You're going off topic!Sojourn wrote:This whole thread is a minefield of misquotes, untruths, speculations, cross referrals, bias and general opinionated gangreen.
Take my advice before you hurt yourself - take a small leap backwards and stick to overclocking, upgrades and modding...
edit - ...and advising anyone to"google" for proof just confirms your reliability, or rather the lack thereof...
S
I like Sojourns' response, and I agree to it!Kronos wrote:You're going off topic!Sojourn wrote:This whole thread is a minefield of misquotes, untruths, speculations, cross referrals, bias and general opinionated gangreen.
Take my advice before you hurt yourself - take a small leap backwards and stick to overclocking, upgrades and modding...
edit - ...and advising anyone to"google" for proof just confirms your reliability, or rather the lack thereof...
S
As are there in nature... rules like if I jump of a cliff, chances are that I will be assimilated back into the environment owing to the fact that my construct has become slightly more spread out than my cells will permit...Ihsahn wrote:My argument is this If Creation is true that means that there is a creator. If there is a creator that means there are rules.
off the top of your head, right?Ihsahn wrote:If evolution is true then there is no creator, if there is no creator there are no rules
unfortunately... no...Ihsahn wrote:, so if someone walks up to you and shoots you, dont be pissed off cause hes behaving like an animeal, thats precisley what evolution teaches isint it
)Umm no, but let me rattle your brain for a sec. Ok we agree that evolution claims that that we all came from rocks, matter, a soup of chemicals etc. The problem with that is that there is absolutley no proof since no one or no rock from that time is alive to tell us about it. If you are an educated person and by your diction and vocabulary you "seem" to be then you would probably come with the argument of carbon dating. I would then retort by pointing out the fact that carbon dating is based on circular reasoning. If you tell me about the theory of the big bang, then i should probably point out the fact that is something spins and breaks apart all the spinning peaces will go in the same direction of ther spin, so then why are two planets and several of our moons in other positions. So to make things less ambigious for you. The little boat tipped over.rustypup wrote:As are there in nature... rules like if I jump of a cliff, chances are that I will be assimilated back into the environment owing to the fact that my construct has become slightly more spread out than my cells will permit...Ihsahn wrote:My argument is this If Creation is true that means that there is a creator. If there is a creator that means there are rules.off the top of your head, right?Ihsahn wrote:If evolution is true then there is no creator, if there is no creator there are no rulesunfortunately... no...Ihsahn wrote:, so if someone walks up to you and shoots you, dont be pissed off cause hes behaving like an animeal, thats precisley what evolution teaches isint it
Evolution doesn't "teach" in any sense... all that happens is that any species which spends its time murdering its relatives will shortly cease to exist.. precisely why you think evolution==insanity needs to be clarified...
methinks... 8O
You presume mightily... I have made no such claim....yet....Ihsahn wrote:Umm no, but let me rattle your brain for a sec. Ok we agree that evolution claims that that we all came from rocks, matter, a soup of chemicals etc.
no I wouldn't ... what has carbon dating to do with anything?Ihsahn wrote:The problem with that is that there is absolutley no proof since no one or no rock from that time is alive to tell us about it. If you are an educated person and by your diction and vocabulary you "seem" to be then you would probably come with the argument of carbon dating.
wooah...Ihsahn wrote:I would then retort by pointing out the fact that carbon dating is based on circular reasoning. If you tell me about the theory of the big bang, then i should probably point out the fact that is something spins and breaks apart all the spinning peaces will go in the same direction of ther spin, so then why are two planets and several of our moons in other positions. So to make things less ambigious for you. The little boat tipped over.
I just responded to you. And i probably should have read the last couple of pagesrustypup wrote:@Ihsahn - hmm... your second post does nothing for your first... however:You presume mightily... I have made no such claim....yet....Ihsahn wrote:Umm no, but let me rattle your brain for a sec. Ok we agree that evolution claims that that we all came from rocks, matter, a soup of chemicals etc.no I wouldn't ... what has carbon dating to do with anything?Ihsahn wrote:The problem with that is that there is absolutley no proof since no one or no rock from that time is alive to tell us about it. If you are an educated person and by your diction and vocabulary you "seem" to be then you would probably come with the argument of carbon dating.
wooah...Ihsahn wrote:I would then retort by pointing out the fact that carbon dating is based on circular reasoning. If you tell me about the theory of the big bang, then i should probably point out the fact that is something
spins and breaks apart all the spinning peaces will go in the same direction of ther spin, so then why are two planets and several of our moons in other positions. So to make things less ambigious for you. The little boat tipped over.
carbon dating-->big bang theory-->.... I'm lost...read up on my earlier posts, then engage me... an explosion would never produce spin....
if this is an oblique reference to Pluto, etc, be aware that this was mentioned elsewhere... again, I am loathe to backtrack...
read the thread start to finish... it will put you in a better position to argue your case....
ohh.. never be afraid of offending me ... it takes a lot...
but you will only be doing yourself a favour by reading from the start... others don't take as kindly to someone trying to restart the debate...
Remember that matter wouldnt be able to exist in such an extremely dence 'mass' (like right after the big bang) only energy(E=mc2). And I really dont know how pure energy(heat and light) 'spin' without a medium(we dont live in a scifi movie or dbz). even if that is false after protons started forming, in which direction does a sub atomic partical 'spin'? or an atom? I agree the electrons spin round the atom, but even in a helium atom there is 2 electrons with diffrent directions.(I hope Im explaining this right, Im not good with explaining)If you tell me about the theory of the big bang, then i should probably point out the fact that is something
spins and breaks apart all the spinning peaces will go in the same direction of ther spin, so then why are two planets and several of our moons in other positions. So to make things less ambigious for you. The little boat tipped over.
No. Everything you do is an evolutionary experiment in a way.Ihsahn wrote:My argument is this If Creation is true that means that there is a creator. If there is a creator that means there are rules.
If evolution is true then there is no creator, if there is no creator there are no rules, so if someone walks up to you and shoots you, dont be pissed off cause hes behaving like an animeal, thats precisley what evolution teaches isint it
Skipped physics did ya?Ihsahn wrote:Umm no, but let me rattle your brain for a sec. Ok we agree that evolution claims that that we all came from rocks, matter, a soup of chemicals etc. The problem with that is that there is absolutley no proof since no one or no rock from that time is alive to tell us about it. If you are an educated person and by your diction and vocabulary you "seem" to be then you would probably come with the argument of carbon dating. I would then retort by pointing out the fact that carbon dating is based on circular reasoning. If you tell me about the theory of the big bang, then i should probably point out the fact that is something spins and breaks apart all the spinning peaces will go in the same direction of ther spin, so then why are two planets and several of our moons in other positions. So to make things less ambigious for you. The little boat tipped over.rustypup wrote:As are there in nature... rules like if I jump of a cliff, chances are that I will be assimilated back into the environment owing to the fact that my construct has become slightly more spread out than my cells will permit...Ihsahn wrote:My argument is this If Creation is true that means that there is a creator. If there is a creator that means there are rules.off the top of your head, right?Ihsahn wrote:If evolution is true then there is no creator, if there is no creator there are no rulesunfortunately... no...Ihsahn wrote:, so if someone walks up to you and shoots you, dont be pissed off cause hes behaving like an animeal, thats precisley what evolution teaches isint it
Evolution doesn't "teach" in any sense... all that happens is that any species which spends its time murdering its relatives will shortly cease to exist.. precisely why you think evolution==insanity needs to be clarified...
methinks... 8O
QBM wrote:honestly?wizardofid wrote:Why is that no one attack this post is because no one read it or did no one understand it I would like to know just for the fun of it??wizardofid wrote:It's quite simple really.At the end of the day who can really say that they can find major faults in any of the big known theories, you can't why it's very simple where is the prove of it all.
We see the stars, the sun, the moon and many other things that most ppl will never get to understand or see we have Egypt on the one hand and we have say the sun on the other hand.
We know that they both there, we know they are very old.So why does the need come about to the debate some thing that you and I will never understand will never be able to prove, it will always be a theory there is no straight anwser to the solution
It's NOT something which should be debated.People are much to narrow minded when it comes to this topic.What makes you so sure there is a God what makes you so sure there is stars in the sky.Believe yes brothers and sisters it would bring me to this word believe.
Isn't believe nothing more than a story made up by some one many and many years ago.Face the facts your believe is not your own never has been your believe is based on what some one else believes and that believe has been passed on for many years.
What makes your believe more correct or for that matter any believe correct.
And this brings me to this point which is very important and should be read over and over and over.
Every believe has a begining every believe has a end in theory that is.There is facts about each begining and about each end all which is logical in each believe.
But no begining and no end in any believe can be proven with hard evidence, Some might say isn't the sun or the bible ect the prove that my believe is true.
No nothing makes your believe true because of things like the earth the bible the sun.
To make your believe true it would need a begining that can be proved and to this day there is no prove to any begining.
Every thing you believe is based on 3rd party encounters, how do you justify it, simple you can't it can't be proven.
becasue when you have seen the power of god in things nad have seen miracles you know which is right
So your believe is based on theory and thats all it will ever be. A theory with enough bogus information to be able to turn it into a believe.
I read it but was afraid the response "this is mindless hippie bullsh!t with a side of wannabe enlightenment" might get me banned.
glad a few humans in the past didn't think this way.
and now evidence for what i believe in. creation.Kronos wrote:Firstly, the correct phrase would be it's 'off' the top of your head.Capanno_Del_Kimakigami wrote:Kent Hogen lol...
...blah blah blah
______________________
Kronos you asked me what evidence the theory has that is false. Well, here's some on the top of my head.
This is a popular Creationist argument.Capanno_Del_Kimakigami wrote: The Nabraska man (so-called missing link), was constructed by using one tooth! This guy picked up a tooth and said it looked like its halfway between an ape and a humans tooth. So he built the guy, and his wife. (umm, he has a big imagination.) It turned out later that the tooth came from a pig.
"This guy" was Harold Cook, who picked up the tooth and sent it too Henry Fairfield Osborne, a Paliantologist. He claimed it to be of a primate, and quickly created a new species for it. But not many other Scientists backed this idea, and even Osborne himself tried not to make any extravigant claims about the species.
The Illustration that was created was done for a popular british magazine, not for a scientific journal, and was not meant to be acurate. It was based on another, fully intact, fossil. The Illustrator noted that an animal CANNOT be reconstructed from a tooth.
The argument goes on that when they discovered the mistake, it was not publicised to hide the error. But in fact it reached the front page of "The New York Times", and was also in many Reputable Scientific Journals.
Nebraska Man cannot be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not incompetent or dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach).
and what about some of the cave men found at the sterkfontein caves.
Professor Dart admits that he falsified evidence or didn't you ever watch tobias's bodies. Archeologists have often called skull they have found "prehistoric ancestors" when these skull have simply been primate skulls that have been tampered with.
Jeepers people are naive. lots of archeological evidence has been tampered with "Tobias's bodies-contact the SABC for this piece of garbage"
and why would a new species of cavemen simply appear only to die out very soon afterwards if it had no need to exist in the first place.
tell me also how the very first cell that "started us all of in life " fed. what was there to eat?
The whole thing here, here
And yet another.Capanno_Del_Kimakigami wrote: The charts that shows human, dog and a few other species's embrios through the development stages being the same, was prooven wrong over 100 years ago. The proffesor who made up the charts alterred the pictures so they looked the same. Drawing human embrios with gills. He was charged with fraud and found guilty.
This time Ernst Haeckel. A 19th Century German Biologist
It's not as bad as you claim though. No one was ever charged with fraud nor found guilty, although his peers realized that he had altered the images to make them more alike, and made him admit it.
The problem has been fixed in many, if not most texts, thanks to the wonder of modern microphotography.
What Haeckel was trying to bring to light is the similarities in the development between embryos of different species. And to show that all embryos have similar Stages of development.
1. Like the fact that ALL embrios form a yolk sack, although mammals don't store yolk, but get everything they need through the placenta. Why then would the yolk sack even form? (And no, the yolk sack does not become the placenta)
2. Another oddity is the fact that fish embryos form buds for hind limbs, but as the embryo grows further these are reabsorbed (they don't form into fins). Why would they form in the first place?
Etc. etc.
here
and here
I don't know much about the horse evolution theory, but I surely will soon enough. Let me do some research...Capanno_Del_Kimakigami wrote: The horse evolution was made up after they realised that they lack evidence to support the theory. The order of the animals is so messed up, with features in the feet dissapearing in one and apearing 'millions' of years later in the next animal. Some of the animals that are supposed to be extinct were rediscovered years later. The way the horse evolution is supposed to be in real life, the way it is in the fossil record, is non-existent. Displays had to be shut down cause people complained. In real life, the order exists only 60%, if I remember correctly, and its scattered over the earth. Its actually more complete in reverse order! Proven wrong over 100 years ago.
As i've pointed out. Not all of the above are still used in books as you claim.Capanno_Del_Kimakigami wrote: Google it if you dont believe me. Sorry I dont have much time this weekend, I will posts references if you want me to.
All if the above is still used today in books as evidence.
Either there is a huge gap in communication between book-writers and 'scientists', or their just plain lieing!
The Amazing Cell – evidence for creation and against evolution!
by Dr. Dudley Eirich
As a microbiologist, the bacterial flagellum has always fascinated me.
The flagellum is a corkscrew-shaped, hair-like appendage attached to the cell surface, which acts like a propeller, allowing the bacterium to swim. The most interesting aspect of the flagellum is that it is attached to – and rotated by – a tiny, electrical motor made of different kinds of protein.
Like an electrical motor, the flagellum contains a rod (drive shaft), a hook (universal joint), L and P rings (bushings/bearings), S and M rings (rotor), and a C ring and stud (stator). The flagellar filament (propeller) is attached to the flagellar motor via the hook. To function completely, the flagellum requires over 40 different proteins. The electrical power for driving the motor is supplied by the voltage difference developed across the cell (plasma) membrane.
In 1996, Dr. Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University (and an evolutionist), published a challenging book to classical Darwinian evolution entitled "Darwin’s Black Box." In this book he uses the flagellum to introduce the concept of "irreducible complexity." If a structure is so complex that all of its parts must initially be present in a suitably functioning manner, it is said to be irreducibly complex. All the parts of a bacterial flagellum must have been present from the start in order to function at all.
According to evolutionary theory, any component which doesn’t offer an advantage to an organism, i.e. doesn’t function, will be lost or discarded. How such a structure could have evolved in a gradual, step-by-step process as required by classical Darwinian evolution is an insurmountable obstacle to evolutionists. How a flagellum is used, however, adds an additional level of complexity to the picture.
Some bacteria have a single flagellum located at the end of a rod-shaped cell. To move in an opposite direction, a bacterium simply changes the direction of rotation of the flagellum. Other bacteria have a flagellum at both ends of the cell and use one flagellum for going in one direction and the other for going in the opposite direction. A third group of bacteria has many flagella surrounding the cell. These flagella wrap themselves together in a helical bundle at one end of the cell and rotate in unison to move the cell in one direction. If the cell wants to change direction, the flagella unwrap themselves, move to the opposite end of the cell, reform the bundle, and again rotate in a coordinated fashion.
The structural complexity and finely tuned coordination of the bacterial flagellum attests to the work of a master engineer who designed and created the flagellum to function in a wonderfully intricate manner.
-1. MOON DUST
Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.
However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.
Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.
2. MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.
3. FOSSIL RECORD
Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."
Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.
Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.
(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)
1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.
In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.
One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.
2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.
However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.
3. It had teeth.
Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.
4. It had a shallow breastbone.
Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.
Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.
5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.
This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.
6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.
This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.
This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.
This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."
And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.
In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:
"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"
Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.
4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
Darwin said that embryological evidence was "second to none in importance." The idea of embryonic recapitulation, or the theory that higher life forms go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, was popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used is evidence for the theory.
The main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the supposed "gill slits" (left over from fish), "yolk sac" (left over from the reptile stage), and "tail" (from the monkeys) in the human embryo. The gill slits, so called, are never slits, nor do they ever function in respiration. They are actually four pairs of pharyngeal pouches: the first pair become germ-fighting organs; the second, the two middle ear canals; the third and fourth pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands.
The yolk sac does not store food because the mother's body provides this to the embryo. In fact, the "yolk sac" is not a yolk sac at all, but its true function is to produce the first blood cells.
The "tail" is just the tip of the spine extending beyond the muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit as humans do.
Also arguing against recapitulation is the fact that different higher life forms experience different stages in different orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order.
5. PROBABILITY
The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge
"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"
According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.
Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
As one can readily see, here is yet one more test that evolution theory has flunked.
6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.
1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.
7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
Vestigial organs are supposed organs in the body which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. The following arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from the "Bible Science Newsletter," August 1989, p. 16.
1. Just because we don't yet know the role of an organ does not mean it is useless and left over from previous stages of evolution.
2. This view is plain false. In the 1800's, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)
3. The fact that an organ must sometimes be removed does not make it vestigial.
4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are not considered vestigial.
5. Organs are not vestigial based upon your need or use of them.
6. According to evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time, vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these "vestigial" organs, but we still have them.
7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative process, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs for new purposes.
8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires new organs forming for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying out.
9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the argument over vestigial organs.
8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.
9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
Seeing the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil record, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils in the geological record.
Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punctuated equilibria has its problems, too. For instance, in the above case, of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal of the same kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same approximate time in the same area in order for the new species to continue. The odds of just one organism appearing this way, let alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.
10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Homology is the similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. However, as Sunderland points out, when the concentration of red blood cells is used, utilizing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to sheep.
But now, with the development of molecular biology we are able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species, which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately, for the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other evidences do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.
In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in different organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup. The figure resulting is converted into a percentage. The lower the percentage, the less difference there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton, in experiments with Cytochrome C, a protein that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the following.
Cytochrome C Differences Cytochrome C Differences
Bacterium to Six Organisms Silkmoth to Vertebrates
to yeast . . . . . . . 69% to lamprey . . . . .27%
to wheat . . . . . . . 66% to carp. . . . . . .25%
to silkmoth. . . . . . 65% to pigeon. . . . . .26%
to tuna. . . . . . . . 65% to turtle. . . . . .25%
to pigeon. . . . . . . 64% to horse . . . . . .30%
to horse . . . . . . . 64%
Cytochrome C Differences Hemoglobin Differences
Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates Lamprey to Other Vertebrates
to bullfrog. . . . . . 13% to human . . . . . .73%
to turtle. . . . . . . 13% to kangaroo. . . . .76%
to chicken . . . . . . 14% to chicken . . . . .78%
to rabbit. . . . . . . 13% to frog. . . . . . .76%
to horse . . . . . . . 13% to carp. . . . . . .75%
Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish." The evidence is clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!
11. DATING METHODS
Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.
Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.
Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:
1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.
12. DINOSAURS
Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.
Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.
Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.
Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.
However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.
"But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that's impossible!" Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.
There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or "Brontosaurus.") Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.
13. SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal overflows would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.
15. EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
16. WRITTEN RECORD
The 22nd edition of Robert Young's concordance lists thirty-seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no earlier than 7000 B.C.
17. THE BIBLE
Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolution theory undermines the omniscience and even the existence of God. And if there is no God, why not do our own thing? Or if God is not all-knowing, indeed, a liar, why put our trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these humanistic ideas. Christians must take a stand for the Word of God, or be accountable on that judgment day for the souls of those whom we did not warn.
SOURCES
Baker, Sylvia, Evolution: Bone of Contention (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Evangelical Press, 1986) Second Edition, p. 25
Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma, Fossils and Other
Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 74
Parker, Gary, Life Before Birth (El Cajon, CA: Master
Books, 1987), pp. 41-44
Kennedy, D. James, Why I Believe (Waco, TX: Word Books,
1980), p. 56
Chick, Jack T., Primal Man? (Chino, CA: Chick Publications,
1976), p. 23
Cook, Charles, "God's Young Earth Signature," Bible-Science
Newsletter, August 1989, p. 5
OTHER BOOKS ON CREATION/EVOLUTION
Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (El Cajon: Master Books, 1987)
Chittick, Donald E., The Controversy, Roots of the Creation-
Evolution Conflict (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1984)
Morris, Henry, The God Who Is Real (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1988)
Wysong, R.L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland,
MI: Inquiry Press, 1976)
Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985
Taylor, Ian T., In the Minds of Men (Toronto, Canada: TFE
Publishing, 1984)
Morris, Henry, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984)
Morris, Henry, The Genesis Record (Published by Creation
Life Publishers, Santee, CA, for Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, MI, 1986) Eleventh Printing
Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil
Record (Santee, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 1985)
Ackerman, Paul D., It's A Young World After All (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986)
snowflke fell free t o believe what ever you want but understand that although i may listen to what you or anyone else says i am most likely to take it as garbage if it contradicts the bible in anyway. i believe that the only truth in this world of lies is the bible and i folow that only.Snowflke wrote:I believe in god the bible and everything the only thing Im not sure about is the adam and eve situation. I dont want to start an argument with you da_ripper, but I believe god created everything including us. However I do believe that we evolved into what we are now.
Wow....this will take a while and I have to go to work but I'll just start with two of your comments.da_ripper wrote:*A very Long Quote Edited by Kronos*
Just read da_ripper's post above
Ahhh I won't bother rebutting each of those since others have done it for me:QBM wrote:Wow....this will take a while and I have to go to work but I'll just start with two of your comments.da_ripper wrote:
god bless and so long until another day and yes i am aware that some of this may have already been posted.
What would the original cells eat?
You do realize there are many organisms that don't eat what you would consider food right?
Human footprint in a dino print? No it is a theropod print and I have personally seen it. This has been thouroughly debunked.
As for the rest that will require a little more technical explanation I'll get to it later.
Firstly Ripper hunni, this thread is not an attack on anyones' beliefs.da_ripper wrote:[and if you Kronos or anyone else for that matter have a problem with the bible or christianity or with that as a source then tell someone who cares especially kronos since you started this thread and clearly christianity is attached to creation!!! and i dopnt apologise to anyone except god for my beliefs even if you were to put a gun to my head like the girl at the columbine massacre. if there was a middle finger smilie i might post it but as I'm not a hypocrite i dont swear and wont post it.
and lastly what strike me as the most ridicuolous thing is hoew much you evolutionist disagree with each other. you guys are a total joke and no one should ever take you seriously
LolKronos wrote:I actually did read it, but then I concluded that you must have been smoking crack when you wrote it.wizardofid wrote:Why is that no one attack this post is because no one read it or did no one understand it I would like to know just for the fun of it??wizardofid wrote:It's quite simple really.At the end of the day who can really say that they can find major faults in any of the big known theories, you can't why it's very simple where is the prove of it all.
We see the stars, the sun, the moon and many other things that most ppl will never get to understand or see we have Egypt on the one hand and we have say the sun on the other hand.
We know that they both there, we know they are very old.So why does the need come about to the debate some thing that you and I will never understand will never be able to prove, it will always be a theory there is no straight anwser to the solution
It's NOT something which should be debated.People are much to narrow minded when it comes to this topic.What makes you so sure there is a God what makes you so sure there is stars in the sky.Believe yes brothers and sisters it would bring me to this word believe.
Isn't believe nothing more than a story made up by some one many and many years ago.Face the facts your believe is not your own never has been your believe is based on what some one else believes and that believe has been passed on for many years.
What makes your believe more correct or for that matter any believe correct.
And this brings me to this point which is very important and should be read over and over and over.
Every believe has a begining every believe has a end in theory that is.There is facts about each begining and about each end all which is logical in each believe.
But no begining and no end in any believe can be proven with hard evidence, Some might say isn't the sun or the bible ect the prove that my believe is true.
No nothing makes your believe true because of things like the earth the bible the sun.
To make your believe true it would need a begining that can be proved and to this day there is no prove to any begining.
Every thing you believe is based on 3rd party encounters, how do you justify it, simple you can't it can't be proven.
So your believe is based on theory and thats all it will ever be. A theory with enough bogus information to be able to turn it into a believe.
Firstly, if you Believe in something, it is called your belief. (with an 'f' at the end to make it dutchman proof
Secondly, It's very easy to find faults in the major Theories.
Here's One:
The earth as described in Creation:
Flat.
Centre of the universe.
The sun circling the earth.
The moon Giving Light (It just reflects the Sun's Light).
The stars put into the sky.
But most of all the Firmament that held all the water up high above the earth.
General, Std. 5 Science easily disproves these myths, yet many YEC still believe it.
You then go on again babling about how this debate is not a good idea (blah blah blah)
Then u continue on to a lot of confusing talk (and Grammer) about belief.
One more thing I'd like to mention:
My beliefs ARE in fact my own.
Christianity was forced on me by my family, but I've broken away from that, and now base everything on Scientific proof.
Yes, this means that I don't flat out believe in Evolution, or theoretical Quantum Physics, but I do in fact believe that these Theories hold the answers once they are fully explained and proven.
@Biohazard: That could also either mean that the rabbits of the 2 species mated and the long hair Gene is simply stronger, hence more long hair Rabbits, or that the short fur rabbits did in fact Freeze and die.
Then, TADA!!! Wiz comes back and AGAIN, reiterates that we shouldn't be talking about this because we (read He) don't know enough.
[Jules]Wiz, Say that again, come on. I dare you. I double dare you MF. Say that one more goddamn time!!![/Jules]
