. - science) provisionaly because - as you implied - we don't know everything (and never will).
Any good scientist knows this.
I will take a look at your site in due course and post a commentary (if you don't mind?) as a separate thread.
It seems they can't decide whether they are related or not. Well, which is it? Are they related, or are they as you say, "NOT modern humans"?
I don't think you can have it both ways.
P.S. The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)
Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)
Here in Washington State we have rocks carbon dated at millions of years old that were formed within the last 25 years by Mt. St. Helens.
Firstly - you don't apply carbon dating to LIVING organisms.
Secondly - You don't carbon date minerals either.
The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating. The article discussed the potential errors that the presence of "dead carbon" would introduce into the dating of mollusks. For example, carbon dioxide in the water can partially come from Paleozoic limestone, which lacks carbon-14. As a result, the carbon dioxide in the water is deficient in carbon-14 relative to the atmosphere, and mollusks living in the water build shells that give apparent dates older than they really are. This is a type of "reservoir effect."
The 27,000 year old date comes from Riggs (1984, 224), who wrote:
Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.
In other words, the apparent age of 27,000 years for these snail shells is another example of the reservoir effect. The springs, from which the snails came, were fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old. The dissolution of limestone and dolomite introduced considerable quantities of "dead carbon" into the groundwater. As a result, the groundwater which fed the spring and in which the snails lived was significantly deficient in carbon-14 relative to what is found in the atmosphere. When the snails made their shells, they incorporated an excess amount of "dead carbon," relative to modern atmosphere, into their shells, which resulted in the excessively old apparent date.
Contrary to the complaints of creationists, conventional scientists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. In cases where corrections for presence of dead carbon cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded. This is not the fatal flaw to radiometric dating that some creationists claim it to be. It just shows that dates from mollusks from streams and lakes need to be carefully evaluated as to their reliability. Other materials, such as wood, charcoal, bone, and hide, would remain unaffected by this type of reservoir effect. If found with shells in the same layer, these materials could be dated to determine if shells are locally affected by the reservoir effect and, if so, how much their radiocarbon dates have been skewed by it.
In other words any tool will give bad results when misused.
Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations.
Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid.
In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older.
Using it to date older items will give bad results.
Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).
In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.
Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).
In short - try to learn something about that which you critique. Don't just rely on straw man arguments based on erroneous knowledge of processes you don't actually understand.
Everything you posted came straight from talkorigins.com.
Try and post something in your own words, that isn't an exact copy and paste pawned off as your own original thoughts, and THEN pop off about knowledge you don't actually understand!
Whether the facts I quoted originally came from me or another they remain, nevertheless as factual.
That you have been either unwilling or unable to refute the specific corrections I have made to your erroneous views and fallacies on carbon dating is significant.
If you want to support your claims then you need to present arguments and/or evidence to refute what I have said.
If you don't then your initial premises stand disproved.
This is not opinion - simply a logical conclusion.
Your whining about 'originality' and 'plagiarism' has no bearing on the matter.
Not that I would wish to talk to one who calls himself a demon who pretends other peoples words are his, but the initial premise was offered by you, when you said that Neanderthals were NOT modern humans, and then stated this was proof of evolution.
My rebuttal is that this is utter confusion, and a foolish argument to make. If they are not modern humans, then how did modern humans evolve from them? They are either related or they are not, and you cannot have it both ways.
It's like saying sharks are not modern dolphins, which "proves" somehow that dolphins evolved from sharks. It is foolishness. You stumble at the very first and obvious point of logic, so your argument is dismissed on the surface as unworhty of further discussion.
REGAN:
"Not that I would wish to talk to one who calls himself a demon..."
You are confusing me with the poster who styles himself as Demon38.
REGAN:
"...who pretends other peoples words are his..."
Well that's your contention - as insulting and irrelevant as that accusation is.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts I presented regarding carbon dating and how they correct your errors on that subject.
REGAN:
"...but the initial premise was offered by you, when you said that Neanderthals were NOT modern humans, and then stated this was proof of evolution."
Actually I didn't post the Neanderthal information in the first instance - that was Demon38.
Regardless though the statement is correct - Homo neanderthalensis is a different species to ours, Homo sapiens. This is borne out by the molecular data which makes the two species distinct enough.
REGAN:
"My rebuttal is that this is utter confusion, and a foolish argument to make."
I can understand your confusion if you have only just begun to study these concepts.
REGAN:
"If they are not modern humans, then how did modern humans evolve from them?"
That's the whole point - they didn't.
H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis co-existed as two separate species.
No only does the molecular evidence show this but it further implies that there doesn't seem tobe any evidence of the two species interbreeing and thus forming a hybrid species.
REGAN:
"They are either related or they are not, and you cannot have it both ways."
They ARE related, but H. sapiens did not evolve FROM H. neanderthalensis. They share the same genus but are different species.
Instead the two species probably evolved from a common ancestor - most likely H. erectus.
REGAN:
"It's like saying sharks are not modern dolphins, which "proves" somehow that dolphins evolved from sharks."
Well no not really.
Firstly sharks are fish and dolphins are mammals.
Whilst it would be BROADLY accurate to say that mammals could trace their evolutionary descent from a common ancestor with fish, it would be INACCURATE to say that dolphins evolved from sharks.
REGAN:
"It is foolishness."
Yes your argument IS foolish. But that's ok because you obviously don't know a lot about either evolution, taxonomy or zoology.
I would be happy to explain further if you have more questions though?
REGAN:
"You stumble at the very first and obvious point of logic, so your argument is dismissed on the surface as unworhty of further discussion."
As I have shown twice now, neither your premise or arguments on carbon dating or Neanderthals is based on accurate facts.
In other words you have constructed a straw man and then disassembled it and then claimed victory.
Of course modern humans and neanderthals are related, where in the article does it say any different? The question is whether they interbred. Once again, even more evidence supporting evolution!
As to carbon dating used on mollusk shells, Miguel explained that completely. it doesn't matter where he got the information, facts are facts and yours are wrong. And he's also right about the rocks from Mt. Saint Helens, rocks are NOT carbon dated.
Typical creationist, has no idea what you're talking about......
For the article goes on to confirm the HUMANITY of Neanderthal:
"No evidence of interbreeding
In popular imagination, Neanderthals are often portrayed as prehistoric brutes who became outsmarted by a more advanced species, humans, emerging from Africa. But excavations and anatomical studies have shown that Neanderthals used tools, wore jewelry, buried their dead, cared for their sick, and possibly sang or even spoke in much the same way that we do. Even more humbling, perhaps, their brains were slightly larger than ours.
The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases."
REV. HOWELL:
"Hmmmm....Sounds like modern man to me."
Then you haven't read the article fully have you?
"Humans and their close Neanderthal relatives began diverging from a common ancestor about 700,000 years ago, and the two groups split permanently some 300,000 years later, according to two of the most detailed analyses of Neanderthal DNA to date."
"The findings also appear to argue against speculations by some scientists that Neanderthals and humans interbred in more recent times. "We see no evidence of mixing 30,000 to 40,000 years ago in Europe," Rubin said. "We don't exclude it, but from the data that we have, we have no evidence that pages were ripped from one genome and put in the other."
The fact that the two species H. sapiens & H. neanderthalensis belong to the same genus doesn't mean they are the same species any more than Felis sylvestris (var. catus) - or the housecat - is the same as Felis Leo - the Lion.
You need to understand a bit of basic taxonomy first.
Looks like YOU haven't read it, or are simply ignoring parts you don't like:
""We see no evidence of mixing 30,000 to 40,000 years ago in Europe," Rubin said. "We don't exclude it, but from the data that we have, we have no evidence that pages were ripped from one genome and put in the other."
hey are basing their "evidence" on one femur and incorrectly ASSUMING this one femur is the standard. It could be a genetic abberation for all they know. You need to realize that evolutionists play the guessing game all the time, then put forth their guesses as fact, and espect the uninformed to swallow it. They admit they are not excluding the view that Neanderthal was essentially modern man, but they as yet have no evidence to support the view, and no wonder since the fossil evidence is scare.
I am reminded of the following statements regarding the sum total of the fossil evidence of "human evolution:"
"You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk" statement made by Elwyn Simons of Duke University (Newsweek,"Bones and Primadonnas", by Peter Gwynne, February 16, 1981, p. 77) It doesn't look like much in the way of the amount of fossil evidence has changed since that article appeared. An edition of The New York Times also made this observation: "The known fossil remains of man's ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years" (The New York Times, "How Old Is Man?" by Nicolas Wade, October 4, 1982, p. A18.) Again, it doesn't look like much has changed regarding the amount of human fossil evidence since this article was written. "Lucy" was touted as "the missing link" until it was determined that she was merely a chimpanzee.
"hey are basing their "evidence" on one femur and incorrectly ASSUMING this one femur is the standard."
What evidence do you have that it ISN'T the standard?!? Scientists have to start somewhere, this is the first fossil that they tried such a comprehensive genetic sequencing on. There is no evidence of genetic abberations. From this they draw conclusions and, as the article states, when they take samples from other neanderthal fossils and sequence them, they will compare the results. That's how science works. The only one making incorrect assumptions here is you.
"They admit they are not excluding the view that Neanderthal was essentially modern man, but they as yet have no evidence to support the view, and no wonder since the fossil evidence is scare."
What?!? Where in the article do they say Neanderthal was modern man, clearly they were not. They had a different build, diferent skull. No, the article makes it quite clear they were diferent than us.....
""Humans went through several stages of evolution in the last 400,000 years," said study co-author Jonathan Pritchard of the University of Chicago. "If we can compare humans’ and Neanderthals’ genomes, then we can possibly identify what the key genetic changes were during that final stage of human evolution." "
As to the fossil evidence, what do you call scarce?!? The cave site of Shanidar produced 9 seperate skeletons from various ages and in diffeent stages of preservation. Wikipedia has a partial list of sites where Neanderthal remains have been found with 62 differnt locations in Europe, Asia and Africa. It's obvoius you do no research.
"I am reminded of the following statements regarding the sum total of the fossil evidence of "human evolution:"
"You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk" statement made by Elwyn Simons of Duke University (Newsweek,"Bones and Primadonnas", by Peter Gwynne, February 16, 1981, p. 77)"
This statement is out right false. As shown above the fossils from Neanderthal man alone are far greater than would fit on a desktop or a billiard table or a coofin. If you had any integrity at all you would retract it and stop repeating this lie.
Domestic bananas cannot reproduce sexually (iow - they're STERILE) because they are parthenocarpic - in other words the fruit contain no seeds.
This means that without special propagation methods (i.e. - extracting & transplanting the corm) bananas cannot reproduce and would therefore die out.
We also know that bananas weren't always like this because there are plenty of undomesticated seed bearing species of bananas. Furthermore genetic studies domesticated bananas certainly came from hybridisations and artificial (read human) breeding.
History also proves that modern domestic bananas arose from the selective breeding of the wild varieties.
Recent archaeological and palaeoenvironmental evidence from Papua New Guinea suggests that banana cultivation goes back to at least 5000 BC, and possibly to 8000 BC.
The banana is also mentioned for the first time in written history in Buddhist texts in 600 BC. Chronichlers of Alexander the Great also mention the banana from his Indian campaign in 327 BC.
Also archaeological and written evidence reveal the existence of an organized banana plantation in China in 200 AD.
By 650 AD, Islamic traders brought the banana to Palestine and the eastern Mediterranean and eventually much of Africa.
So NO - the banana is no more proof of supernatural "design" than wheat.
Some true Christian you claim to be. You might as well come out of the closet and admit you are an atheist because right now, you are a closet atheist, in sheep's clothing, denying Gods work at every turn of the table. An atheist denies Gods creative work at every chance they can and you do the same. There is no real difference between you and an atheist. Jesus says that those who deny him, he will deny them in heaven for he will say get away from me, for I never knew you.
Jesus Christ does not know you. If you deny Jesus and deny his creation, how do you think that Jesus views this?
I wake up every morning, and thank God for all that he has created. I eat breakfast, and see Gods hand in creation for had it not been for God, I would not be eating breakfast. That includes a banana. You on the other hand, claim to be a Christian, wake up, eat breakfast, and claim that your breakfast and banana came from some evolutionary process that took millions of years to happen. LoL
You are one messed up person. You do not know what the heck you really believe for. I believe that I am the result of a creator, who created me and the world I live in and you sit there, claiming that you are the result of some process that takes millions of years to occur.
When you get your heads out of the clouds, Jesus your creator, will be there waiting for you. Your theories of denial of gods work, is not Gods work but the devils work. So when you truly decide to become a Christian, and proclaim his works and give credit to the one who did the creating, then you will begin to become a real Christian.
VENDER:
"You might as well come out of the closet and admit you are an atheist because right now, you are a closet atheist, in sheep's clothing..."
You can't be a "closet atheist in sheeps clothing" LOL.
That would imply I'm not really an Atheist at all - which I doubt is what you meant.
;-D
VENDER:
"...denying Gods work at every turn of the table."
Actually an Atheist, not believing in a God or gods, doesn't need to deny the "work" of a being he/she doesn't believe in.
VENDER:
"...An atheist denies Gods creative work at every chance they can and you do the same."
Not at all.
What I deny is your simplistic interpretation of scripture, and your lack of knowledge of even the most basic science.
VENDER:
"Jesus Christ does not know you. If you deny Jesus and deny his creation, how do you think that Jesus views this?"
Since I don't deny God's creation your comment is rather silly.
Like many other fundamentalist literalists you really can't stand anyone else not believing what you do.
When you cannot prove your view as superior you get annoyed, angry and abusive.
That's sad.
VENDER:
"You on the other hand, claim to be a Christian, wake up, eat breakfast, and claim that your breakfast and banana came from some evolutionary process that took millions of years to happen. LoL"
Actually no. If you had bothered to read and understand my previous post you would know that what I say is that the domestic banana is the product of a couple of thousand years of human selective breeding.
I believe that the entire universe and all the processes we observe directly or intuit indirectly are ultimately the products of our Creator.
VENDER:
"You are one messed up person. You do not know what the heck you really believe for."
Why thank you Vender.
I know when I'm making a solid point when you begin to hurl invective at me.
;-P
VENDER:
"I believe that I am the result of a creator, who created me and the world I live in and you sit there, claiming that you are the result of some process that takes millions of years to occur."
There is no logical or theological reason why I cannot believe in both.
So far, apart from saying "IT AINT SO", you have been unable to argue otherwise.
VENDER:
"When you get your heads out of the clouds, Jesus your creator, will be there waiting for you. Your theories of denial of gods work, is not Gods work but the devils work. So when you truly decide to become a Christian, and proclaim his works and give credit to the one who did the creating, then you will begin to become a real Christian."
And perhaps when you cease hating other people and hurling invective at them YOU might hope to become a real Christian too?
;-)
I notice that not one word in your above diatribe was devoted to addressing ANY of the points I made about the banana?
You must be a crack head! You deny Gods work, and then you claim that Gods opinion of you is good enough for you. LoL If you knew God, you would know the creator and when you know the creator, you know what he created! But you do not. You sit in atheist philopsy and think God likes that!
You were not able to refute the banana evidence, accept droll over other cultures also eating bananas. LoL
VENDER:
"You must be a crack head! You deny Gods work, and then you claim that Gods opinion of you is good enough for you."
Ahh that's what I love about Vender - so predictable.
As I said in another post Vender is typical of that mindset that HATES people who think differently from them.
;-)
So Vender - you should be able to quote exactly where and how I deny God's work?
VENDER:
"LoL If you knew God, you would know the creator and when you know the creator, you know what he created! But you do not. You sit in atheist philopsy and think God likes that!"
Sorry I don't know anything about "atheist philopsy".
VENDER:
:You were not able to refute the banana evidence, accept droll over other cultures also eating bananas. LoL"
Hmmm
Actually I refuted it completely demonstrating that the banana type which you claim has been designed for use by man is actually a product of human breeding over several thousand years.
I can't help it that you - as usual - don't understand the evidence that's in front of your nose.
The difference between you and me is that you think God (through creation ex nihilo) snapped His fingers and lo presto there was the modern table banana ready to munch on.
I however accept that God is the ultimate author of all the universe.
That as a result of His creation of all the natural processes that make the universe what it is today (including evolution) many species of bananas arose on Earth in time.
These species in turn were discovered by humans, and after several thousand years of breeding, reulted in the banana we know today.
That's the difference between you and me.
To you God is a magician and performer of cheap tricks and you are content in your ignorance of the natural world.
To me God is a Creator - a divine engineer who has constructed a complex and infinitely wonderful universe for us to explore, marvel at, and discover.
You deny creation and that God is the creator of mankind and life on earth, and then you ask where you denied Gods work. LoL If you're that brain-dead, than not even God or your 'mini me' can help you.
Much like how you argued against the banana. So fool, what was the shape of the banana before? Was it round like an orange? You are firing blanks yet again, for your evolution cause.
You deny Gods work, fire blanks to prove that he did not create the banana and you call yourself a Christian??????
VENDER:
"You deny creation and that God is the creator of mankind and life on earth, and then you ask where you denied Gods work."
Really? Please quote me where I did this?
Can't?
Yep - typical Vender tactic - assert without evidence.
;-P
VENDER:
"Much like how you argued against the banana. So fool, what was the shape of the banana before? Was it round like an orange? You are firing blanks yet again, for your evolution cause."
Well since you have thus far been unable to refute my arguments it stands that your argument is defeated.
That's how logical arguments work.
The shape of the pre-domesticated banana can be readily seen by looking at the many species of wild bananas around the world.
They are invariably, smaller, more prism-shaped and without a discernable curvature.
And they have seeds.
Sorry Vender - you lose again.
VENDER:
"You deny Gods work, fire blanks to prove that he did not create the banana and you call yourself a Christian??????"
And yet, to date you have been unable to prove either that I denied God's work of creation or the evidence I submitted ont he origins of the domestic banana.
As I've said before - the reason you reapetedly lose debates is that you supply no evidence, rely on assertion, don't read posts, and happily remain ignorant of many topics rather than educate yourself.
VENDER:
"and you call yourself a Christian??????"
"LoL If you're that brain-dead, than not even God or your 'mini me' can help you."
"...So fool..."
Great example of Christianity Vender.
Nope I've said it before - Vender's religion is more akin to Trolling than Christianity.
;-)
It is very ironic Migel. Here, you spend so much time trying to convince me that you are a real Christian and yet, it is before God that you will have to answer as to why you denied his own creation.
For example, you avoided by question of what shape was the banana before? Do you suppose that at the great judgment, that you can will avoid it as well? Because I very much well know, you will not tell me what shape the banana was before because you presented a useless argument, to argue against the creation of your own creator.
VENDER:
"For example, you avoided by question of what shape was the banana before?"
Nope - I answered it - again proving that you DON'T READ what people post.
For example:
"The shape of the pre-domesticated banana can be readily seen by looking at the many species of wild bananas around the world.
They are invariably, smaller, more prism-shaped and without a discernable curvature.
And they have seeds."
QED - again a loss for you Vender.
;-P
VENDER:
"Do you suppose that at the great judgment, that you can will avoid it as well? Because I very much well know, you will not tell me what shape the banana was before because you presented a useless argument, to argue against the creation of your own creator."
More circular reasoning and typical intolerant rhetoric.
Translation: If you don't buy into Miguel's empty words and invisible logic, than you must not be reading his posts.
So Miguel, having many species of wild bananas around the world doesn't prove that there is no creator of bananas. So Miguel, can you yet come up with any evidence that the banana is not a creation of your own god that you claim to believe?
Telling me about how other species of bananas are different shapes does not prove that god did not create a banana.
So tell me again, at the great judgment, when god asks you why you denied him as the creator of the banana, what excuse will you give him? Will you also give him the "there are other banana shapes" fallacy?
VENDER:
"If you don't buy into Miguel's empty words and invisible logic, than you must not be reading his posts."
Since you asked me the same question not once but three times and each time I gave an answer the only logical conclusion is that either you do not understand the answer or don't even read the response.
Pretty simple logic there.
VENDER:
"So Miguel, having many species of wild bananas around the world doesn't prove that there is no creator of bananas."
It isn't just the existence of many species of wild banana, it is the molecular, morphological and historical evidence which point to the domestic banana having been bred over human history into its present form.
This does not deny an ultimate creator - of bananas or anything else - all it means is that the Creator used processes still extant in order to create.
Said processes can still be observed today.
VENDER:
"Telling me about how other species of bananas are different shapes does not prove that god did not create a banana. "
What it DOES prove (together with the molecular, morphological and historic evidence) is that the modern domestic banana is not the result of an EX NIHILO creation any more than Chihuahuas and Great Danes are.
That does not prove or disprove the existence of a creator - but it DOES disprove your simplistic approach to origins.
Like I said, even when a rebuttal is presented its like talking to a brick wall. Miquel clearly answered your argument, and the best you can do is fall back on some stupid rhetoric. You made a statement that banannas are perfect, and this statement is false. And then you come up with "Your not a true Christian" and "denying gods creation".
I admire Miquel. It should also be noted that many religious denominations have accepted evolution. Even the Pope once made a statement essentially saying evolution is true.
What gets me about Vender is that he just won't learn.
Other creationists involved in this debate at least try to get SOME facts right and try to answer specific criticisms by doing some reading or research.
Vender seems to do very little beyond finding links which he thinks are 'clever'.
And even then he won't engage in debating the subject of the link at all.
If Kent Hovind is going to prison for tax fraud, than every evolutionist should be going to prison too since evolution, is nothing more than a waste of tax dollars.
I have a friend, whose cousin is an atheist and he is a carpenter and he regularly takes jobs and gets paid under the table in order to avoid paying taxes. It saves him money, along with the person who pays him for doing a job. That is tax evasion my friend.
Or are you going to continue to claim that ALL tax frauds, are ONLY done by creationists and not one evolutionist in history, as ever committed tax fraud?
Tax fraud my friend, along with other crimes, are done by both creationists and evolutions so pointing the finger at a creationist for committing a crime, is not only silly, but pointless since the other side does it too.
